The usual assumptions in economics can really be summarized with one simple phrase " pursuit of rational self interest." This may lead one to conclude that economics cannot help us understand charitable giving, which is traditionally associated with altruism. However, this is simply not the case as it can be modeled that individuals have a preference for giving! Through this little tweak of the standard model, standard economic analysis applies! This can help us answer certain question, such as exactly what is this preference? Is it pure altruism? Is it based on a internal satisfaction people feel when giving or perhaps it is all merely conspicuous consumption, where individuals give to show off their social status. This paper discusses these possible causes and how to test them. For instance it reports that Furthermore, we can model the income effects of charitable giving . Furthermore, economics may be of further use to us, in determining HOW exactly we should give. Should we go out and buy a can of soup or donate some creamed asparagus you had in your pantry? Perhaps it would be better to simply donated $5 and call it a day. Economics suggests that the cash donation is likely preferred, as charities know their needs better than their donors. For instance, charities may know the families in their care on average have high blood pressure, so Campbell's soups (which are high in sodium and a common donation) maybe out of the question. Furthermore, charities may be able to negotiate special deals with companies who are interested in PR and could potentially avoid sales taxes and such, allowing them to purchase foods much cheaper. Finally as Feed America notes here . So I open it up to discussion, how do you think we can use the tool of economics to better understand and improve charitable donating? Also, it's an nice interesting break from the over done inflation threads and all the socialism vs. capitalism threads that tend to dominate economic forums.
I was unaware that we need to 'better understand and improve' charitable giving? Charitable giving is a personal experience which should not be tied to economics or any other behavioral assumptions. Charitable giving might be volunteering labor, donating an old coat, dropping a can of soup in a collection bin, donating cash in various forms, paying less taxes, or even gleaning fruit from an orchard and forwarding it to the needy. It is stupid to try to classify who gives the most, the best, etc. Once you do this you lose the concept of 'personal giving' and start to create expectations. I give in various forms every year, from volunteering to material donations to cash donations, not always the same people/groups, not always the same amounts, but always giving something back to the community. This is just ME and everyone else will find their own comfort zone...
Do you what charities to be run efficiently? If so, then the tool of economics can be helpful. We'd be testing assumptions, not just assuming them to be true. Furthermore, the fact Charitable giving is a personal experience doesn't really mean anything. So is shopping. So is pursuing employment. All of these things can be understood within economics. Furthermore, you are taking a moral stance, without any real support for it. You aren't wrong because morality is subjective, but you haven't defended your viewpoint at all. Just stated it. I'm sure everyone know what charitable giving means. However, it may be the case that some of this service can be done more efficiently. For example, as I outlined above people working in say a food bank know the dietary needs of the people they help better than you do. Dropping off a can of soup may be less helpful than say, dropping off $5. Studies like this help inform people have they can best help people through charity. Keep in mind not everyone has your values of "well I give to charity, who cares how much it actually helps" (as you object to using economics to determining how efficient giving is). These expectations are formed through one's morals and are thus subjective. If this information causes you to change your actions, that is your choice. Furthermore, I would argue that removing ignorance helps promote more moral behavior. Furthermore, it may be useful to know if say, government spending on the poor will crowd out private charity, something the article I linked to refers to. Surely, there is more to charitable giving than signalling you care? That is ACTUALLY HELPING PEOPLE. Furthermore, we may not actually be classifying who "gives best" For example, if you prefer to give to who you feel are more welling meaning but more poorly run charities, I cannot classify that as "giving worse" than giving to better run but more morally questionable charities. And you don't wonder if maybe, you could help more people with the same amount of effort? Not going to lie, I find the "my intention are good, who cares how much I'm actually helping" viewpoint rather distasteful. In my opinion, are actions are best when they have good intentions and good consequences.
This thread is so far off base no one has interest in responding. Yeah right, you want to force charities to be efficient according to 'your' rules...good luck buddy. You're going to change all the religious institutions who receive billion$ each year? You're going to change how Goodwill and Salvation Army collect stuff? You're going to change how those thousands of Santa's who ring bells in front of stores during the holiday collect spare change? Lastly, the last thing I want in life is 'you' judging my 'intentions' and I don't care what is distasteful to you...
Nice irrelevant attack! Personally, I'd guess no one has responded because this can't be twisted into being political. No where did I advocate forcing charities to be run a certain way. edit:Ironically, you're now judging my intentions! However, you've stated far more about yours I'd say, with the whole "who cares if some types charitable giving are better (in the sense they help people more), don't see which ones are." Just a question, what "rules" was a forcing on charities? All I did was outline how one could help charities most efficiently. Suggesting for people that care whether or not their giving actually helps is very different from mandating something. Of course my post in this forum won't change that. I thought people might like to talk about something a little different than capitalism vs. socialism, which is beaten to DEATH in this forum, without anything new EVER being said. I'd actually say, this thread has a better chance of influence how an individual donates to charity than any of those capitalism vs. socialism threads have a chance of influencing anything. I would suggest however, that someone who donated money to say a food bank would be helping that food bank more than someone who just donated some creamed asparagus that had been in their cabinet for years. Or that cash donation would be more helpful than someone who bought $5 of food in a grocery store. I would however, say all donations are better than no donations. This sentence is telling in showing you haven't the foggiest idea what I am talking about. If you did, you'd realize I was saying monetary donation was probably more helpful to charities than other types of donations. This is completely consistent with those "thousands of Santas" If you don't care about what I find distasteful, why are you getting so mad. Also, if you are so upset about being judging your intentions and such, you probably shouldn't be posting on a political forum. Just sayin'. Furthermore, I did state you aren't "wrong" to a specific set of beliefs. So you really are being kinda harsh here. IMO. I have a question for you. Can you justify your beliefs at all? The fact you don't care how much you are helping people as long as you feel like you are?
It wasn't an attack...it was a statement of reality. Charities don't need anyone's help...they do what they do within the constraints of the charitable arena. If you look through PF you will see there are all sorts of categories so obviously people like to talk about things other than 'capitalism vs. socialism'. Food banks take both cash and 'creamed asparagus' and it's their choice. You can't stereotype the needs to charities; some take only cash, some take tangible items, some take both. 'Monetary donations' solve some issues but not all issues. I'm not mad so why go there? Again...no one cares about you wanting to force changes on charitable giving. Charitable giving and charities are not a science...they are people helping other people through myriad means...
While I have no objections to voluntary charity I oppose forced contributions on the basis of principle. That aside, it is my contention that the pursuit of rational self interest (e.g., making the most of yourself in life) leads to a far better outcome than outright charity as it creates greater wealth and opportunity for everyone. Steve Jobs could have become a social worker and helped a few people or created a giant corporation that employed millions.
Very sorry, but the productivity is for the charity. Economy itself doesn't have the function of charity.
