e onomi s of harita le giving: understanding the...

UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS

HO CHI MINH CITY

VIETNAM

INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL STUDIES

THE HAGUE

THE NETHERLANDS

VIETNAM – NETHERLANDS PROGRAMME

FOR M.A. IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS

ECONOMICS OF CHARITABLE GIVING:

UNDERSTANDING THE MOTIVATION OF

DONATION BEHAVIOR

NGUYEN NGOC NU

HO CHI MINH CITY, DECEMBER 2015

MASTER OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS

3

ABSTRACT

This paper studies the individual determinants of charitable giving including in time, donation

in gift, and money donation. The research analyzes survey data in Ho Chi Minh City on charity

giving in the last 12 months with 500 individuals. We design a questionnaire to collect

information on the donation behavior, individual characteristics, and perceptual and attitudinal

factors. A multivariate probit model is applied to analyze the three related behavior of in-kind,

time and money donation. We found that richer, religious and female respondents are more

likely to give. Perceptual and attitudinal factors are not significant. Particularly we found that

altruism, warm glow, prestige and reciprocity, and government do not have a statistical

significant impact on all kinds of donation. The only exception is family influence, implying

that the giving of the current generation would result in good giving habit of the future

generations

Key words: Economics of Charity Giving, altruism, pure altruism, impure altruism, warm

glow, prestige, and reciprocity.

4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank for special persons who supported me during the tough time of writing this

thesis. Specially, I would like to express my gratitude to all the lectures who provided evaluable

knowledge and supported me to complete the thesis. I am also indebted to Dr. Pham Khanh

Nam who positively encourage and assist me to finish the thesis process. Additionally, thanks

are also due to all the VNP staffs who create favorable conditions in my process of learning and

researching: Ms. Xuan Hong, Ms. Man Thi, Mr. Nhan Tam, Mr. Quang Huy and many others.

For my family who created the conditions to me on the academic journey. The completion of

this dissertation is a valuable gift which assist me to go further in the studying process as well

as my career in the future. I recognized that although studying is really challenging, yet it is

more interesting than I thought. For this, I want to give a special thank to my mom who

movetivated and supported me to finish the survey.

Completing the survey process is fraught with a lot of difficulties. I acknowledge the

contribution of all my friends, all the respondents who also enthusiastically supported me to

fulfill the surveys. Especially, I would like to say thank you, Le Viet Thanh, who guides me

some necessary knowledge about running stability in working process.

My main research idea is about the charitable donation. In the working process, I also receive

the donated gift from many people. That was the unforgettable journey with lots of enjoyable

experiences.

Thank you,

Nguyen Ngoc Nu

Dec, 2015

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1. Problem Statement ..................................................................................................... 11

1.2. Research Objectives and scope of study ................................................................... 13

1.3. Structure of the thesis ................................................................................................ 14

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1. Theoretical Models of Charity Giving ...................................................................... 15

2.1.1. The Pure Altruism Model ....................................................................................... 15

2.1.2. The Impure Altruism Models .................................................................................. 16

2.1.2.1. The Warm-glow Giving Model ....................................................................... 16

2.1.2.2. The Conspicuous Giving Model ...................................................................... 16

2.1.2.3. The Reciprocity Model .................................................................................... 16

2.2. Review of empirical studies on charity giving ......................................................... 17

2.2.1. Empirical Studies .................................................................................................... 17

2.2.2. Experimental Studies .............................................................................................. 18

2.2.3. Psychology Studies ................................................................................................. 19

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

3.2. The model .................................................................................................................... 21

3.3. Data collection method ............................................................................................... 22

3.4. the survey instruments ............................................................................................... 22

3.5. econometric models and Hypothesises ..................................................................... 23

3.5.1. Binary logistic regression ....................................................................................... 23

3.5.2. Multivariate probit model ....................................................................................... 23

3.6. The independent variables ......................................................................................... 23

3.6.1. Individual Characteristics ....................................................................................... 23

3.6.1.1. Gender ............................................................................................................. 24

3.6.1.2. Age................................................................................................................... 24

3.6.1.3. Education ......................................................................................................... 24

3.6.1.4. Religion ........................................................................................................... 24

6

3.6.1.5. Income ............................................................................................................. 25

3.6.2. Altruism .................................................................................................................. 25

3.6.3. Warm glow .............................................................................................................. 26

3.6.4. Prestige .................................................................................................................... 26

3.6.5. Reciprocity .............................................................................................................. 27

3.6.6. Social influence ....................................................................................................... 27

3.6.6.1. Government influence ........................................................................................... 27

3.6.6.2. Tax Incentive ........................................................................................................ 27

3.6.6.3. Family Influence ................................................................................................... 29

Chapter 4: Analysis of Charity Giving Behavior

4.1. Respondents Profile .................................................................................................... 30

4.1.1. The charity giving ................................................................................................... 30

4.1.2. Gender ..................................................................................................................... 31

4.1.3. Education ................................................................................................................ 31

4.1.4. Income ..................................................................................................................... 31

4.1.5. Religion ................................................................................................................... 32

4.1.6. Age .......................................................................................................................... 32

4.1.7. Perception and attitude toward charity giving ........................................................ 32

Altruism 1: I believe charity activities are the right thing that needs to do ....................... 33

Altruism 2: I feel good about myself if I donate to someone ............................................ 33

Altruism 3: I care about well-being of each other and want to help them ......................... 33

Warm-glow: I do charity because of memories of the loved one ...................................... 33

Family Influence: My family has a long tradition of charity giving, so I want to keep it

moving ............................................................................................................................... 34

Prestige 1: I want to be recognized .................................................................................... 34

Prestige 2: Because I’ll receive local prestige ................................................................... 34

Tax Incentive: the tax benefit of giving is the main motive for me to perform charity ..... 34

Reciprocity: I want to give back the benefit from charity giving ...................................... 34

Government Influence: I join in charity donation because of government suggestion. .... 34

4.2. Determinants of Donation: Econometric Analysis .................................................. 35

4.2.1. Binary Logit model ................................................................................................. 35

4.2.2. Mutivariate Logistic Regression ............................................................................. 37

4.3. Analysis of Donation Behavior .................................................................................. 39

7

4.3.1. Information Channels .............................................................................................. 39

4.3.2. Kind of Donation .................................................................................................... 42

4.3.3. Kind of Money Donation ........................................................................................ 44

4.3.4. Donation Sectors ..................................................................................................... 45

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Policy Implications

5.1. Research Objective Summary ................................................................................... 50

5.2. The Regression Models Summary ............................................................................ 50

5.3. The Data Collection Summary .................................................................................. 50

5.4. The Main Finding ....................................................................................................... 51

5.4.1. From Binary Logit Model ........................................................................................ 51

5.4.2. From Multivariate Probit ......................................................................................... 51

5.4.3. From The Statistical Test ......................................................................................... 51

5.5. Policy Implication ....................................................................................................... 52

5.6. Limitations .................................................................................................................. 52

8

TABLE OF APPENDICES

1 Appendix 1 Pretest Questionnaire ........................................................................................ 57

2 Appendix 2 The Final Questionnaires .................................................................................. 71

3 Appendix 3 Stata Analyses Output ...................................................................................... 75

4 Appendix 4 ............................................................................................................................. 76

5 Appendix 5 ............................................................................................................................. 77

6 Appendix 6 ............................................................................................................................. 78

7 Appendix 7 ............................................................................................................................. 79

8 Appendix 8 ............................................................................................................................. 80

9 Appendix 9 ............................................................................................................................. 81

10 Appendix 10 ......................................................................................................................... 82

9

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Perceptual/Attitudinal Questions Used in This Studies ............................................. 20

Table 2 Explanatory Variables of the Binary Logit and Multivariate Probit Models. ............ 28

Table 3 Summary Statistics ..................................................................................................... 30

Table 4 Percentage of donation by individual characteristics and Chi2 test ........................... 31

Table 5 Respondents’ Age Descriptive Statistics ................................................................... 32

Table 6 Summary the Statistic Results .................................................................................... 33

Table 7 Classification Predicted Table .................................................................................... 35

Table 8 Binary Logistic Regression Results ........................................................................... 36

Table 9 Multivariate probit estimation results for in-kind gift, time, and money donation ... 38

Table 10 Information Channel and Income ............................................................................ 40

Table 11 Information Channel and Gender ............................................................................ 40

Table 12 Information Channel and Religion ........................................................................... 41

Table 13 Information Channel and Education ........................................................................ 41

Table 14 Information Channel and Age .................................................................................. 42

Table 15 Donation Kind via Income, Gender, Religion, and Education ................................ 43

Table 16 Kind of Donation and Age. ...................................................................................... 44

Table 17 Kind of Money via Income, Gender, Religion, and Education ................................ 44

Table 18 Methods of Money Transfer and Age ..................................................................... 45

Table 19 Donation Sectors and Income. ................................................................................. 46

Table 20 Donation Sectors and Gender ................................................................................... 47

Table 21 Donation Sectors and Religion ................................................................................. 48

Table 22 Donation Sectors and Education .............................................................................. 49

Table 23 Age and Donation Sectors. ....................................................................................... 49

10

TABLE OF FIGURE

Figure 1 Percent of Cases of Information Channel ................................................................. 39

Figure 2 Percent of Cases in Kind of Donation ...................................................................... 42

Figure 3 Percent of Cases in Money Donation Kind .............................................................. 44

Figure 4 Percent of Cases Donation Sectors ........................................................................... 46

11

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT

In any society, there are people who are lagging behind the overall growth and development of

the economy, including the poor, minor ethnic groups, people with illness and disability, and

people suffering natural or personal/family disasters. And these groups of people account for a

considerable proportion. According to The World Bank (2015), there is 12.7% of the world’s

population in 2012, or 896 million people with daily income below $1.9. FAO (2014) reports

that there are 794.6 million people with undernourishment around the world in 2014, which

concentrated in the developing countries. Climate change, global warming, and environmental

disaster result in more than 300,000 deaths per year according to the World Hunger Education

Service (2015). More than one million children in the world are living in the poverty situation

with 22,000 children deaths per day in 2014 (UNICEF, 2015). In addition, the lives of more

than 2 million children are threatened by fatal but preventable diseases. The Disabled World

(2015) reported that people with disability accounts for 10% of global population, with 650

million people, and 20% of them is in the world poorest people in 2014.

Leaving these people struggling themselves may result in a society with substantial unhappiness,

inequality. As a result, many economies while pursuing the target of efficiency also try to

provide help and assistance to people who are in need. Great efforts have been devoted to relieve

their pains, to help them to respond and recover from disasters, as well as to improve their ability

to reside.

According to the US Government Spending (2015), the amount of expenditure for beneficiaries

of the federal US government is $888 billion. Moreover, the spending for old age survivor issue

was $ 440 per year per person and for disability issue was $90 billion per year in 2005. Eurostat

Statistics (2015), presented the pension beneficiaries across 21 countries among 28 EU members

in 2014, that there was a total of EUR 1717 billion spent for unemployment, survivors,

disability, and old age in 2012. The spending was 17.5% of GDP in Greece; 15% of GDP in

Italy, France, and Austria; 7.9% in Estonia; 7.3% in Ireland; and 7.7% in Lithuania.

Funding for these relief, recovery and resilience activities are certainly from taxation. And it is

well known that taxes distort markets. Goods and services taxes result in inefficient allocation

of resources and lead to deadweight loss. Income taxes weaken the incentive to work and thus

result in a reduction in overall welfare.

Charity giving is an alternative sources of funding for the activities of helping people in need.

Charity donation is believed to be more efficient than taxation as it does not distort the efficient

12

allocation of resource nor reduce the incentive to work. In addition, charity donation is

voluntary. While taxes are mandatory to all, including those who find that taxes are a critical

burden, charity donation is only from those who are willing to pay. As a result, charity donation

are more efficient comparing to taxes, and at the same time avoids imposing financial burden

on people in difficult circumstances.

The Charities Aid Foundation (2015) investigated over 130 countries worldwide about their

charity donation activities by Gallup’s data gathering method. The collected information on the

behavior of giving, helping a stranger, donating money and volunteering time in the last 5 year.

The top five countries in terms of giving index are Myanmar, United Stated of America, New

Zealand, Canada, and Australia. Giving USA (2015) reports that charity private donation in

USA was estimated over US$269 billion, especially in religion sector with more than 100

$billion money donation in 2014. UK Giving (2014) estimated that the total amounts given by

private donation is £10.6 billions. The largest typical donation is religious causes with 14% per

total amount. Medical, children, hospitals and overseas causes is also get the highest charitable

monetary value about 11 to 12 %. According the Canada Social Trends (2011), total amount of

donation in 2010 was estimated to be 11 billions CAD, with the average amount per individual

was $466. In general, charity donation was substantially contributed by a large amount of money

across the world.

As an alternative source of funding, charity donation has been attracting many economists, both

theorists and empirical researchers. Several economic models have been developed to explain

the behavior of charity giving. The pure altruism model as shown in Andreoni (1988, 1989),

Bergstrom, Blume and Varian (1986) postulates that individuals consider the final output of

charity activities as public goods where they gain utility from. The warm-glow giving model

of Andreoni (1989, 1990) recognizes that people enjoy giving, and thus the amount of donation

enters as an argument in the utility function. The conspicuous giving model of Glazer and

Conrad (1996) assumes that people donate to signal their income and wealth, and in this model,

giving is a conspicuous consumption item. Developing from the model of impure altruism,

Kolm (2000) used another model of reciprocity to explain the donation behavior. Reciprocity

is explained via the donation awareness of fairness and appreciation and people donate with the

expectation that they will receive help when in need. While in the pure altruism model, people

simply concern the amount charities receive, the three later models imply that donors derive

utility from giving and therefore are called impure altruism models.

Charity giving is also the subject of many studies in the empirical economic literature. The topic

of charity giving attracted economists, psychologists as well as researchers in the fields of

marketing and business science. Economists examines several issues related to charity giving

using empirical data (see Andreoni and Gale 1996, Bauer, Bredtmann, and Schmidt 2012,

Kitchen 1992, Yao 2015) or experimental data (see Ded, Gazzale and Kotchen 2013, Brown,

Meer, and Williams 2013, Sussman, Sharma, and Alter 2015). Studying charity donation in

psychology, marketing and business science usually focus on the effects of psychological

factors, perceptions and attditude on donation behavior (see, for example, Sargeant, Ford, and

West 2005, Chompff 2009).

13

In Viet Nam, the proportion of people needing help is also remarkable. Similar to many other

developing countries, poverty has been persistent in Viet Nam. According to the Ministry of

Labor Invalids and Social Affairs (2008), there are 17% to 19% of the households living in

poverty, accounting for 15.4 to 17.2 million people. In addition, Vietnam is ranked 15th amongst

81 nations from the 2014 Global Hunger Index Report (GHI), being in the serious hunger

situation with a GHI of 7.5 points below the threshold of serious hunger situation (GHI between

10.0 – 19.9). Another social problem is children malnutrition. In a nationwide survey of the Viet

Nam Ministry of Health (2010), the malnutrition rate was seriously high at 29.3%. In addition,

the proportion of people with disability is approximately 7.8% of the total population.

To resolve these social problems, Vietnam government has specific social security system

consisted of social insurance and protection. This is the government’s efforts to support social

beneficiaries, including poverty, unemployment occupational accident, health care, older and

other issues. According to Viet Nam Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs (2015), total

expenditure for social issuesaccounts for 6.61% GDP. The report also state that the government

spent 190.86 thousands of billions VND in 2012 and 259.83thousands of billions VND in 2014

for social security.

Among the efficient government policies, the private donation considerably substantiate for

solving social issues, especially in charitable activities. Based on a study of Asia Foundation

(2011) about Vietnam charity donation, the household sector contributed 627 billion VND with

the average donation is 800,000 VND per household per year (for Ha Noi, Ho Chi Minh City,

Long An, and Thai BinhCity). However, there is significant difference between rural donation

and urban donation which the average of rural donation was just estimated as 60,000 VND per

household per year. Corporations’ donation gave the total amount of 1.836 billion VND per year

of which 8% donation is from Ha Noi and 66% from HCMC. Moreover, the research found that

40% of the charity is for marketing target, 40% for altruism, and the remaining 20% for both

purposes.

This study aims at examining the behavior of charity giving using survey data in Ho Chi Minh

City. The study particularly try to investigate who are more likely to donate, and through which

channels they access information and make charity donation. The study is expected to provide

relevant information for charities in identifying who are potential donors and how to approach

them.

1.2. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF STUDY

This study particularly examines the determinants of donation behavior, including the money

donation, in-kind donation and time donation. Logit and multivariate probit models, together

with standards statistical techniques, are used to analyze. The determinants of donation behavior

include individual characteristics and perception and attitude toward charity giving. Attitudinal

and perceptual variables capture various psychological aspects including altruism, warm-glow,

prestige, reciprocity, and social influence.

14

1.3. STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS

This thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter 2 provides a brief review on theoretical models

including the pure and impure altruism models, and a review of empirical studies including

experimental studies and research in the approach of psychology. Chapter 3 presents research

methods including data collection, the survey instrument, hypothesis testing with the binary

logistic regression and multivariate probit regression.

Chapter 4 presents the results in three parts including descriptive statistics, determinants of

donation, and analysis of donation behavior. Chapter 5 concludes the thesis.

15

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. THEORETICAL MODELS OF CHARITY GIVING

The neoclassical economic theory obviously fail to explain why people donate. The theory

assumes that individuals maximize their own utility 𝑢𝑖 = 𝑢(𝑥𝑖) and thus all the income should

be spent on self-consumption. As donation goes to the consumption of others which is not an

argument in the conventional utility function, individuals would not make any charity donation

under neoclassical theory.

Indeed people donate in reality, and economists have been developing theories to explain this

behavior. This section provides a review on main families of models.

2.1.1. The Pure Altruism Model

It is said that altruism is considered the main aspect that leads to individual charity behavior.

The pure altruism (Andreoni 1988, 1989, Bergstrom, Blume and Varian 1986) assumes that the

final output of charities is a public good that enter the utility function of an individual

𝑢𝑖 = 𝑢(𝑥𝑖, 𝐺)

Where𝐺 is the output of charities which is 𝐺 = ∑ 𝑔𝑗𝑛𝑗=1 in a community of 𝑛 individuals,

including 𝑖.

The model is called pure altruism because the individual 𝑖 derives utility from 𝐺 which is the

consumption of others. In this model, the donation of individual 𝑖 contributes to 𝐺 and increases

his utility. The individual, therefore, has to allocate his income 𝑚 into the two consumtion items

𝑥𝑖 and 𝑔𝑖 in a way that maximize his utility. The model can be presented as

max 𝑢𝑖 = 𝑢(𝑥𝑖, 𝐺) where 𝐺 = ∑ 𝑔𝑗𝑛𝑗=1

st𝑝𝑥𝑖 + 𝑔𝑖 ≤ 𝑚

where 𝑝 is the vector of prices of consumption goods 𝑥𝑖.

Another theoretical variant of the pure altruism model was suggested by Kolm (2000) in case

of altruism which the giver concerned about the specific receiver’s benefit

𝑢𝑖 = 𝑢(𝑋𝑖 − 𝑔𝑖𝑗, 𝑋𝑗 + 𝑔𝑖𝑗)

16

where𝑋𝑖, 𝑋𝑗 are the amounts of initial endowment of the giver 𝑖 and the receiver 𝑗, 𝑔𝑖𝑗 is the

amount of the donation from 𝑖 to 𝑗. As individual 𝑖 increase the donation amount, the utility

decreases as the argument 𝑋𝑖 − 𝑔𝑖𝑗 decreses, while utility increases because the argument 𝑋𝑗 +

𝑔𝑖𝑗 increases. Whether the individual donates or not depends on the net utility effect of the

incremental donation. If the net effect is positive, the individual will donate, and vice versa. This

is also the mechanism through which the individual decide the optimal level of giving that

maximize his utility.

2.1.2. The Impure Altruism Models

The model is called impure altruism because the individual 𝑖 derives utility from 𝐺 is the

consumption of others and 𝑔 is private donation via a warm-glow, conspicuous giving, and

reciprocity.

2.1.2.1. The Warm-glow Giving Model

The utility function in the warm-glow giving model (Andreoni1989)is represented as:

𝑢𝑖 = 𝑢(𝑥𝑖, 𝐺, 𝑔𝑖)

The warm-glow giving model have both altruistic and egoistic factors. The argument of own

consumption 𝑥𝑖 is typical in the conventional utility function. Here in this model, in addition to

the altruistic element of 𝐺, the amount of donation also enters the utility function indicating that

individual derives utility from giving.

2.1.2.2. The Conspicuous Giving Model

The conspicuous giving model is suggested by Glazer and Conrad (1996).In this model, the

utility function is the same as that of the warm-glow giving model. However the underlying

mechanism through which individuals derive utility is different.

The difference between the two models is determined by the motivation of the private

donation𝑔𝑖. In the warm-glow model, the individual derives utility from giving, meaning that

the giving is selfless or is considered social responsibility. Conspicuous giving is based on

prestige which means the individual who gives charity need to be recognized. A conspicuous

giver would only give to improve his reputation, to signal his wealth, or to increase his prestige

in the community. As a result, conspicuous giver would not donate anonymously.

2.1.2.3. The ReciprocityModel

Developing from the model of altruism, Kolm (2000) proposes the model of reciprocity to

explain the donation behavior.

In case of an individual gives and at the same time get from others, the pure altruism model

becomes

17

𝑢𝑖 = 𝑢(𝑋𝑖 − 𝑔𝑖𝑗 + 𝑔𝑗𝑖, 𝑋𝑗 + 𝑔𝑖𝑗 − 𝑔𝑗𝑖)

where 𝑔𝑖𝑗 is the giving from individual 𝑖 to individual 𝑗, 𝑔𝑗𝑖 the giving from individual 𝑗 to

individual 𝑖.

The reciprocity model can be presented with the amounts of giving and receiving added

𝑢𝑖 = 𝑢(𝑋𝑖 − 𝑔𝑖𝑗 + 𝑔𝑗𝑖 , 𝑋𝑗 + 𝑔𝑖𝑗 − 𝑔𝑗𝑖, 𝑔𝑖𝑗 , 𝑔𝑗𝑖)

The model assumes that the giver, besides utility from the change in consumption (of both giver

and receiver, for this allows for altruism) because of the giving and receiving, derives utility

from donation𝑔𝑖𝑗, as well as the received amount 𝑔𝑗𝑖. The different between altruism and

reciprocity model is the existence of 𝑔𝑖𝑗 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑔𝑗𝑖.The existence of 𝑔𝑖𝑗 and 𝑔𝑗𝑖reflect the

preference for fairness and appreciation.

2.2. A REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES ON CHARITY

GIVING

There is a huge empirical literature on the behavior of charity giving that can be classified into

three categories. The first includes studies that analyze survey data. The second makes use of

data collected in laboratory experiments. The last, usually exploring psychological factors

affecting the behavior or attitude toward charity donation, make use of survey data, mostly

measured in Likert scales. This section provides a brief review on empirical studies of each type.

2.2.1. Empirical Studies

Andreoni and Gale (1996) applying a warm-glow altruism model to analyze the behavior of

charitable donation of money and labor. The analysis on more than 1.000 households in the U.S.

found that price of donation (tax) negatively affects the contribution of time and money. In

addition, individual characteristics impact the donation behavior in many ways. People with

higher income, education, and age donate more time and money. While female, non-white

people, and those with children under 3 donate less.

In another application of a warm-glow altruism model, Bauer, Bredtmann, and Schmidt (2012)

researched the relationship between time and money contributions at individual and country

level. The data is from the European Social Survey with 22,756 individuals across 22 countries.

Appling the model of private consumption of Menchik and Weisbrod (1987) in which utility is

a function of private consumption, voluntary contributions and public good. In this study the

determinants of time and money donation and their relationship are examined using a bivariate

probit model. The model includes individual characteristics as well as country-level variables.

The study also investigated the determinants of voluntary giving to social organizations, leisure

activity organizations, work-related and political organizations and religious organizations

separately. The main finding of the research was that people tend to switch from time donation

18

to money donation as the opportunity cost of time increase.In addition, unemployed respondents

who not employed is less likely to contribution than the one working more than 45 hours in both

labor and money. Concerning gender, female is less likely to donate than male. Especially

female respondents are more participating in charity at the age 46-65 with giving both time and

money. From the age 16-25, they are less likely to join in voluntary activities. Respondents with

tertiary educationare more likely to donate to charity. Additionally, other factor also have the

negative relationship with both charity sectors is immigrant, non-church member, number

partner in household, and number of children from age 0-5. Finally, it was found that income

has an inverse U-shape relationship with the probability of donating, meaning that the

probability of donation increase with income, but then decrease as income reach a certain level.

The poorest and the richest are least like to donate.

Kitchen (1992) examined the determinants of charity donation in Canada with data from the

Survey of Family Expenditure 1982 and 1986. The study estimated two models, one with the

dependent variable of total contributions and the other religious contributions. The Tobitmodel

is applied with the explanatory variables of price of donation by provinces, income, wealth, age,

all but price are found to have positive relationship with the general contributions and religious

contributions. One exception is that the giving price is the important factors of general donations

but not the determinant of religious in most provinces.

Yao (2015) analyzed the data of 2012 General Social Survey in the United Stated which

measured the determinants of charitable giving, volunteering, and the relationship between them

using the binomial logitand mutinomiallogitmodel. The dependent variables are the frequency

and the occurrence of donation and volunteering in the past year. Regressors include income,

marital status, age, religion, political affiliation, children status, employment, social self-rank

and residential area. In case of charity giving in terms of both frequency and occurrence,

respondents who are of high income, married, religious, and of higher social ranking give more

donation. However, in occurrence of giving, the people who have children less likely to donate.

In case of giving time, the people who are older are less participating in volunteer activities, yet

they volunteer more frequently. Besides, membership of political parties have a significant

impact on volunteering activity. The results of determining the relationship between two

donation behaviors, time giving and money giving are significantly impacted by income, age,

married status, religion, children status, political factor, and social self-rank; and all other

independent variables are insignificant.

2.2.2. Experimental Studies

Ded, Gazzale and Kotchen (2013) designed an experiment to identify the motivation of

charitable. The experiment was applied to classify subjects into different models of charity

giving including warm-glow, pure altruism, impure altruism, relative donation, relative

consumption, relative donation within impure altruism, and relative consumption within relative

donation. The highest percentage of subjects belonged to relative consumption with relative

donation in 94.12%. The lowest ratio was warm glow with 49.58%.

19

Brown, Meer, and Williams (2013) answered the question why people do volunteer with a

laboratory experiment. The experimental design was to test whether the donation behavior

differs in different situations. The treatments include (1) the Baseline where people can earn and

donate at the end, (2) Continual Reminder where subjects are reminded that they can donate at

the end, (3) Continual Donation where people can donate at any time, and (4) Toggle where

subjects can choose to earn money for themselves or for charity. It was found that under

Continual Reminder, donation behavior is not different from that in the Baseline. It was also

found that donation behavior under Continual Donation is stronger than that in Continual

Reminder, and that under Toggle is stronger than that under Continual Donation.

Sussman, Sharma, and Alter (2015) implemented an experiment and found that subjects who

perceived the donation as uncommon and infrequent donate more than the case where they

perceived it as common and infrequent. The participants of the experiment consisted of 401

people. They were asked to browse the internet where advertisement promoting Alzheimer

Association charity walk. In the first experiment, the ads was separated into two condition as

“held annually” and exceptional condition “only once a year” with some short messages about

25 characters in maximum. In this procedure, the respondents would randomly signed to see the

advertisements via ordinary and exceptional on the computer screen for 10seconds as minimum.

This experiment showed how differences in frequency message impact the respondents. The

second experiment determined how the advertisements impact on people’s daily lives.

Especially, this research did not count the amount of money donation. However, this experiment

demonstrated the small changes of charity walk significantly impact on charity behavior.The

results showed that in the case of 100 respondent’s screen would have one to three people click

to the ads. The third experiment demonstrated the impact of exceptional framing on charitable

behavior categorization with 400 respondents via Amazon channel. The respondent would

answer the amount of money that they could spent on the items on the category via the three

items, a charity donation, or organic milk and movie tickets.

2.2.3. Psychology Studies

Besides economics empirical researches, the giving behavior is also studied in the approach of

psychology, marketing and business science. This approach usually employ Exploratory Factor

Analysis (EFA) to investigate the effects of perceptions on the charity giving behavior. Each

factor is captured by a group of perceptual or attitudinal variables, usually measured using Likert

scales.

Using this approach, Sargeant, Ford, and West (2005) provided analyzes the perceptual

determinant on charity behavior of the donators with data from a survey of 1,300 respondents

who gave charity in the UK. The factors include demonstrable utility (prestige and reciprocity),

emotional utility (warm-glow), family utility (family influence), and performance,

responsiveness and communication of the organization. The results presented the positive

relationship between trust and commitment and the commitment had the significant impact on

giving behavior. The emotional utility and familial utility have positive affect on commitment.

Performance of the organization and communication also have significant impact on trust.

20

Table 1 Perceptual/Attitudinal questions used in this studies

Warm Glow

I often give to this nonprofit because I would feel guilty if I didn’t.

If I never gave to this nonprofit I would feel bad about myself.

Prestige

Contributing to this nonprofit enables me to obtain recognition.

I donate money to this nonprofit to receive their publications.

Reciprocity

When I give to this nonprofit I receive some benefit in return for my donation.

I give to this non-profit to gain local prestige.

Contributing to this nonprofit to receive their publications.

I may one day benefit from the work this organization undertakes.

Familial Influence

I give money to this nonprofit in memory of loved one.

I felt that someone I know might benefit from my support.

My family had a strong link to this nonprofit.

Altruism

I consider my own welfare, even if others have a hard time because of it.

I’m not really concerned about others if they have problems.

I do not bother if the things I do disturb others.

I strive towards to my desires, even if I realize that my striving causes problems for others.

Source: Sargeant, Ford, and West (2005) and Chompff (2009)

Chompff (2009) examined the determinants of the willingness to donate, including individual

characteristics (age, gender, income, education, and living area), attitude toward altruism and

attitude toward charity organizations. The study found that individual characteristics do not

affect the behavior of donation, both money and time, except that older individuals tend to

donate more money. Gender, income, education, and living area do not affect the donation

behaviors. It also found that only effectiveness and efficiency of charity organizations affect

charity giving, while spirituality and effectiveness of charity organization impact the willingness

to donate time.

In brief, this chapter review the motivation that enhance the respondents’ charity giving

behavior from explaining both personal characteristics and theoretical models. That consists of

altruism, warm glow, prestige, reciprocity and social influence. The previous studies are also

reviewed via empirical studies, experimental studies, and exploratory analysis.

21

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study examines the behavior of charity giving particularly the association between

individual characteristics, altruism, a warm glow, prestige, reciprocity and social influence on

the behavior of charity donation. This chapter first presents the empirical model. Then data

collection methods are presented. Finally regression analyses and hypotheses testing methods

are presented.

3.1. THE MODEL This study applies the full model of charity giving that incorporates altruism, warm glow,

prestige and reciprocity in the utility function

𝑢𝑖 = 𝑢(𝑋𝑖 − 𝑔𝑖𝑗 + 𝑔𝑗𝑖 , 𝑋𝑗 + 𝑔𝑖𝑗 − 𝑔𝑗𝑖, 𝑔𝑖𝑗 , 𝑔𝑖𝑗)

The model assumes that individual maximizes utility by choosing the optimal level of 𝑋𝑖 and

𝑔𝑖𝑗, given the prices of 𝑋𝑖. The individual would donate if a non-zero level of 𝑔𝑖𝑗 results in an

increase in overall utility, regardless of whether the utility is altruism, a warm glow, prestige, or

reciprocity. And as we examine the decision to donate in general as well as to donate in time, in

kind and money separately, 𝑔𝑖𝑗 can be considered a single decision of general donation, or a

vector of corresponding donations.

We particularly examine the probability of donation, so we look at the probability of 𝑔𝑖𝑗. As a

result, the logit model is applied for the case of general donation:

Pr (𝑔𝑖𝑗 > 0) = 1

1 + 𝑒− 𝛼𝑍𝑖− 𝛽𝑋𝑖

where 𝑔𝑖𝑗 denotes donation of any kind, 𝑍 is a vector of individual characteristics, and 𝑋 is a

vector of attitudinal/perceptual characteristics including altruism, a warm glow, prestige, or

reciprocity. We also include variables indicating social influence.

We analyze the behavior of donating time, in-kind gifts and money using the multivariate probit

model

𝑔𝑖𝑗∗ = 𝛾0 + 𝛾1𝑍𝑖+ 𝛾2𝑋𝑖

22

where 𝑔𝑖𝑗 = 1 if 𝑔𝑖𝑗∗ > 0, 0 otherwise

and 𝑖 = 1, 2, 3 indicating time, in-kind gifts and money.

3.2. DATA COLLECTION METHOD In the field of statistical science, there are the two main sampling methods, consisting of

probability sampling and non-probability sampling. In a probability sampling, probabilities of

elements which belong to population are known. The non-probability sampling is the method

that is used when the element frequency of a population is not equal to choose in the research

sample. According to Fred, Thomas and James (2012), there was no evidence that probability

sampling are more accurate than non-probability sampling.

Therefore, choosing non-probability sampling is suitable for this research for many reasons.

Firstly, the research investigates multiple elements (for example age, education, occupation…)

with the different appearing frequencies. However, specifying the appearing frequency of one

element could be conflicted with that of another. Moreover, the time and financial constraints is

another reason for choosing this sampling method. Convenience sampling, one of the main

styles of the non-probability sampling technique, is chosen to investigate. This sampling is based

on the respondents’ convenience and accessibility.

The target sample size is 500 questionnaires with the non-probabilistic sampling.

3.3. THE SURVEY INSTRUMENTS

The designed questionnaire includes the three main parts, consisting of donating and

volunteering activities, attitudes and perceptions toward charity donation, and respondent

profiles. The first part collect information of donor and volunteer activities in the last 12 months.

The second part ask questions related to altruism, warm glow, prestige, reciprocity and social

influence which are measured in 5-point Likert scale. The third part provides would provide the

respondents’ characteristic via age, religion, social rank, income, education, gender, and other

information. Please see Appendix 2 for the final questionnaire.

At the pretest stage, the initial questionnaire (see Appendix 1) actually consists of a lot more

questions than the final version. We intended to collect information about each donation

activities of respondents in the last 12 months, including the amounts donated and the receiving

organizations. After implementing the pretest with 200 respondents, we found that many

respondents, however, were unable to accomplish the entire survey questionnaire, especially the

questions related with the amount of money donation and donation frequency. Therefore, in the

proper survey, we redesign the questionnaire and implement with the 500 respondents. Although

we dropped many questions, we still keep the important questions to answer the research

questions.

The final sample consists of 14 questions implemented with 500 respondents by convenient

sampling method (see Appendix 2).

23

3.4. ECONOMETRIC MODELS AND HYPOTHESISES

As mentioned, we analyze the probability of giving using the logit model, and the probability

of donating time, in-kind gifts and money simultaneously using the multivariate probit model.

3.4.1. Binary logistic regression

In the logit model, the dependent variable has only two cases: Y = 1 indicating the respondent

donating either time, money or in-kind gifts, and Y = 0 otherwise.

3.4.2. Multivariate probit model

The multivariate probit model in this study is a system of 3 equations, and therefore 3 dummy

dependent variables𝑌𝑖where 𝑖 = 1, 2, 3 indicating time, in-kind gifts and money.

𝑌1 = 1 if the respondent donate time, otherwise zero

𝑌2 = 1 if the respondent donate in-kind gifts, otherwise zero

𝑌3 = 1 if the respondent donate money, otherwise zero.

Independent variables for both models are the identical, including groups of (1) individual

characteristics, (2) altruism, (3) tax incentive, (4) prestige, (5) family influence, (6) social

influence.

Statistical tests

Standard t-test is employed to test for the significance of estimated coefficients. We also employ

t-test for mean difference and chi2 test for percentage difference, to test for differences in

donation behavior between groups of respondents.

3.5. THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

This part present the independent variables that provide for analysis the respondents behaviors

on charity action. This consists of individual characteristics via gender, age, education, religion,

and income; and the psychologist factor belonged to the theoretical model through pure altruism,

impure altruism, and social pressure.

3.5.1. Individual Characteristics

Individual characteristics is also the necessary factor that impact on the respondents’ decision

on charity giving. The following factors would be clarified in each sectors of gender, age,

education, religion, and income. Almost the factors is the dummy variables, consisting of

gender, education, religion, and income. In particular, the education factor would be separated

into the two groups via upper-high-school level, and high-school level. On the hand, the income

would be divided into the two groups through 5-million VND and higher-than-5-million VND.

24

3.5.1.1. Gender

Gender factor is one of the most variable is measured in many researches about charity. Some

of researchers found that woman have the tendency to perform charity more than man. Specially,

the women are willing to volunteer more time and donate a larger amount of money (Jones and

Posnett 1991). Moreover, another research pointed out that the women not only love to donate,

but also tend to understand the donation money or gifts are used for specific purpose (Braus,

1994). A research on Dec. 2007showed how the gender differences in charity. This research has

the same result with the various researches, especially the female are more altruism then male.

Therefore, women give charity more than man not due to differences life circumstance, such as

age or income. Additionally, a single woman contributes 90% more than that ofa single man

(Greg and Sylke, 2007). Summing up these researches, the hypothesis here is women are more

likely to support charity activities than men.

Hypothesis: Women are more likely to give charity than men.

3.5.1.2. Age

Studies about charity giving in the U.S, found that 60% of charity contribution was from the

people who aged 60-76 (Royer, 1989). However, another report showed that the charity giving

have a decline trend with after the age of 65 that was pension age, resulting in lower incomes

and penury (Danko and Stanley, 1986), (Edmundson, 1986). On the other hand, some of studies

demonstrated that the younger generation would like to spend their money or time on personal

enjoyment than charity distribution (Simpson, 1986) (Belk and Pollay 1985) (Yankelovich,

1981). Summarizing these various researches, the very first hypothesis is that the older

respondents support more to charity distribution than younger respondents.

Hypothesis: The older respondents are more likely to give charity than younger respondents.

3.5.1.3. Education

The relationship between education and empathy is proved by Sutherland (1986). The research

answered the question how the education could produce and enhance the empathy. The results

shows that the comprehensive studying, consisting of natural sciences, and social science, is

really helpful to expand the worldview guiding the people be more civilized and empathy.

Additionally, another research also has the same result that the level of education change the

awareness of people which lead to empathy (Eisenberg and Miller, 1987) (Kitchen and Dalton,

1990). Moreover, specialists tend to giving more charity distribution (Amato, 1985).

Hypothesis: Respondents with higher educational level are more likely to give chrity than lower

educational level.

3.5.1.4. Religion

Religion is one of the most interest factors in the charitable giving research based on the root of

altruism. Another research proved that the caring and helping each other is the associated with

25

empathy, religiosity and also spirituality (Carol et al. 2010). Therefore, our hypothesis is that

there is a positive relationship between religion and charity contribution.

Hypothesis: Religious respondents are more likely to give charity than respondents without

religion..

3.5.1.5. Income

Financial situation is an important factor which measured by personal income. Income has a

positive influence on the amount of donation which demonstrated through almost the researches

related with charitable giving determinants (Lee and Chang, 2007) (Debra, Nancy, and Michael.,

2008). However, another author verified that the poor give a higher proportion of their income

than the higher class in spite of less distribution (Silver, 1980).

Based on the previous research studied about the influence of income on charity action, this

research will investigate the effect of income surplus on charity decision. The income surplus is

known as the amount of income that is over the portion that is utilized (John, 1992). The

indicator on income surplus is figured out by the previous statistical research.

According to the global wage report of International Labor Organization in the year 2014, the

average wage of Vietnamese laborers is $197 that equivalents to 4,432,500 VND. However, this

wage does not reach the labors’ required level of consumption. Based on an analysis of the

Vietnam General Confederation of Labor in 2014, a research implemented on 16,000 workers

in the main industries in the four areas of urban area, satellite urban, provincial urban, and others,

reported that the standard wage that ensured the living standards (consisted the amount of wage

to raise children) is 4,910,000 for the urban area (Bui, 2014). Therefore, we hypothesize that

individuals with income higher than 5,000,000 VND has some surplus for charity giving and

thus has higher probability of giving.

Hypothesis: Respondents who have the higher wage than 5 million VND are more likely to give

to charities.

3.5.2. Altruism

Altruism or pure altruism is considered as one of the causes of charitable behavior as seen in

theoretical models and psychological studies. The theory stated that the utility is derived from

both own (givers’) consumption and the consumption of others (receivers). Chompff (2009)

investigated the impacts of individual characteristics and psychological factors on donation

behavior. Among the psychological factors, the results showed that the altruism has a significant

effect on respondents’ charitable behavior.

In this study we hypothesize that individuals with altruistic attitude toward charity giving are

more like to donate. We measure the altruistic attitude as 5-point Likert scale using the

questions:

Statements

I believe charity activities are the right thing that needs to do.

26

I feel good about myself if I donate to someone

I care about well-being of each other and want to help them

Hypothesis: there is positive relationship between altruism and giving charity.

3.5.3. Warm glow

Warm-glow is an important psychological factor reflecting the positive emotion of individuals

when giving to others. Warm glow is a factor that characterizes the impure altruism model of

Andreoni (1989) in which the utility is determined by the amount donation, indicating that

people feel better of when giving to others. A warm-glow theoretical model is the most popular

model employed in empirical economic studies. Andreoni and Gale (1996) applying a warm-

glow altruism model to find out the determinant of charity giving. Bauer, Bredtmann, and

Schmidt (2012) examined the relationship between time and money contributions at individual

and country level using a warm glow model. In a psychological studies, Sargeant, Ford, and

West (2005) suggested a way to measure warm glow by a group of attitudinal questions and

found a positive relationship between a warm glow and charity giving. This thesis use a question

suggested by Sargeant, Ford and West (2005) to capture the warm glow effect.

Statement

I do charity because of memories of the loved one

Hypothesis: there is positive relationship between a warm-glow and charity giving.

3.5.4. Prestige

In as the people are in selfishness. Therefore, what the purpose the people donate for. Therefore,

prestige is one of the rational reason. The Prestige Motive is established from impure altruism

model that is determined by publicizing donation which the respondents do not give for

anonymous charity (Harbaugh, 1998). The research supposed that prestige is an important and

reasonable impact to enhance the donated behavior. The results showed that the prestige factor

had the substantial impact on the amount of donation. The research gave the two treatment

groups which separate the gift amounts via publicizing, consisting of the group “sponsor” donate

$100 to $999, and “patron” group donate $1000 to $1990. The estimation showed that the

increasing in donated contributions was leaded by prestige factor. Sargeant (2008) also applied

the prestige motive to support for the donation reason which the utility is increased by

conspicuous giving.

Statements

I want to be recognized

Because I will receive local prestige

Hypothesis: There is positive relationship between prestige and charity donation.

27

3.5.5. Reciprocity

The very first theory which lays the foundation for the researches of economics of giving is

reciprocity. This theory is used for social and political philosophy which is defined as the social

norm that the people have a tendency to consider with each other similarly. Especially, The

Theory of Moral Sentiments was studied by Adam Smith in the year of 1759 which continued

researching by Kolm (2000). Another related research in 1924 by Marcel Mauss who built up

the fundamental theory of reciprocity and gift exchange in anthropology in the book of The Gift.

Statement

In some case, I want to give back the benefit from charity giving

Hypothesis: there is positive relationship between reciprocity and charity giving.

3.5.6. Social influence

Government influence

Many theories and studies stated that the motive of charitable action is come from altruism or

warm-glow. However, decision to giving charity is not always proactive behavior which that

could be passive attitude because of social pressure or especially government influence. Della,

List, and Malmendier (2012) found out the government influence is important factor effect on

charitable giving.

Statement

I join in charity donation because of government suggestion

Hypothesis: there is positive relationship between government influence and charity giving

Tax Incentive

Tax incentive and charity giving is one of the most controversy topic which is implemented by

many empirical studies. There were the research how tax policy could impact on individuals’

charitable donation in case of the United Stated (Clotfelter, 1980). The finding imply that the

tax incentive lead the increasing in a mount of donation yet the Treasury’s revenue could be

lost. Gerald, Holger, and Charles Clotfelter(2002) studied charitable giving via income and taxes

by panel data. The research estimated price and income elasticity via charitable donation. The

results showed the significant influence of tax incentive through income that lead to donated

behavior. One modernistic research studied about the charities’ dimensions that tax reduction

has a substantial impact on individual charity donation(Clotfelter, .2002).

Statement

The tax benefit of giving is the main motive for me to perform charity

Hypothesis: there is positive relationship between tax benefit and giving

28

Table 2 Explanatory variables of the binary logit and multivariate probit models.

Explanatory

Variables

Description Expected Sign

INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERSITICS

Age Measured in years +

Education Binary: High School or lower = 0, otherwise = 1 +

Gender Binary: Female = 0, Male = 1 -

Religion Binary: No = 0, Yes =1 +

Income Binary: less than 5 million VND/month = 0,

otherwise =1

+

PERCEPTION/ATTITUDE TOWARD CHARITY GIVING

All perpeptual/attitudinal questions are measured in 5-point Likert scale (5 – very

important; 1 – Not at all important), however the variables used in models are

transformed to binary variables as specified below

Altruism 1 I believe charity activities are the right thing that

needs to do.

(4 and 5 = 1; otherwise = 0)

+

Altruism 2 I feel good about myself if I donate to someone


+

Altruism 3 I care about well-being of each other and want to

help them.


+

Warm-glow I do charity because of memories of the loved one.


+

Prestige 1 I want to be recognized.


+

Prestige 2 Because I will receive local prestige


+

Reciprocity In some case, I want to give back the benefit from

charity giving


+

Government

Influence

I join in charity donation because of government

suggestion


+

Tax Incentive The tax benefit of giving is the main motive for me

to perform charity.


+

Family Influence My family has a long tradition of charity giving, so I

want to keep it moving.


+

29

Family Influence

Andreoni and Payne (2003) stated that the giving habit could be derived from the parents’

charitable behavior which the children could learn to follow with the same reaction. According

to Fidelity Charitable (2014), there are 94% of respondents stated that their children are taught

to give and help to each other. Additionally, there are 78% of respondents the initial reason of

charity action is come from family influence. However, the research also provide the trend of

charity giving which there are 78% respondents who participant in charity donation which their

family members twice a year and 86% respondents stated that charitable choices are also come

from family.

Statement

My family has a long tradition of charity giving, so I want to keep it moving

Hypothesis: there is positive relationship between family influence and charity giving

The above independent variables are measured in various ways. Individual can be continuous

or binary. All the attitudinal and perceptual variables are measured in 5-point Likert scale. But

they were transformed to dummy variables for regression. The list of variables used in the

regression models are presented in Table 2.

30

CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS OF

CHARITY GIVING BEHAVIOR

This chapter present the analysis of charity giving behavior via respondents’ characteristics, and

the group of factors from theoretical model. The analysis instrument is used which is binary

logistic model and multivariate probit model. Especially, multivariate probit model would

present the factors impact on donation in time, donation in kind, and money donation.

4.1. RESPONDENTS PROFILE

This part present the results of respondents profile’ survey via the standard statistical analysis

with the p-value testing. This includes the observations via time donation, in-kind donation and

money donation. On the other hand, the factor of individual characteristics and also the

psychologist awareness is presented, following.

4.1.1. The charity giving

Table 3 presents the frequency and percentage of charity giving in the sample of 454

observations. Information of charity giving is collected in 2015 asking all kinds of giving during

the last 12 months. The respondents who made some donation account for 66%. It is clear that

those who donated accounted for much higher proportion compared to those who did not.

Table 3 Summary statistics

Observations Frequency of 1 Percentage

Donation (yes =1) 300 66.2%

Time 70 15.5%

In-kind gifts 129 28.5%

Money 261 57.6%

Gender (male =1) 214 47.2%

Education (upper high school=1) 165 36.4%

Income (higher than 5 million=1) 364 80.4%

Religion (have religion=1) 309 68.2%

Note: Sample size is 453.

In this case of charity decision, Table 3 presents the frequency of the two cases of donating or

not. Particularly, of the entire sample, there are 300 respondents who donated, and 153 did not.

Donation contribution is separated into the three types, time donation, in-kind donation and

31

money donation. Respondents making money donation get the highest proportion with 57.6%.

The donation in kind is at the second rank with 129 respondents or 28.5%. Additionally,

donation in time has the lowest percentage with 15.5%.

4.1.2. Gender

The percentages of male and female respondents in the sample is quite undifferentiable, with

47.2% male and 52.8% female respondents (see Table 3).

In terms of charity donation (see Table 4), 77% female respondents participated in charity

giving, relatively higher by 22.8 percentage points compared to male respondents. To consider

whether the difference in the percentage of female and male in charity decision, the Chi-square

test is applied. In the results, the p-value equals 0.000 which is lower than 10% meaning that

there is a statistical difference in the percentage of charity donation between male and female.

Table 4 Percentage of donation by individual characteristics and Chi2 test

Gender Female Male p-value

77% 52.2% 0.000

Education High School Upper High School p-value

64.9% 68.5% 0.441

Income 5 million VND or

less

Higher than 5 million p-value

34.8% 73.9% 0.000

Religion No Religion Religion p-value

21.5% 87.1% 0.000

4.1.3. Education

We classify respondents into two groups including the group of respondents who obtained a

degree higher than high school and the other group finished high school or lower. The

percentage of high school group makes up 64% which is far higher than the group of upper high

school which is 36% (see Table 3).

In case of respondents ‘donation, the high school group accounts of 64.9% and other one is

68.5%. Using Chi-square test for the different between the proportions of two groups, the result

shows that the p-value is 0.441 which is larger than 10%. Hence, there is no difference between

the proportion between high school group and upper high school group in charity donation (see

Table 4).

4.1.4. Income

Respondents are classified into two income groups, including 20% in less than or equal 5 million

VND/month, and 80% higher than 5 million VND. The group of higher than 5 million VND

income has the greater proportion compared to that of the lower income group (see Table 3).

32

In donation case, the 5 million income group makes up 34.8% and the higher-than-5-million

income group has 73.9% giving to charity, with the p-value of the chi-square test equals 0.000.

Therefore, there is a statistical difference between the proportions of these two group in charity

donation (see Table 4).

4.1.5. Religion

There is 68% religious respondents while those who are not account for 32%. (See Table 3)In

terms of charity donation, the religious people makes up the biggest proportion (87%) in

participating charity activities. Additionally, other group relatively lower than religion group,

which is only 22%. The result of chi-square test shows the p-value of 0.000 which means that

there is a difference the proportions of charity giving between the two groups. (See Table 4)

4.1.6. Age

Age of respondents range from 15 to 70 with the average of age of 33. (See Table 5) In terms of

charity donation, there the average of age of the donating group is 35, while that of the non-

donating group is 28. To test for the difference in average age between the two groups, the t-test

is used.

Table 5 Respondents’ Age Descriptive Statistics

Age Observation Mean Minimum Maximum Std.

Deviation

p-value

Donate 300 35 15 70 13 0.000

Not Donate 153 28 15 55 9

Total 453 33 15 70 12

The t-test result represents the p-value equals 0.000 which means there is a difference in age

between the two groups of donating and non-donating.

4.1.7. Perception and attitudetoward charity giving

This part describes the group of question in 5 points of scale which measured the degree of

agreement of the respondents. The results following present the percentage of agreement level

and the p-value.

The 5-point-scale variables are transformed to binary variables, each indicating two groups. The

“importance” group (points 4, 5) is count for value of 1, other cases (points 1, 2, 3) is 0

Then, the following statistical results is represented.

33

Table 6 Summary of statistic results

Factor Proportion of

respondents

choosing

“Important”

Percentage of charity giving by

groups of p-value of chi-

square test Not important

(scale of 1, 2

and 3)

Importance

(scales of 4 and

5)

Altruism 1 83.22 30.3% 73.5% 0.000

Altruism 2 77.48 39.2% 74.1% 0.000

Altruism 3 77.48 41.2% 73.5% 0.000

Warm-glow 60.26 52.8% 75.1% 0.000

Prestige 1 10.60 69.1% 41.7% 0.000

Prestige 2 11.92 69.4% 42.6% 0.000

Reciprocity 13.47 68.1% 54.1% 0.031

Government

Influence

35.76 56.7% 83.3% 0.000

Tax Incentive 6.40 68.2% 37.9% 0.001

Family Influence 51.88 49.5% 81.7% 0.000

Altruism 1: I believe charity activities are the right thing that needs to do

The statistical results present that there is 83.22% respondent who gave the points 4, 5 to the

statement of Altruism 1. Among those who agreed that charity activities are the right things to

do, there is 73.5% make some kinds of charity giving. On the other hand, 30.3% of the

respondents who said that the statement is not important donated to charities. The p-value of the

chi-square test equals 0.000 which is lower than 10%, demonstrating a difference between the

proportions in charity donation of the two groups. (See Table 6)

Altruism 2: I feel good about myself if I donate to someone

Similar to the Altruism 1, Importance group make up 74.1% and others is 39.2% with the p-

value equals 0.000. Therefore, there is different between the proportions of these two groups in

charity donation. (See Table 6)

Altruism 3: I care about well-being of each other and want to help them

Similarly the question in the previous group, the answers which choose importance case make

up 73.5%, and others is 41.2%. Additionally, the p-value equals 0.000 which means there is no

different between the proportions of these two groups in charity donation. (See Table 6)

Warm-glow: I do charity because of memories of the loved one

The importance group has the percentage of donation of 75.1% and the other 52.8%. The p-

value equal 0.000. Hence, there is difference between the proportions of importance group and

the other in charity donation. (See Table 6)

34

Family Influence: My family has a long tradition of charity giving, so I want to keep it

moving

The “importance” group account for 81.7% and the other 49.5%. The p-value is 0.000. So there

is difference between the proportions of importance group and the others in charity donation.

(See Table 6)

Prestige 1: I want to be recognized

The respondents who choose the point 4, 5 which make up 41.7%, and others is 69.1 %. The

counted p-value is 0.000. Therefore, there is difference between the proportions of importance

group and the others in charity donation. (See Table 6)

Prestige 2: Because I’ll receive local prestige

The group of respondents who think the local prestige that they could receive is important for

donation charity purpose is count 42.6%, and others 69.4%. The p-value is 0.000 which means,

there is difference between the proportions of importance group answer and the others in charity

donation. (See Table 6)

Tax Incentive: the tax benefit of giving is the main motive for me to perform charity

The respondents who think the tax benefits of giving is importance which occupied 37.9% and

others is 68.2%. The p-value equals 0.001 which explains there is difference between the

proportions of importance group answer and the others in charity donation. (See Table 6)

Reciprocity: I want to give back the benefit from charity giving

The respondents who want to receive the benefit from charity giving is occupied 54.1%, and

others is 68.1%. However the p-value 0.736 stated that there is no difference between the

proportions of unimportance group answer and the others in charity donation. (See Table 6)

Government Influence: I join in charity donation because of government suggestion.

The respondents who donate because of government suggestion make up 83.3%, and other is

56.7%. The p-value equals 0.000 which means there is difference between the proportions of

unimportance group answer and the others in charity donation, and that the government appears

to have an influence on donation behavior. (See Table 6)

35

4.2. DETERMINANTS OF DONATION: ECONOMETRIC

ANALYSIS This section presents the estimation results of the logit model and the multivariate probit model.

4.2.1. Binary Logit model

The first column presents the actual observation (see Table 7), coded as 0 and 1 which indicate

the charity donation of “no” and “yes”. The cells present the number of observations classified

as donated and not donated, actual and predicted by the binary logit regression model. There are

125 cases of correct prediction of no donation, and 279 cases of correct prediction of donation.

As a results, there are 404, or 89.2%, cases of correct prediction.

Table 7 Classification Predicted Table

Actual donation Predicted Donation Percentage of

correct prediction 0 1

0

1

125

21

28

279

81.7

93.0

Total Percentage 89.2

Binary Logistic Regression Results is presented in Table 8, including estimated Coefficients β,

Robust Standard-Error and the Marginal Effects. The Coefficient β just explains the directional

relationship between dependent and independent variables. Robust standard error is used to fix

possible heteroskedasticity. In addition, the marginal effects 𝜕𝑝𝑟(𝑦=1)

𝜕𝑥 is to explain the impact of

unit change independent variables on the probability of donation.

We use variance inflating factor (VIF) to check for multicollinearity and found that the factors

of Altruism 1 and Altruism 3 are highly collinear with VIFs greater than 10. As a result, the

factor of Altruism 3 is removed. When Altruism 3 is removed, no VIF is greater than 10. (See

Appendix 4 and 6).

Among the variables of respondent’s individual characteristics, except for education, all other

factors have the p-value lower than 10% which mean they are statistically significant. They

include gender, age, religion, and income.

In the independent variable of gender, the negative estimated coefficient meaning that the male

respondents are less likely to donate than female respondents in the condition of ceteris paribus.

Additionally, the value of marginal effects is -0.207 implies that the probability of donation of

female respondents is higher than the probability of male respondents’ donation by 20.7

percentage points.

In the case of religion, the coefficient is 3.224 which explains the positive relationship between

religion and charity donation. In other word, the religious people tend to be more likely to

contribute to charity giving. Additionally, the proportion of religious people is higher than

unreligious people in 60.8 percentage points via marginal effect value.

36

Table 8 Binary Logistic Regression Results

Β Robust Std. Err. Marginal Effects

Gender

(Male =1)

-1.28***

(0.366)

0.385 -0.207***

Age 0.075***

(0.016)

0.013 0.019***

Education

(Upper High-school =1)

0.592

(0.423)

0.440 0.089

Religion

(Have Religion =1)

3.224***

(0.388)

0.400 0.608***

Income

(Higher than 5 billion =1)

2.026***

(0.47)

0.399 0.414***

Altruism 1

(4&5 points = 1)

1.181**

(0.541)

0.523 0.228*

Altruism 2

(4&5 points = 1)

0.315

(0.442)

0.440 0.052

A warm-glow

(4&5 points = 1)

-1.012**

(0.499)

0.466 -0.151**

Family Influence

(4&5 points = 1)

1.817***

(0.497)

0.461 -0.294***

Prestige 1

(4&5 points = 1)

0.455

(0.623)

0.652 0.064

Tax Incentive

(4&5 points = 1)

-2.125**

(0.838)

0.861 -0.465**

Prestige 2

(4&5 points = 1)

0.253

(0.654)

0.814 -0.037

Reciprocity

(4&5 points = 1)

-0.913

(0.66)

0.688 -0.172

Government Influence

(4&5 points = 1)

1.832***

(0.478)

0.502 0.251***

Constant -.517***

(0.881)

0.769

Notes: (***) significant at 1% level, (**) 5% level, and (*) 10% level.

The respondents who have the monthly income higher than 5 billion have a trend to donate more

than the lower income group with the marginal effect in 0.414, indicating that those with income

higher than 5 million VND/month have higher probability of donating by 41.4%.The positive

relationship between the income factor and charity donation is demonstrated by the positive

coefficient in 2.026.

Additionally, the factor of age with the p-value is lower than 1% which means there is significant

different between the average age of donators and the average of total observations. The

marginal effect of age is 0.019 which stated that increasing 1 year or age leads to increasing 1.9

percentage points in donation charity case.

37

Another statistical insignificant dependent variable is education with the p-value higher than

10% which imply the difference in the two group of education do not impact on the charity

giving decision.

Another factors of altruism, a warm-glow, prestige, tax incentive, reciprocity, family influence,

and government influence, amongst the factor have the significant difference with donated

participation is Altruism 1, warm glow, family influence, and government influence. The factor

has the opposite impact on charity decision is warm-glow with the coefficient in -0.012. The

marginal effect of -0.151 implies that those who perceive charity giving as warm glow have a

lower probability of donating by 15.1 percentage points. Additionally, the other group of factors

have the positive relationship with charity action consist of Altruism 1, family influence and

government influence.

4.2.2. Multivariate Logistic Regression

Table 9 presents the multivariate probit model with the three functions of in-kind gift, time and

money donation. The p-value for testing the hypothesis that the error terms between the three

functions has the value of 0.000 which explained that there is correlation between the functions

of gift in kind, gift in time, and gift in money. Therefore, regressing the three dependent

variables in the multivariate probit model is necessary. In other words, regressing the three in

three logit/probit models separately may result in biased estimates. Moreover, to test the

hypothesis of no different between the values of coefficient, the p-value equals 0.02 implies that

null hypothesis is rejected.

In the in-kind gift function, the factors that are significant are education, religion, income,

Altruism 2, family influence, and tax incentive. Among them, the factors that have the positive

impacts on donation in kind are education, religion, income, Altruism 2 and family. The

remaining factor which have negative relationship with donation in kind is tax incentive.

As for the time donation function, only the religion and income have the p-value lower than

10%, implying they are statistically significant. Both the two factors also have the positive

relationship with donation in time. The remaining factors do not affect the respondent’s decision

on giving in time.

As in the money donation function, almost all the independent variables of personal

characteristics and the factors of altruism 1, family influence, tax incentive are significant. For

instance, in gender factor, the female respondents decide to donate money more than the male

respondents with the coefficient -0.438. Additionally, the tax incentive have opposite impact

on money donation which is suitable with the previous hypothesis. Family influence is also the

important factor with positive impact on money donation.

38

Table 9 Multivariate probit estimation results for in-kind gift, time, and money donation

Gift in Kind Gift in Time Gift in Money

Gender

(Male =1)

-0.049

(0.139)

-0.032

(0.16)

-0.438***

(0.149)

Age 0.007

(0.006)

-0.004

(0.007)

0.027***

(0.007)

Education

(Upper High-school =1)

0.267*

(0.155)

0.122

(0.175)

0.296*

(0.168)

Religion

(Have Religion =1)

0.781***

(0.172)

0.728***

(0.225)

1.317***

(0.173)

Income

(Higher than 5 billion

=1)

0.450**

(0.192)

0.477**

(0.243)

0.644***

(0.172)

Altruism 1

(4&5 points = 1)

-0.114

(0.233)

0.060

(0.298)

0.52**

(0.229)

Altruism 2

(4&5 points = 1)

0.384*

(0.213)

-0.359

(0.246)

0.095

(0.204)

A warm-glow

(4&5 points = 1)

-0.173

(0.203)

0.335

(0.228)

-0.263

(0.225)

Family Influence

(4&5 points = 1)

0.359*

(0.199)

0.226

(0.223)

0.515**

(0.21)

Prestige 1

(4&5 points = 1)

0.16

(0.28)

-0.276

(0.287)

-0.048

(0.311)

Tax Incentive

(4&5 points = 1)

-0.714*

(0.432)

0.408

(0.396)

-1.326***

(0.469)

Prestige 2

(4&5 points = 1)

0.012

(0.343)

0.163

(0.344)

-0.331

(0.352)

Reciprocity

(4&5 points = 1)

0.361

(0.274)

-0.318

(0.291)

0.221

(0.293)

Government Influence

(4&5 points = 1)

0.191

(0.147)

0.198

(0.16)

0.161

(0.176)

Constant -0.268***

(0.323)

-2.08***

(0.352)

-2.614***

(0.326)

Atrho21 0.180*

(0.095)

Atrho31 0.094

(0.093)

Atrho32 0.258**

(0.107)

Log likelihood -601.239

Prob> chi2 (for non-

correlated error terms)

0.000

Prob> chi2 (Beta =0) 0.02

Wald chi2 225.370

Number of observations 453

Notes: ***significant at 1%, ** 5%, and * 10%. Robust standard errors are in parentheses.

39

Across the three model via multivariate probit, religion and income effect on the all three

donation on money, time, and kind. Besides, the group of factors only impact on money donation

is gender, age, and altruism 1. Education and tax incentive influence on both donation in kind

and money. The factor of family influence only impacts on time and money donation.

4.3. ANALYSIS OF DONATION BEHAVIOR

This part deeply analyses the donation behavior of respondents who donated to charities which

related to (1) the choice of information channel, (2) kind of donation, (3) methods of money

donation, and (4) donation sectors by income, gender, religion, education and age.

4.3.1. Information Channels

Figure 1 Percent of each cases of information channel

According the result of multiple responses, in case of charity donation, the relationship channel

have the greatest choice in 58.7%. The other two great channels is website and media sources

have following proportions of 43.3% and 38.3%. These three channels seems to be considered

to approach the charity distribution purpose.

Income and information channel

Information channel is separated into two groups, including the 5 million or lower income group

and higher 5 million income group, to see the differences in terms of accessing information

between the groups. The Chi-square test is applied to test for the difference between the two

income groups in terms of information channel (see Table 10).

The greatest concentrated channel is relationship with 58.1% for the 5 million or lower income

group and 58.7% in higher than 5 million income group. The media source is the second rank

17.70%

6.00%10.30%

58.70%

38.30%

24.70%

43.30%

19.00%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

40

with the proportion of 38.7% and 38.3% for the two groups. Especially, in the case of website

channel, the higher income group account for 45.7 % which considerably larger than that of the

lower income group with 22.6%

Table 10 Information Channel and Income

≤ 5 Million VND > 5 Million p-value

Direct Contact 19.4% 17.5% 0.795

Email 0% 6.7% 0.137

Direct Mail 12.9% 10% 0.620

Relationship 58.1% 58.7% 0.943

Media source 38.7% 38.3% 0.964

Personal Contact 25.8% 24.5% 0.876

Website 22.6% 45.7% 0.014

Others 38.7% 16.7% 0.003

We apply the chi-square test to test for the differences between the two income groups in terms

of charity information access. The p-values are presented in the last column of Table 11. The

channels have the P-value< 10% are website and other channels, indicating that there is a

difference between the two income groups in accessing these two information channels.

Especially those with higher income tend to be easier to approach via the internet. For all other

channels, there is no difference between the two income groups.

Gender and information channel

The impact of gender on choosing in information channel is investigated by female and male in

Table 11. On the first information channel, 17.4 percent of female respondents chooses direct

contact, and 18.1 percent of male choose this one. However, the p-value is 0.875 which represent

there is no difference between gender in direct contact choosing.

Table 11 Information Channel and Gender

Female Male p-value


Email 6.5% 5.2% 0.632

Direct Mail 9.2% 12.1% 0.433


Media source 37% 40.5% 0.537

Personal Contact 25% 24.1% 0.866

Website 47.3% 37.1% 0.083

Others 16.8% 22.4% 0.231

Similarly for other cases, the direct contact channel is the most focused channel with 52.7% in

female and 68.1% in male. Nevertheless, the P value equals 0.875. Consequently, there is no

difference between male and female in choosing relationship channel. To consider information

channel group, not any p-values are significant. Thus, there is no difference in information

channels between male and female donators.

41

Religion and information channel

The impact of religion on choosing in information channel examine on the respondents who

have the religion or have no religion in Table 12. Considerately the first channel, direct contact

has 12.9% of no religious respondents and 18.2% of religious respondents. However, the P value

is 0.463 which means there is no difference between non-religious group and religious group in

the channel of direct contact.

Table 12 Information Channel and Religion

Not Religion Religion p-value


Email 16.1% 4.8% 0.012

Direct Mail 6.5% 10.8% 0.453


Media source 38.7% 38.3% 0.964


Website 45.2% 43.1% 0.828

Others 6.5% 20.4% 0.060

Likewise, there is just only two channels have p-valueless than 10% which are email and other

channels. Although the two of channels have lower concentration, the charities could consider

in case they want to find out the focus group. In particular, the no religion group has 16.1% in

email channel and the religion group has 20.4% in other channels.

Education and information channel

The impact of education on choosing in information channel are to focus on the two groups,

high school and upper high school. In the first channel, direct contact has 18.2% in high school

and 16.8% in upper high school with the p-value is 0.768. Consequently, there is no difference

between the two groups of education in case of direct contact.

Table 13 Information Channel and Education

High School Upper High School p-value


Email 2.1% 12.4% 0.000

Direct Mail 12.3% 7.1% 0.150


Media source 39.6% 36.3% 0.570


Website 33.7% 59.3% 0.000

Others 19.8% 17.7% 0.655

Correspondingly, considering the channel groups have p-value which explained the significant

differences in donation behavior via education, including email 0.000 (<1%), relationship 0.025

(< 5%) and website 0.000 (< 10%). Among these channel, the relationship channel is chosen the

42

most with 63.3% in high school respondents and 50.4% in upper high school group. The second

highest proportion is website channel with 33.7% in High School and 59.3% in upper high

school. Therefore, relationship channel is the channel for the high school group and even the

website contact is the considerable channel for the upper high school group.

Age and information channel

Table 14 Information Channel and Age

N

Mean Standard

Deviation

p-value(*)

Direct Contact 53 35 12.261 0.988

Email 18 27 4.596 0.000

Direct Mail 31 40 12.834 0.041

Relationship 176 38 12.390 0.000

Media source 115 38 13.477 0.003

Personal Contact 74 38 12.905 0.053

Website 130 30 9.159 0.000

Others 57 38 14.072 0.157

Sample Mean 300 35

(*) To test for difference in age of each group to sample mean.

The impact of age on choosing in information channel, the survey implements on the group

respondents who aged from 15 to 70. Then, the t-test is applied to examine whether there is

difference between the mean of population age and the mean of charity respondent group.

According the statistical result, the average of respondents’ age who donate in charity is 35 years

old in case of direct contact. Therefore, T-test is used for determining the difference between

the two mean values. The P-value is 0.988 which presents there is no different between the mean

of population and the mean age of donation respondents, aged of 35.

All the other channels have the P-value-value less than 10%, including email, direct mail,

relationship, media source, personal contact, and website. Examining the first group, in aged of

27, the email contact seem to be effective with the p-value is 0.000 (< 1%). Additionally, there

is 31 respondents who choose direct mail channel in average aged of 40 with the p-value is

0.041 (< 5%). In case of relationship, there is 176 choices in mean aged of 38 with 0.000 in p-

value (< 1%). Media source has 115 choices with the mean of aged is also 38, p-value 0.003 (<

5%). Lastly, the website channel has 130 respondents’ choosing turns, the mean of age is 30,

the P-value equals 0.000 (< 1%). Briefly, the group of channels which have the highest choosing

turns is relationship, media source and website, with the following turns of 176, 115 and 130.

Therefore, the most significant channel is relationship channel. In addition, direct contact, mail,

relationship and personal contact appear to be a good way to approach the older while website

and email are good of younger.

4.3.2. Kind of Donation

Figure 2 Percent of Cases in Kind of Donation

43

Considering the impact of respondents’ income, gender, religion and education, the highest

proportion is belonged to money donation. However, there is no difference in the probabilities

of donating of all kinds because all the p-values are higher than 10%. (See Table 15)

Table 15 Donation Kind via Income, Gender, Religion, and Education

Kind of Donation and Income

≤ 5 Million VND >5 Million

p-value

Gift in Kind 41.9% 43.1% 0.889

Gift in Time 16.1% 24.2% 0.317

Money Donation 93.5% 86.2% 0.252

Kind of Donation and Gender

Female Male p-value

Gift in Kind 40.8% 46.6% 0.324

Gift in Time 22.8% 24.1% 0.794


Kind of Donation and Religion


Gift in Kind 48.8% 42.4% 0.522

Gift in Time 25.8% 23.0% 0.731


Kind of Donation and Education


Gift in Kind 42.2% 44.2% 0.734

Gift in Time 21.9% 25.7% 0.458

43.00%

23.30%

87.00%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Gift in Kind Gift in Time Money Donation

44


Examining the impact of age on kind of donation, although this is the lowest proportion, the gift

in time have the P-value 0.026 (< 5%). Therefore, there is the different between the mean of age

in 32 and the mean of sample.

Table 16 Kind of Donation and Age.

N Mean Standard

Deviation

p-value(*)

Gift in Kind 129 35 13.562 0.408

Gift in Time 70 32 11.595 0.026

Money Donation 261 35 12.680 0.761

Sample Mean 300 38


4.3.3. Kind of Money Donation

Considering whether the kind of money is differ by income, gender, religion and education.

Most of cases which present there is no difference between each groups in the case of choosing

kind of money, consisting of income, gender, and religion because of P-value lower than 10%.

However, the impact of education on choosing kind of money have p-value less than 10% which

could be considerable, indicating that donator with education level higher than high-school are

more likely to choose bank-wire-transfer.

Figure 3 Percent of cases in money donation kind

Table 17 Kind of Money via Income, Gender, Religion, and Education

Kind of Money and Income

≤ 5 Billion VND > 5Biliion p-value

Cash 93.5% 86.2% 0.252

Mobile Message 0% 4.5% 0.231

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

Cash Mobile Bank_wire_transfer

45

Bank Wire

Transfer

0% 5.6% 0.177

Kind of Money and Gender

Female Male p-value

Cash 87.5% 86.2% 0.764

Mobile Message 5.4% 1.7% 0.110

Bank Wire

Transfer

5.4% 4.3% 0.663

Kind of Money and Religion


Cash 48.8% 42.4% 0.522


Bank Wire

Transfer

80.6% 87.7% 0.267

Kind of Money and Education


Cash 86.1% 88.5% 0.549


Bank Wire

Transfer

3.2% 8.0% 0.067

The statistical result represent the relationship between age and choosing kind of money. The

highest proportion is cash with 391 choosing turns, however the P-value higher than 10% which

stated that there is no difference between the mean of donating sample of 35 and the mean of

observed groups. On the other hand, the other kind of money donation have the P-valueless

than10% is mobile message and bank wire transfer, in 0.000 and 0.001. However, they have the

lowest donation choice, in 12 and 15 turns.

Table 18 Methods of Money Transfer and Age

N Mean Standard Deviation p-value

Cash 391 35 12.680 0.761

Mobile Message 12 28 5.743 0.001

Bank Wire

transfer

15 28 5.462 0.000

Sample Mean 300 35


4.3.4. Donation Sectors

Considering in percent of cases, religion is occupied 83.3% in the respondents’ choice which is

the greatest proportion. The second rank is children donation with 71% choices. Besides the

elderly sectors is made up 36% in the third rank. On the other hand, there is quietly indifference

between the remaining donation sectors, consisting of medical in 21%, hospital in 17%, disabled

46

in 24.3%, environmental protection in 20.3%, education in 13.7%, disaster in 15.7%, and the

lowest section in 7.3 % of other donation.

Figure 4 Percent of Cases Donation Sectors

Donation sectors are particularly considered the related impact of income, gender, religion,

education, and age via crosstab description statistics, and the p-value.

Income and donation sector

The impact of income on each donation sector is also investigate on the group of income, equal

or lower than 5 million income group and higher than 5 million income group. In the medical

donation, the group income of equal or lower than 5 million VND is made up 9.7%, and the

remaining group is 22.3%. The p-value result is 0.102 which can be concluded that there is no

difference between the two groups of income in case of medical donation.

Correspondingly, the donation sectors have the P-value lower than 10% is children, religion,

and elderly. The religion sector has the greatest proportion, 96.8% in lower income, and 81.1%

in higher income, with the p-value is 0.034 (< 5%). This result state that the lower income group

distributes charity more than the higher income group, and even there is difference between two

groups of income. Another case, children donation is the second rank of high proportion group,

87.1% in lower income group and 69.1% in higher income group, with the p-value in 0.037 (<

5%). The result shows the similar situation with the previous sectors which the lower income

group have the donation distribution more than the higher one, and the different between two

income groups in case of children donation. The lastly lowest section is elderly donation, 16.1%

in lower income and 38.3% in higher income, with the p-value is 0.015 (< 5%). Hence, it can

be concluded that the higher income group have more concentration on elderly donation, which

gives higher priority to the older while the low income group give higher priority to religion.

Table 19 Donation Sectors and Income.

21.00%

71.00%

17.00%

83.30%

24.30%20.30%

36.00%

13.70% 15.70%

7.30%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

47

≤ 5 Million VND > 5 Million VND p-value

Medical 9.7% 22.3% 0.102

Children 87.1% 69.1% 0.037

Hospital 16.1% 17.1% 0.892

Religion 96.8% 81.8% 0.034

Disabled 22.6% 24.5% 0.810

Environment 22.6% 20.1% 0.743

Elderly 16.1% 38.3% 0.015

Education 16.1% 13.4% 0.673

Disaster 12.9% 16.0% 0.655

Others 3.2% 7.8% 0.354

Gender and donation sector

The impact of gender on each donation sector is presented in Table 19. In the first case, the

medical donation have 16.8% in female and 27.6% in male with the P-value is 0.026. It can be

concluded male group have participation in charity more than female group and the difference

between the proportion of the different gender in case of medical distribution.

Table 20 Donation Sectors and Gender

Female Male p-value

Medical 16.8% 27.6% 0.026

Children 67.4% 76.7% 0.083

Hospital 15.2% 19.8% 0.301

Religious 83.7% 82.8% 0.832

Disabled 22.8% 26.7% 0.444

Environment 18.5% 23.3% 0.315

Elderly 31.0% 44.0% 0.022

Education 9.2% 20.7% 0.005

Disaster 15.2% 16.4% 0.787

Others 7.6% 6.9% 0.818

Another sectors which have the p-value higher than 10% is children in 0.083 (< 10%), elderly

in 0.022 (< 5%), and education in 0.005 (< 1%). Almost of cases, male group always have the

charity donation more than female, following 76.7%, 44% and 20.7% compared with 67.4%,

31% and 9.2%. More particularly, the highest proportion is children donation. The male group

is made up 76.7% and the female group is 67.4%.

Religion and donation sector

The impact of religion on each donation sector which is investigated on the respondents who

have religion and have no religion. Considering the first donation section, medical case has

32.3% in no religion group and 19.7% in religion group, with the P-value is 0.104. It can be

48

concluded that there is no difference between religion and no religion people in case of medical

donation.

With the same explanation for the other cases, the sectors which has the value in P greater than

10% is children, religion, and others, following 0.095 (< 10%), 0.000 (< 1%), and 0.007 (< 1%).

The sections which the no religion respondents concentrates on is children in 83.9% and others

in 19.4%, compared with religion respondents with the percentage of 65.5% and 5.9%. On the

other hand, the surprisingly result of religion donation represent there is 92.9% in religion group,

and 0% in no religion group. However, the children donation seems to be the most concentrate

of these two groups.

Table 21 Donation Sectors and Religion


Medical 32.3% 19.7% 0.104

Children 83.9% 69.5% 0.095

Hospital 16.1% 17.1% 0.892

Religion 0% 92.9% 0.000

Disabled 35.5% 23.0% 0.127

Environment 29.0% 19.3% 0.204

Elderly 32.3% 36.4% 0.647

Education 12.9% 13.8% 0.896

Disaster 19.4% 15.2% 0.551

Others 19.4% 5.9% 0.007

Education and donation sector

The impact of education on each donation sector is consisted of two groups, high school and

upper high school respondents. In the medical donation, high school respondents is occupied

21.4% and 20.4% in upper high school with 0.831 in p-value. It can be concluded that there is

no difference in these two groups of education level in case of medical donation.

The remaining sectors which have the p-value is elderly in 0.004 (< 1%) and education sector

0.01 (< 5%). The higher donation group in these two cases is high school respondents with

42.2% in elderly and 17.6% in education.

49

Table 22 Donation Sectors and Education


Medical 21.4% 20.4% 0.831

Children 72.2% 69.0% 0.558

Hospital 18.2% 15% 0.483

Religion 85.0% 80.5% 0.311

Disabled 25.7% 22.1% 0.488

Environment 21.4% 18.6% 0.558

Elderly 42.2% 25.7% 0.004

Education 17.6% 7.1% 0.010

Disaster 13.9% 18.6% 0.280

Others 8.0% 6.2% 0.556

Age and donation sectors

Table 23 Age and Donation Sectors.

N Mean Standard Deviation p-value(*)

Medical 63 41 11.177 0.000

Children 213 36 13.228 0.387

Hospital 51 41 12.220 0.000

Religion 250 35 13.076 0.762

Disabled 73 35 12.619 0.868

Environment 61 38 12.367 0.109

Elderly 108 40 11.692 0.000

Education 41 45 9.877 0.000

Disaster 47 34 12.340 0.615

Others 22 35 11.438 0.857

Sample Mean 300 35


Applying t-test on consideration the different between the observation average of age and the

population average of age, the results represent the sections which have the p-value lower than

10% is medical with 0.000, hospital with 0.000, elderly with 0.000, education with 0.000. Most

of p-value is lower than 1%. In the p-value higher than 10% sectors, the elderly is the section

which is chosen the most with 108 cases and the mean of 40 years old.

50

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS

AND POLICY IMPLICATION

5.1. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE SUMMARY

This research investigates the charitable giving behavior via using survey data in Ho Chi Minh

City. That specifically attempt to answer the question; who donate in charity; which source of

information; and which channel of donation. The study is expected to provide the current

information analysis to approach the potential charity objective for understanding the charity

behavior and supporting for further research.

The examinations is implemented in this research which is the determinants of donation

behavior, consisting of the money donation, in-kind donation, and time donation. The main

technique is used, including logit, multivariate probit model, and standards statistical

techniques. The research results would present the relationship between the group of

determinants; such as individual characteristics, altruism, warm glow, prestige, reciprocity,

family influence, tax incentive and government influence; and how they effect on charity

behavior.

5.2. THE REGRESSION MODELS SUMMARY

There are two kind of the regression models, consisting of binary logit and multivariate probit.

The probability of giving is analyzed by logit model, and the probability of time donation, in-

kind donation, and money donation by multivariate probit. As in the logit model, the probability

of giving has two cases; supposed the respondents who donate on any of charity kind with Y=1,

and Y=0 otherwise. Additionally, the multivariate probit model has the system of three

equations with and 𝑖 = 1, 2, 3 indicating time, in-kind gifts and money.

5.3. THE DATA COLLECTION SUMMARY

The data collection is investigated from the designed questionnaire with the three main parts,

donating and volunteering activities, attitudes and perceptions toward charity donation, and

respondent profiles in the last 12 months. The survey process is performed via the two stages,

consisting of retest stage and test stage. The retest stage is implemented with 200 respondents.

However, they could completed all the 32 questions in the survey, especially in the related

question of amount of donation and frequency of giving charity. The next stage which the

51

questionnaire is redesigned with 14 questions for the next 500 respondents. The last data

collection which is suitable for this study is 453 fulfill-surveys.

5.4. THE MAIN FINDING

From Binary Logit Model

Overall, the regression model verified almost the previous hypothesis. The group of factors

which have the significant difference with charity giving is gender, age, religion, income,

altruism 1, a warm-glow, family influence, tax incentive, and government influence. Education

is not explain for charity donation. In particular, female respondents have more donation than

male respondents. Age is also the important factor which the marginal effect at 0.019 which

explains the change in 1 unit of age lead to increase donation giving. Religion factor have the

positive relationship with donation giving. As in income, the respondents who have the income

higher than 5 million VND donate more than the lower ones. Additionally, the independent

variable related with theoretical models in 5 point-Likert scale which have altruism 1, a warm-

glow, family influence and government influence. Amongst, warm-glow has the negative

coefficient that opposite with the previous hypothesis. On the other hand, the remaining factor

of altruism, family, and government influence have the significant impact on charity

distribution.

From Multivariate Probit

Multivariate Probit regression which analyzes the relationship between three kinds of donation;

consisting of gift in kind, gift in time and money donation; via the individual characteristics and

theoretical economics of giving. The factor of gender only impact on donation in money which

explain the female respondents have more donation than male respondents. Age only effect on

donation in time which the negative coefficient explains that the increasing in age could lead to

decrease in time donation. As in education, there are both of factors is impacted which are gift

in kind and gift in money in positive coefficient which state the respondent who in upper high-

school level donate more than the lower ones. Altruism 1 ask the people that the believing in

charity activities are the right thing that need to do which significant impact on gift in money.

Altruism 2 is the question of I feel good about myself it I donate to someone which effect on

donation in kind in positive sign. Finally, family Influence and tax incentive have the positive

relationship on both donation in kind and money.

From The Statistical Test

The information channel have the greatest proportion is belonged to relationship with 27%. The

next channels is website and media source with 20% and 17%. In the case of the respondents

who have any charity distribution, the channel which is used the most is also relationship with

58.7%. Via income case, the website and the others have the significant impact by the

respondent have the income higher than 5 million VND. Through gender, relationship and

website channel have the P-value lower than 10%. Female have been more attractive by website

52

channel, and male by relationship channel. The religion have significant impact on email and

others which the respondents have no religion with 16.2% in email channel, and 6.5% in others;

the respondents have religion with 4.8% in email and 20.4% in others. Additionally, education

via high school and upper high school group have the significant impact on email, relationship

and website. The high school group with high proportion in relationship with 63.6% higher than

10 percentage point compared with upper high school. The upper high school group get higher

percentage in email, and website in 12.4% and 59.3%.

5.5. POLICY IMPLICATION

In the multivariate probit model, people with higher income and religion are more like likely to

donate in-kind gifts, time as well as money. As a result, the target population of donators for

any fundraiser should be these individual with high income and religion.

As we found that gender (male) is negative and significant in the money donation function but

not in the two others, fundraisers should approach female individuals if they want to collect

money donation. In case of in-kind and time, there is no difference in the probability of being

able to collect donation from male and female individuals.

Because education is positive and significant in in-kind and money donation

functions, fundraisers would have higher probability of success if they approach those with high

school or higher for in-kind and money donation.

About attitudinal/perceptual factors, most of the factors are found insignificant. The only

exception is family influence. The estimated coefficients of this variables imply that individuals

in a family with long tradition of charity giving are more likely to give all the kinds of donation.

It also implies that raising the awareness of the current generation and have them donate today

may result in future generations with a good habit of giving.

5.6. LIMITATIONS

The research is implemented from convenient sampling which the weaknesses could not

conclude representative results. In the case of expanding the target of population, the statistical

research should be random. More specifically, as in the research on Vietnam population, the

research should be investigate randomly in each specific provincial level. The matter of

implementation that need to be supported by timing problems and financial issues.

The survey have not been fulfilled the important issue of amount of donation and frequency of

charity contribution. That could be occurred that belonged to the problem of culture and political

institutions which could not be prehensile. Almost the donation do not through the specific

charity organization. Therefore, there are too hard to obtain the donator’s charity giving

information. Almost the respondents could not remember the number of time or the amount of

donation that they distributed. A system of charity organizations which have clear and

transparent operation would assist much for the field of studies.

53

Finally, some of the psychologist factors are measured by one or a few variable which is also a

limitation. Even though the questions somehow reflects the concepts, yet only one or two

variables are not enough to represent for a concept. Further research should use more questions

or variables to capture the concepts, with at least 4-5 variables for each concept.

54

REFERENCES

Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: applications to charity and Ricardian

equivalence. The Journal of Political Economy, 1447-1458.

Andreoni, J., & Payne, A. A. (2003). Do government grants to private charities crowd out giving

or fund-raising?. American Economic Review, 792-812.

Andreoni, J., Gale, W. G., Scholz, J. K., & Straub, J. (1996). Charitable contributions of time

and money. University of Wisconsin–Madison Working Paper.

Andreoni, James. "Why free ride?: Strategies and learning in public goods

experiments." Journal of public Economics 37.3 (1988): 291-304.

Auten, Gerald E., HolgerSieg, and Charles T. Clotfelter. "Charitable giving, income, and taxes:

an analysis of panel data." American Economic Review(2002): 371-382.

Basil, D. Z., Ridgway, N. M., & Basil, M. D. (2008). Guilt and giving: A process model of

empathy and efficacy. Psychology & Marketing, 25(1), 1-23.

Belk, R. W., &Pollay, R. W. (1985). Images of ourselves: The good life in twentieth century

advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 887-897.

Bergstrom, T., Blume, L., & Varian, H. (1986). On the private provision of public

goods. Journal of public economics, 29(1), 25-49.

Braus, P. (1994) Will Baby Boomers Give Generously

Brown, A. L., Meer, J., & Williams, J. F. (2013). Why do people volunteer? An experimental

analysis of preferences for time donations (No. w19066). National Bureau of Economic

Research.

Bui, X. M. (2014). Regional Minimum Wage. Hanoi: Vietnam Academy of Agricultural

Sciences.

CanadaSocialTrend. (2011). Charitable giving by Canadians.

CharitiesAidFoundation. (2015). World Giving Index 2015 - A global view of giving trends.

Chompff, D. (2009). Charity & Willing. The Role of Individual Dispositions and Charity

Perceptions on The Willingness to Donate. Enonomics& Business, Maketing.

Clotfelter, C. T. (1980). Tax incentives and charitable giving: Evidence from a panel of

taxpayers. Journal of Public Economics, 13(3), 319-340.

Dang, A., Lê, S., Nghiem, T., Nguyen, L., & Phi, N. (2011). ĐóngGópTừThiệntạiViệt Nam.

The Asia Foundation, VAPEC, Hanoi

55

Danko, W. D., & Stanley, T. J. (1986). Identifying and reaching the donation prone individual:

a nationwide assessment. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 2(1-2), 117-122.

Davis, J. B. (1992). The Economic Surplus in Advanced Economies.

DellaVigna, S., & John, A. List, and Ulrike Malmendier. 2012.“Testing for Altruism and Social

Pressure in Charitable Giving.”. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(1), 1-56.

DisabledWorld. (2015). Facts & Statistics on Disabilities & Disability Issues.

Edmundson, B. (1986) Who Gives to Charity? 1986 American Demographic 45-49

Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related

behaviors. Psychological bulletin, 101(1), 91.

European Commission. The Social Protection Committee, European Commission. Directorate-

General for Employment, & Equal Opportunities. Unit E2. (2008). Child Poverty and Well-

Being in the EU: current status and way forward. European Commission, Directorate-General

for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Unit E. 2.

Eurostat. (2015). Social protection statistics - pension expenditure and pension beneficiaries.

FAO. (2014). the Multiple Benefits Provide from Forests. The United States: Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United States.

GivingUSA. (2014). An Overview of Giving in 2014. USA.

Greg, P. and Sylke, V. S.(2007)Gender Differences in Charitable Giving. IZA Discussion Paper,

No.3242

Hann, C. (2006). The gift and reciprocity: perspectives from economic anthropology. Handbook

of the economics of giving, altruism and reciprocity, 1, 207-223.

Harbaugh, William T. (1998) The Prestige Motive for Making Charitable Transfers," American

Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, May 1998, Vol. 88, No. 2, pp. 277-82.

Jones, A., &Posnett, J. (1991). Charitable donations by UK households: evidence from the

Family Expenditure Survey. Applied Economics, 23(2), 343-351.

Kitchen, H., & Dalton, R. (1990). Determinants of charitable donations by families in Canada:

a regional analysis. Applied Economics, 22(3), 285-299.

Kolm, S. C. (2000). Introduction: The economics of reciprocity, giving and altruism. In Iea

Conference Volume Series (Vol. 130, pp. 1-46). Basingstoke; Macmillan Press; New York; St

Martin's Press; 1998.

Kolm, S. C., &Ythier, J. M. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of the economics of giving, altruism and

reciprocity: Foundations (Vol. 1). Elsevier.

56

Lee, Y. K., & Chang, C. T. (2007). Who gives what to charity? Characteristics affecting

donation behavior. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 35(9), 1173-

1180.

Markstrom, C. A., Huey, E., Stiles, B. M., & Krause, A. L. (2010). Frameworks of caring and

helping in adolescence: Are empathy, religiosity, and spirituality related constructs? Youth &

Society, 42(1), 59-80.

Menchik, P. L., &Weisbrod, B. A. (1987). Volunteer labor supply. Journal of Public

Economics, 32(2), 159-183.

Royer, M. (1989). Please Give Generously, Okay? NSFRE. 17 – 20

Sargeant, A. (2008). Donor retention: What do we know and what can we do about it. A Report

for the Association of Fundraising Professionals, Washington DC.

Sargeant, A., Ford, J. B., & West, D. C. (2006). Perceptual determinants of nonprofit giving

behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 155-165.

Silver, M. (1980). Affluence, Altruism, and Atrophy: The Decline of Welfare States. New York

University Press.

Simpson, J.C.(1986) Baby Boomers Have 60s Heritage, but Charities Say They're Cheap”. Wall

Street Journal. 33

Sussman, A. B., Sharma, E., & Alter, A. L. (2015). Framing charitable donations as exceptional

expenses increases giving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21(2), 130.

Sutherland, M. B. (1986). Education and empathy. British Journal of Educational

Studies, 34(2), 142-151.

The World Bank. (2015). Poverty Overview. Washington.

UK giving. (2015). An Overview of Charitable Giving in UK.

Unicef. (2015). Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger.

USgovernmentspending. (2015). What is the spending on Social Security? USA.

Von Grebmer, K., Saltzman, A., Birol, E., Wiesman, D., Prasai, N., Yin, S., ...& Sonntag, A.

(2014). 2014 Global Hunger Index: The challenge of hidden hunger. IFPRI books.

WHES. (2015). 2015 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics. World Hunger Education

Service.

Yankelovich, D. (1981). Searching for self-fulfillment in a world turned upside

down. Psychology Today, 15(4), 5-91.

57

APPENDICES

1Appendix 1 Pretest Questionnaire

Vietnam – Netherlands Program

For M.A. in Development Economics

Economics of Charitable Giving

Individual Donor Behavior Survey

From: Nguyen Ngoc Nu

October, 2015

58

Oct, 2015.

Dear Participant,

My name is Nu Nguyen. I am a graduate student in the master of development economics of

Netherlands - Vietnam Programme at University of Economics. Here is my final project to finish

the course; I research in economics of charity. The purpose of the research is to figure out the

main determinants of individual donor behavior. Therefore, I would like to invite you to

participate in this research study by fulfilling the survey.

All of your responses are only used for research purpose. Moreover, you do not need to provide

your name for anonymous and confidential information. Please complete the questionnaires

honestly and as best as you can.

Thank you so much for providing useful information and, even, supporting me to finish an

important part of this project.

If you have any questions or feedbacks about this project, please ask me via the following

contract information.

Sincerely yours,

Nu Nguyen

Student’s name : Nu Ngoc Nguyen

Email : [email protected]

59

Part A: Donor and Volunteer Performance

1. Did you give any donation or volunteer charity for the last 12 months?

a. Yes Go to the questions from 2 to 15, and part B

b. I used to donate/ volunteer Go to the questions from 8 to 16, and part B

c. I have never donated/volunteer Go to the questions 15,17 to 19 and part B

The questions from 2 to 15 are for respondents who are performing charity for the last 12

months.

2. How was your charity performance situation in 2015 compare with in 2014?

a. The same

b. Better

c. Worse

3. Do you prefer donation anonymous?

a. Yes

b. No

4. How did you find out charity information?

a. Website

b. Personally connected to the charity

c. Media sources

d. Direct contact

e. New paper

f. Friend, Family members

g. Direct mail

h. Email

5. The reason why you choose for your donation to appear anonymous?

a. I don’t want to be recognized

b. I don’t want any others to know I gave less

c. I don’t want any others to know I gave more

d. I don’t want any others to know my amount donation

e. Other reasons: …

60

6. Please specify your charity performance in the last 12 months, in case of donation

performance.

In donation channel section, please choose the following answers and fill in the blank.

a. Direct cash

b. Bank wire transfer

c. Text mobile phone message

d. Property or goods

In the question, how often you have given money to a charity; please choose the

following answers and fill in the blank.

a. Once in the past year

b. Once a month

c. Every 2 – 3 months

d. Once or twice a week

e. Every 2 – 3 weeks

This table is for respondent who donates cash.

Reasons for

Giving

Donation

Channel

(a, b, c, or d)

How many times

did you give

money to a

charity?

How often have you

given money to a

charity

(a, b, c, d, e or f)

The total donations to

charity, including cash

donation

Medical

Children or

teenager

Hospital

Religious

Disabled

Social Welfare

Environment

protection

Elderly

Education

support and

Scholarship

Disaster

This table is for respondent who donates property.

61

In kind of property section, please choose the following answers and fill in the blank.

a. Household goods

b. Used clothing

c. Food

d. Used furniture

e. Medicines

f. Book, journal

g. Other

Reasons for

Giving

Kind of

property

How many times

did you give

property to a

charity?

How often have you

given property to a

charity


The total donations to

charity, including

property donation

Medical

Children or

teenager

Hospital

Religious

Disabled

Social Welfare

Environment

protection

Elderly

Education

support and

Scholarship

Disaster

7. Please specify your charity performance in the last 12 months, in case of donation

performance.

In the question, how often you have worked as volunteer for a charity; please choose the

following answers and fill in the blank.

a. Once in the past year

b. Once a month

c. Every 2 – 3 months

d. Once or twice a week

e. Every 2 – 3 weeks

62

Reasons for Giving How often have you worked as

volunteer for a charity?


How many hours did you usually

work as volunteer for a charity for

once?

Medical

Children or teenager

Hospital

Religious

Disabled

Social Welfare

Environment protection

Elderly

Education support and

Scholarship

Disaster

The questions from 8 to 14 are for respondents who are performing, or used to perform in

charity organization.

8. Did you choose a particular charity organization to donate or volunteer?

a. Yes

b. Self- donate or self- volunteer

c. No

9. Did you do any research about organization before making your donation or

volunteer?

a. Yes

b. No

10. How did you find out charity information of the organization?

i. Website

j. Personally connected to the charity

k. Media sources

l. Direct contact

m. New paper

n. Friend, Family members

o. Direct mail

p. Email

63

11. How often do you donate to this organization?

a. Annually

b. Monthly

c. Rarely

d. Biannually

e. Bimonthly

f. No more or never

12. Please tell the organizations name that you choose to donate or volunteer, for the

last 12 months.

…

13. Based on the scale below, please circle the response that most accurately

measures your understanding about the charity organization that you choose to donate

5 4 3 2 1

Strongly agree Somewhat

agree

Don’t know/

refused

Somewhat

disagree

Disagree

a. The organization provides me the way

how money will be used clearly

5

4 3 2 1

b. The organization has clearly operation

purpose

5 4 3 2 1

c. The organization uses money effectively 5 4 3 2 1

d. The organization keep in touch

frequently

5 4 3 2 1

e. The organization make me feel like I’m

helping to solve problem

5 4 3 2 1

f. The organization is well- managed 5 4 3 2 1

g. The organization has disclosure specific

donor information

5 4 3 2 1

h. The organization supports causes that I

believe in

5 4 3 2 1

64

i. The organization provide me enough

information before donate

5 4 3 2 1


measures your satisfaction about the charity organization that you choose to donate

5 4 3 2 1


agree

Don’t know/

refused

Somewhat

disagree

Disagree

a. I trust in the organization always act in

the best interest

5 4 3 2 1

b. I trust in the organization always act

ethically

5 4 3 2 1

c. I trust in the organization using donated

amount appropriately

5 4 3 2 1

d. I volunteer my time to this organization 5 4 3 2 1

e. I will be a loyal supporter to this

organization

5 4 3 2 1

f. I care about long-term success of this

organization

5 4 3 2 1

g. I continue to donate next year 5 4 3 2 1

The questions 15 are for respondents who are performing, or used to perform, or have never

performed in charity organization


measures your charity reasons

5 4 3 2 1

Very

Important

Somewhat

important

Don’t know/

refused

Not very

important

Not at all

important

65

a. I believe charity activities are the right thing

that needs to do.

5 4 3 2 1

b. I feel good about myself if I donate to

someone

5 4 3 2 1

c. I care about well-being of each other and

want to help them

5 4 3 2 1

d. I do charity because of memories of the

loved one

5 4 3 2 1

e. My family has a long tradition of charity

giving, so I want to keep it moving

5 4 3 2 1

f. I feel guilty if I didn’t donate 5 4 3 2 1

g. I feel pity the disadvantaged and want to

help them

5 4 3 2 1

h. I feel bad if I didn’t donate 5 4 3 2 1

i. I believe in my religious that support myself

to do good things

5 4 3 2 1

j. I want to be recognized 5 4 3 2 1

k. The tax benefit of giving is the main motive

for me to perform charity

5 4 3 2 1

l. Because I will receive local prestige 5 4 3 2 1

m. In some case, I want to give back the benefit

from charity giving

5 4 3 2 1

n. I join in charity donation because of

government suggestion

5 4 3 2 1

The questions 16 are for respondents who are used to perform charity


measures the reasons why you do not perform charity anymore

5 4 3 2 1

66


agree

Don’t know/

refused

Somewhat

disagree

Disagree

a. I already give enough 5 4 3 2 1

b. I am too busy to give charity 5 4 3 2 1

c. I have to save money for myself and my

family

5 4 3 2 1

d. I do not like to pay for the nonprofit’s

organization cost of marketing and operating

5 4 3 2 1

e. My contribution is too small to make

difference.

5 4 3 2 1

f. People should solve their own problem 5 4 3 2 1

g. Charity may lead to unemployment

problem

5 4 3 2 1

The questions 17, 18, and 19 are for respondents who have never performed charity

17. Why have you never performed any charity activities?

a. I do not want to give charity

b. I do not have a chance to give charity

18. For respondents who do not want to give charity, please circle the response that

most accurately measures the reasons why you have never perform charity

5 4 3 2 1


agree

Don’t know/

refused

Somewhat

disagree

Disagree

a. Social problem could not be solved by

charity.

5 4 3 2 1

b. Social problem is the government

responsibility.

5 4 3 2 1

67

c. Individual contribution is too small to

make difference.

d. I have to save money for myself and my

family.

5 4 3 2 1

e. I do not like to pay for the nonprofit’s

organization cost of marketing and operating.

5 4 3 2 1

f. I will give to each other when I am rich

enough.

5 4 3 2 1

g. People should solve their own problem. 5 4 3 2 1

h. Charity may lead to unemployment

problem.

5 4 3 2 1

19. For respondents who do not have a chance to give charity, please circle the

response that most accurately measures the reasons why you have never perform charity


agree

Don’t know/

refused

Somewhat

disagree

Disagree

a. I do not have any information about

charity activities.

5 4 3 2 1

b. I want to give charity but I do not have

time.

5 4 3 2 1

c. I want to give charity but I do not have

enough money.

5 4 3 2 1

d. I will give charity if I have any

opportunities in the future.

Part B: Respondents Profile

In this part, please tell me about yourself

20. Gender

68

Male Female

21. Year of birth: …

22. The number of schooling years: …

23. What is your highest level of education?

a. primary school

b. secondary school

c. high school

d. Some college or two year degree

e. Four year college degree

f. Advanced degree

24. What the best describes your area of study?

a. Social sciences

b. Natural sciences

c. Arts

d. Medicine

e. Business

f. Law

g. Other

25. Describe your current employment status?

a. Employed

b. Unemployed

c. Retired and not working

d. Retired but working part time

e. Student and not working

f. Student and working part time

26. For respondents who are working, what type of organization do you work?

a. Private firm

b. Education

c. Hospital

d. Religion

69

e. Non-profit

f. Self- employment

g. Civil service

h. Local government

i. Armed forced

j. Agriculture

27. What is your current marital status?

a. Single

b. Married or living with partner

c. Divorced

d. Widowed

28. For respondents who have children, please tell me about your children.

Number of Children Son or Daughter Living with you or not Under 16

29. What is your monthly income after tax? (million VND)

a. 0 – 5

b. 5 – 10

c. 10 –18

d. 18 – 32

e. 32 – 52

f. 52 – 80

30. How was your financial situation in 2015 compare with in 2014?

d. The same

e. Better

f. Worse

31. Has this situation effected on your level of giving?

70

a. Give about the same

b. Give more

c. Give less

d. Not sure

32. In case of self – rank of social position, where would you put yourself on the

following scale?

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Bottom

71

2 Appendix 2 The Final Questionnaires

Part A: Charity Activities

Please answer the following question about your charity activities for the last 12 months.

33. Did you give any donation or volunteer charity for the last 12 months?

Yes Go to the questions from 2 to 8, and part B

No Go to the question number 9, and part B

The questions 9 are for respondents who give charity

34. How did you find out charity information? Multiple responses

Website

Personally connected to the

charity

Media sources

Direct contact

New paper

Friend, Family members

Direct mail

Email

35. What kind of instrument did you choose to donate? Multiple responses

Gift in kind

Gift in time

Money donation

36. What kind of money did you choose to donate? Multiple responses

Direct cash

Bank wire transfer

Text mobile phone message

37. Which charity sectors did you choose to support? Multiple responses

Medical

Children and teenagers

Hospital

Religious

Disables

Environment Protection

Education and Scholarship

Disaster

Others

38. Did you choose a particular charity organization to donate or volunteer?

Yes No

72

39. Based on the scale below, please circle the response that most accurately measures

your understanding about the charity organization that you choose to donate

5 4 3 2 1

Strongly

agree

Somewhat

agree

Don’t

know/

refused

Somewhat

disagree

Disagree

The organization provides me the way how

money will be used clearly

5

4 3 2 1

The organization has clearly operation

purpose

5 4 3 2 1

The organization uses money effectively 5 4 3 2 1

The organization keep in touch frequently 5 4 3 2 1

The organization make me feel like I’m

helping to solve problem

5 4 3 2 1


your satisfaction about the charity organization that you choose to donate

5 4 3 2 1

Strongly

agree

Somewhat

agree

Don’t

know/ refused

Somewhat

disagree

Disagree

I volunteer my time to this organization 5 4 3 2 1

I will be a loyal supporter to this

organization

5 4 3 2 1

I care about long-term success of this

organization

5 4 3 2 1

I continue to donate next year 5 4 3 2 1

The questions 9 are for all respondents

73


your charity reasons

5 4 3 2 1

Very

Important

Somewhat

important

Don’t

know/ refused

Not very

important

Not at all

important

I believe charity activities are the right thing

that needs to do.

5 4 3 2 1

I feel good about myself if I donate to

someone

5 4 3 2 1

I care about well-being of each other and

want to help them

5 4 3 2 1

I do charity because of memories of the

loved one

5 4 3 2 1

My family has a long tradition of charity

giving, so I want to keep it moving

5 4 3 2 1

I want to be recognized 5 4 3 2 1

The tax benefit of giving is the main motive

for me to perform charity

5 4 3 2 1

Because I will receive local prestige 5 4 3 2 1

In some case, I want to give back the benefit

from charity giving

5 4 3 2 1

I join in charity donation because of

government suggestion

5 4 3 2 1

Part B: Respondents Profile

In this part, please tell me about yourself

42. Gender

Male Female

74

43. Year of birth: …

44. Education:

High school Upper high school

45. Monthly Income:

5 million VND More than 5 million VND

46. Religion:

Yes

No

75

3 Appendix 3 Stata Analyses Output

_cons -6.501922 .8850331 -7.35 0.000 -8.236555 -4.767289

q10 1.834079 .4782714 3.83 0.000 .8966847 2.771474

q9 -.9143583 .6602706 -1.38 0.166 -2.208465 .3797483

q8 .2589032 .6555101 0.39 0.693 -1.025873 1.543679

q7 -2.143921 .8448009 -2.54 0.011 -3.7997 -.4881417

q6 .4608119 .6246343 0.74 0.461 -.7634489 1.685073

q5 1.829458 .5023488 3.64 0.000 .8448729 2.814044

q4 -1.0079 .4987486 -2.02 0.043 -1.985429 -.0303705

q3 -.079889 .4607389 -0.17 0.862 -.9829206 .8231426

q2 .3164695 .4419429 0.72 0.474 -.5497226 1.182662

q1 1.223715 .5944152 2.06 0.040 .0586829 2.388748

income 2.034262 .4721801 4.31 0.000 1.108806 2.959718

religion 3.219022 .3886855 8.28 0.000 2.457213 3.980832

education .5896281 .4234195 1.39 0.164 -.2402588 1.419515

age .0749029 .0164282 4.56 0.000 .0427042 .1071016

gender -1.288058 .3687952 -3.49 0.000 -2.010883 -.5652323

charity Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]

Log likelihood = -124.37603 Pseudo R2 = 0.5707

Prob > chi2 = 0.0000

LR chi2(15) = 330.66

Logistic regression Number of obs = 453

76

4 Appendix 4

.

Mean VIF 4.48

q6 1.57 0.637302

education 1.94 0.515451

q10 2.01 0.498243

q7 2.05 0.488151

gender 2.12 0.471062

q9 2.19 0.456218

q8 2.54 0.392972

religion 4.44 0.225110

q5 4.69 0.213243

q4 5.24 0.190941

income 5.46 0.183250

age 6.70 0.149230

q2 6.84 0.146147

q3 8.06 0.124112

q1 11.41 0.087662

Variable VIF 1/VIF

77

5 Appendix 5

_cons -6.517427 .8805403 -7.40 0.000 -8.243254 -4.7916

q10 1.832437 .4778916 3.83 0.000 .8957869 2.769088

q9 -.9125041 .6595566 -1.38 0.167 -2.205211 .380203

q8 .2531122 .6543757 0.39 0.699 -1.029441 1.535665

q7 -2.124598 .8377261 -2.54 0.011 -3.766511 -.4826848

q6 .4548754 .622788 0.73 0.465 -.7657666 1.675517

q5 1.817148 .4970994 3.66 0.000 .8428514 2.791445

q4 -1.012214 .4987805 -2.03 0.042 -1.989806 -.0346222

q2 .3147099 .4415193 0.71 0.476 -.550652 1.180072

q1 1.180826 .540731 2.18 0.029 .1210131 2.24064

income 2.025981 .4695702 4.31 0.000 1.10564 2.946322

religion 3.224222 .3875836 8.32 0.000 2.464572 3.983872

education .5923099 .4233591 1.40 0.162 -.2374587 1.422078

age .0748126 .0164294 4.55 0.000 .0426116 .1070137

gender -1.28021 .3659292 -3.50 0.000 -1.997418 -.5630019


Log likelihood = -124.39109 Pseudo R2 = 0.5706

Prob > chi2 = 0.0000

LR chi2(14) = 330.63


78

6 Appendix 6

Mean VIF 3.99

q6 1.57 0.637324

education 1.94 0.515575

q10 2.01 0.498745

q7 2.02 0.495646

gender 2.09 0.478630

q9 2.19 0.456298

q8 2.54 0.394049

religion 4.41 0.226678

q5 4.51 0.221914

q4 5.22 0.191606

income 5.38 0.185704

age 6.57 0.152204

q2 6.79 0.147289

q1 8.65 0.115660

Variable VIF 1/VIF

79

7 Appendix 7

_cons -6.517427 .7691307 -8.47 0.000 -8.024895 -5.009958

q10 1.832437 .5018802 3.65 0.000 .8487703 2.816104

q9 -.9125041 .6877711 -1.33 0.185 -2.260511 .4355024

q8 .2531122 .8141501 0.31 0.756 -1.342593 1.848817

q7 -2.124598 .8613866 -2.47 0.014 -3.812884 -.436311

q6 .4548754 .6522805 0.70 0.486 -.8235709 1.733322

q5 1.817148 .4610101 3.94 0.000 .9135851 2.720711

q4 -1.012214 .4661325 -2.17 0.030 -1.925817 -.0986111

q2 .3147099 .4400608 0.72 0.475 -.5477934 1.177213

q1 1.180826 .523134 2.26 0.024 .1555026 2.20615

income 2.025981 .3988551 5.08 0.000 1.244239 2.807723

religion 3.224222 .4001478 8.06 0.000 2.439947 4.008498

education .5923099 .4403632 1.35 0.179 -.270786 1.455406

age .0748126 .0131486 5.69 0.000 .0490419 .1005833

gender -1.28021 .3852036 -3.32 0.001 -2.035195 -.5252247


Robust

Log pseudolikelihood = -124.39109 Pseudo R2 = 0.5706

Prob > chi2 = 0.0000

Wald chi2(14) = 132.53


80

8 Appendix 8

(*) dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1

q10* .2510282 .05401 4.65 0.000 .145178 .356879 .357616

q9* -.1730602 .14587 -1.19 0.235 -.458959 .112838 .134658

q8* .0385764 .11276 0.34 0.732 -.182434 .259587 .119205

q7* -.4699614 .19012 -2.47 0.013 -.842588 -.097334 .064018

q6* .0651341 .08036 0.81 0.418 -.092369 .222638 .10596

q5* .2958511 .0744 3.98 0.000 .150034 .441668 .518764

q4* -.1502946 .06705 -2.24 0.025 -.281712 -.018877 .602649

q3* -.0124831 .05687 -0.22 0.826 -.123951 .098985 .774834

q2* .0527601 .07738 0.68 0.495 -.098896 .204416 .774834

q1* .238153 .11687 2.04 0.042 .009096 .46721 .83223

income* .4160612 .0836 4.98 0.000 .252206 .579917 .803532

religion* .6071716 .06198 9.80 0.000 .485699 .728644 .682119

educat~n* .0889839 .0611 1.46 0.145 -.030764 .208732 .364238

age .0118614 .00227 5.23 0.000 .007414 .016309 32.7108

gender* -.2085868 .06446 -3.24 0.001 -.334922 -.082251 .472406

variable dy/dx Std. Err. z P>|z| [ 95% C.I. ] X

= .8027271

y = Pr(charity) (predict)

Marginal effects after logit

81

9 Appendix 9

.

chi2(3) = 9.69212 Prob > chi2 = 0.0214

Likelihood ratio test of rho21 = rho31 = rho32 = 0:

rho32 .2582776 .1074206 2.40 0.016 .0386538 .4540981

rho31 .0949607 .0934812 1.02 0.310 -.0894 .2730297

rho21 .1803525 .0951494 1.90 0.058 -.0104119 .35845

/atrho32 .264262 .1150985 2.30 0.022 .038673 .489851

/atrho31 .0952477 .0943318 1.01 0.313 -.0896393 .2801346

/atrho21 .182347 .0983484 1.85 0.064 -.0104123 .3751063

_cons -2.687164 .3342485 -8.04 0.000 -3.342279 -2.032049

q10 .1597776 .1757561 0.91 0.363 -.184698 .5042532

q9 .2377875 .2929474 0.81 0.417 -.3363788 .8119538

q8 -.3715744 .3444368 -1.08 0.281 -1.046658 .3035092

q7 -1.311663 .4672054 -2.81 0.005 -2.227368 -.395957

q6 -.0357675 .3076036 -0.12 0.907 -.6386595 .5671245

q5 .4631999 .2147075 2.16 0.031 .0423809 .884019

q4 -.2702772 .2276444 -1.19 0.235 -.7164519 .1758975

q3 .2554746 .2241028 1.14 0.254 -.1837589 .6947081

q2 .0865247 .2051161 0.42 0.673 -.3154955 .4885449

q1 .3783863 .2511945 1.51 0.132 -.1139458 .8707185

income .635186 .1728773 3.67 0.000 .2963527 .9740193

religion 1.346427 .1746986 7.71 0.000 1.004024 1.68883

education .3026534 .1698641 1.78 0.075 -.0302741 .635581

age .027377 .0065585 4.17 0.000 .0145226 .0402314

gender -.4146986 .1516726 -2.73 0.006 -.7119714 -.1174258

moneydonation

_cons -2.060114 .3462353 -5.95 0.000 -2.738723 -1.381506

q10 .2034038 .1596413 1.27 0.203 -.1094875 .516295

q9 -.3279584 .2921439 -1.12 0.262 -.9005499 .2446332

q8 .1708776 .349766 0.49 0.625 -.5146512 .8564064

q7 .3972831 .4006326 0.99 0.321 -.3879425 1.182509

q6 -.2813875 .2879148 -0.98 0.328 -.8456901 .282915

q5 .2532597 .2229493 1.14 0.256 -.1837129 .6902324

q4 .3445398 .231622 1.49 0.137 -.109431 .7985106

q3 -.1334505 .2728226 -0.49 0.625 -.6681731 .4012721

q2 -.3627593 .2496138 -1.45 0.146 -.8519934 .1264748

q1 .1385695 .3458843 0.40 0.689 -.5393512 .8164902

income .4825038 .2439849 1.98 0.048 .0043021 .9607055

religion .7217603 .2256694 3.20 0.001 .2794565 1.164064

education .1173318 .1742109 0.67 0.501 -.2241153 .4587789

age -.0037099 .0066474 -0.56 0.577 -.0167386 .0093188

gender -.038803 .1625932 -0.24 0.811 -.3574798 .2798737

giftintime

_cons -2.261066 .3291613 -6.87 0.000 -2.906211 -1.615922

q10 .1913057 .1471274 1.30 0.194 -.0970587 .47967

q9 .3580664 .2728608 1.31 0.189 -.1767308 .8928637

q8 .0176964 .3407005 0.05 0.959 -.6500643 .685457

q7 -.719733 .4321988 -1.67 0.096 -1.566827 .127361

q6 .1588256 .2807233 0.57 0.572 -.391382 .7090333

q5 .3690725 .2021084 1.83 0.068 -.0270527 .7651977

q4 -.172364 .2029283 -0.85 0.396 -.5700961 .2253681

q3 -.0439215 .2308314 -0.19 0.849 -.4963427 .4084998

q2 .3851184 .2144501 1.80 0.073 -.0351962 .8054329

q1 -.0890494 .2541126 -0.35 0.726 -.5871009 .409002

income .4526875 .1922394 2.35 0.019 .0759052 .8294699

religion .7771537 .1724273 4.51 0.000 .4392024 1.115105

education .2658538 .1550097 1.72 0.086 -.0379597 .5696673

age .0073961 .0059216 1.25 0.212 -.00421 .0190022

gender -.0523802 .1411424 -0.37 0.711 -.3290143 .2242539

giftinkind

Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]

Robust

Log pseudolikelihood = -601.23971 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000

Wald chi2(45) = 264.08

Multivariate probit (SML, # draws = 500) Number of obs = 453

82

10 Appendix 10

Charity Organization Sector:

(E1-E5, Y1-Y4)

E1: The organization provides me the way how money will be used clearly

Valid Frequency Percent

1 1 0.6

2 17 10.7

3 12 7.5

4 82 51.6

5 47 29.6

159 100.0

E2: The organization has clearly operation purpose


1 2 1.3

2 11 6.9

3 16 10.1

4 71 44.7

5 59 37.1

159 100.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 2 3 4 5

Frequency E1

83

E3: The organization uses money effectively


1 4 2.5

2 17 10.7

3 16 10.1

4 79 49.7

5 43 27.0

159 100.0

E4: The organization keep in touch frequently


1 4 2.5

2 17 10.7

3 21 13.2

4 91 57.2

5 26 16.4

159 100.0

2 1116

71

59

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3 4 5

Frequency E2

4 17 16

79

43

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5

Frequency E3

84

E5: The organization make me feel like I’m helping to solve problem


1 3 1.9

2 19 11.9

3 28 17.6

4 83 52.2

5 26 16.4

159 100.0

4

1721

91

26

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5

Frequency E4

3

19

28

83

26

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 2 3 4 5

Frequency E5

85

Y1: I volunteer my time to this organization


1 0 0

2 17 10.7

3 30 18.9

4 81 50.9

5 31 19.5

159 100.0

Y2: I will be a loyal supporter to this organization


1 8 5.0

2 20 12.6

3 21 13.2

4 87 54.7

5 23 14.5

159 100.0

0

17

30

81

31

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 2 3 4 5

Frequency Y1

86

Y3: I care about long-term success of this organization


1 11 6.9

2 18 11.3

3 20 12.6

4 85 53.5

5 25 15.7

159 100.0

820 21

87

23

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5

Frequency Y2

1118 20

85

25

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 2 3 4 5

Frequency

87

Y4: I continue to donate next year.


1 19 11.9

2 11 6.9

3 17 10.7

4 83 52.2

5 29 18.2

159 100.0

19

1117

83

29

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 2 3 4 5

Frequency

e onomi s of harita le giving: understanding the...

Documents