Search

Do government expenditures shift private philanthropic donations to particular fields of welfare? We examine this association in the first cross-country study to correlate government expenditures with the level of individual private donations to different fields of welfare using the Individual International Philanthropy Database (IIPD, 2016; N country = 19; N individual = 126,923). The results of the descriptive and multilevel analyses support the idea of crosswise crowding-in; in countries where government expenditures in health and social protection are higher, more donors give to support the environment, international aid, and the arts. The level of giving to different sectors, however, is not associated with government expenditures. The results reject the crowding-out hypothesis and provide a nuanced picture of the relationship between government funding and philanthropic giving across different fields of social welfare.

When are donations to non-profit organizations responsive to changes in government funding? This article examines relations between government financial support and charitable donations in an innovative mixed-methods design. A unique data set is obtained, matching individual-level survey data from the Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey with media coverage of government support from LexisNexis and organizational-level information from the Dutch Central Bureau on Fundraising from 2002 to 2014. An interpretative analysis shows the ways in which people are informed about changes in public funding, which is assumed to be a prerequisite for donors to change their donations. Media coverage often does not reflect actual changes in government support. Additionally, regression analyses are deployed to examine how changes in government support and media reports are associated with changes in donations. The results show that responses to public funding are dependent on the non-profit context. Donations in the fields of social services, health, and nature are displaced by government support, while crowding-out does not occur in the field of international development. Even in fields where crowding-out is more likely to occur, the increase in donations does not offset the decrease in public support. The conclusions nuance popular beliefs about the direct consequences that policy changes have for public awareness and participation.

Women’s philanthropy has drawn much attention during recent years, mostly in studies from the United States or the United Kingdom. Relevant issues are to what extent gender differences in charitable giving exist in another national context and how these differences can be explained. In this study, we examine female and male giving in the Netherlands, using a representative sample of Dutch households ( N = 1,692) from the 2010 wave of the Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey (GINPS). We conduct bivariate and multivariate regression analyses to test for gender differences and the extent to which they are mediated by values, costs, solicitation, and social pressure. Females turn out to be more likely to give and to give to more different sectors, which can be attributed to their higher prosocial values of empathic concern and the principle of care. Contrary to recent findings in the United States, Dutch males donate higher amounts than Dutch females.

Theories of moral development posit that an internalized moral value that one should help those in need—the principle of care—evokes helping behaviour in situations where empathic concern does not. Examples of such situations are helping behaviours that involve cognitive deliberation and planning, that benefit others who are known only in the abstract, and who are out–group members. Charitable giving to help people in need is an important helping behaviour that has these characteristics. Therefore we hypothesized that the principle of care would be positively associated with charitable giving to help people in need, and that the principle of care would mediate the empathic concern–giving relationship. The two hypotheses were tested across four studies. The studies used four different samples, including three nationally representative samples from the American and Dutch populations, and included both self–reports of giving (Studies 1–3), giving observed in a survey experiment (Study 3), and giving observed in a laboratory experiment (Study 4). The evidence from these studies indicated that a moral principle to care for others was associated with charitable giving to help people in need and mediated the empathic concern–giving relationship. © 2016 The Authors. European Journal of Personality published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association of Personality Psychology

This article describes the history, development, and current position of Dutch foundations. In the past, the philanthropy sector and foundations initiated many nonprofit services in the Netherlands. Along with the growth of the welfare state, philanthropy was sidelined. Due to public funding, the pillarized Dutch nonprofit sector extended strongly. However, despite its large scale it shows a special feature. Most nonprofits are still privately governed institutions although publicly funded. In the 1980s, governmental budget cuts forced the nonprofits to embrace the market as income source. A dualistic model got dominancy or state or market. At the end of the 20th century, however, philanthropy revived and a new philanthropy sector emerged. The article addresses the issue of the role of philanthropy in changing (European) welfare states. Are we experiencing further marketization and privatization—toward a so-called Anglo-Saxon shareholder model—or are we seeing a continuation of the so-called Rhineland, multistakeholder model of government, market, and philanthropy?

This study is in intitial attempt to map philanthropy in Europe and presents a first overall estimation of the European philanthropic sector. Containing an overview of what we know about research on the philanthropy sector, it provides data and and assesment of the data on giving by households, bequests, foundations, corporations and charity lotteries in 20 European countries. Despite the promising signs of an emerging philanthropy sector in Europe, it is still a phenomenon and a sector tah is not very well understood. As a matter of fact, besides the anectotical glimpses from national studies and the great work that has been carried out on the subdomains of philanthropy, we know little about its actual scope, size and forms in Europe. For a better discussen and assessment of the (potential) role that philanthropy can play in solving societal problems, we need a clear picture of the size and scope of philanthropy. What amounts are being donated by households, through bequests, corporations, foundations, and charity lotteries, and to what goals? To what extent can we draw a picture of the philanthropy sector in Europe, what is de quality of the data involved? In answering these questions, this publication aims to stimulate researchers, policy makers and philanthropy professionals in fostering research on philanthropy and to inspire to exchange knowledge and information.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall – who is the most generous of us all? As if it were a beauty contest, journalists often ask us at the Center for Philanthropic Studies which country in Europe gives the highest amounts to charity.

With the growing body of literature on governance styles in which nonprofit organizations are involved in creating and implementing public services, there is a need for robust evidence on the effects of public funding on nonprofit revenues. This paper systematically reviews previous studies on the crowding-out hypothesis, which holds that private charitable donations are lower in situations of higher government support and vice versa. We find that about two-thirds of previous estimates find a negative correlation (crowding-out), while one-third of the estimates find a positive correlation (crowding-in). The results are strongly shaped by the research methods that are used. In experiments, a $1 increase in government support is associated with an average $0.64 decrease in private donations, while nonexperimental data analyses find an average increase of $0.06. Random-effects regression models show that, contrary to arguments that are prevalent in the literature, studies that take subsidies to organizations as a measure of government support are less likely to estimate crowding-out than studies that use a measure of direct government expenditures. Central government support is associated with higher charitable donations, while measures that include multiple levels of government tend to find negative correlations. The results challenge the consistency of prior research findings and demonstrate the contextual dependence of the validity of the crowding-out hypothesis.

Results of the European Foundations for Research and Innovation (EUFORI) Study.

Mantelzorg is de hulp die mensen elkaar geven vanwege de onderlinge band die zij hebben. Dit lijkt een heldere definitie, maar het is niet eenvoudig om eenduidig vast te stellen wie er mantelzorg geven. De manier waarop je hiernaar vraagt kan tot grote verschillen in de gerapporteerde prevalentie van mantelzorg leiden. In deze bijdrage gaan we na in hoeverre verschillende vragen met verschillende schattingen van mantelzorg samenhangen.

The decline of the welfare state in Western Europe has led to an increasing role both for citizen-led initiatives and for philanthropy in easing, solving or preventing social problems. Care and everyday help is being provided by strangers - people driven by enthusiasm and commitment but unfamiliar with the pitfalls of social intervention. Utilizing research on social intervention over the past twenty-five years, this book presents a new theoretical framework for a number of basic principles which are paramount in social intervention at the individual level, at group level and at societal level. Taking Simmel's ideas of the stranger or third element as inspiration, the authors argue the importance of reflection on the role and significance of this third element - the advisor, the consultant, the social worker, or the middle-manager - when analyzing and improving the methods used in social intervention. This book will appeal to academics, researchers, practitioners, students and policymakers who are interested social intervention.

Do political preferences reflect individual differences in interpersonal orientations? Are conservatives less other–regarding than liberals? On the basis of past theorising, we hypothesised that, relative to individuals with prosocial orientations, those with individualistic and competitive orientations should be more likely to endorse conservative political preferences and vote for conservative parties. This hypothesis was supported in three independent studies conducted in Italy (Studies 1 and 2) and the Netherlands (Study 3). Consistent with hypotheses, a cross–sectional study revealed that individualists and competitors endorsed stronger conservative political preferences than did prosocials; moreover, this effect was independent of the association between need for structure and conservative political preferences (Study 1). The predicted association of social value orientation and voting was observed in both a four–week (Study 2) and an eight–month (Study 3) longitudinal study. Taken together, the findings provide novel support for the claim that interpersonal orientations, as measured with experimental games rooted in game theory, are important to understanding differences in ideology at the societal level. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Using survey data from the Netherlands, we find that Muslims have relatively high levels of religious philanthropic behavior and relatively low levels of secular philanthropic behavior, whereas Hindus have relatively low levels of religious philanthropic behavior and higher levels of secular philanthropic behavior. Results indicate that the community explanation and the conviction explanation of the relationship between religion and philanthropic behavior are both valid to some extent when it comes to differences in philanthropic behavior between Christians, Muslims, and Hindus. In addition, we find a relationship between group orientation in worship rituals on the relation between religion and philanthropic behavior. The more group-oriented the worship rituals, the stronger the relation between religion and philanthropic behavior. The results suggest that Durkheim's theory (La Suicide: Etude de Sociologie. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1897) may only be valid in a Christian context. © 2011 Religious Research Association, Inc.

F munity foundations becoming worldwide players.GIVING AS A FREE-MARKET EXPRESSIONBut why do particular business people takepart in these activities? Firstly, the foundationmarket is a free market. Foundations belong,according to philanthropy experts Anheierand Leat, to the “freest institutions of theworld, as they are not held accountable by thegeneral public, political or market forces”. Second,the world of foundations is a playgroundfor entrepreneurial philanthropists who areeager to introduce business principles into theNGO sector. And remember: giving is not justgiving away – it’s investing.The founder of the academic discipline ofphilanthropy, Bob Payton, sees a particularrole for philanthropy. Together with his co-authorMoody, he stresses the “advocacy” and”civic role” of philanthropy, which is essentialin democracies: “We have argued that philanthropyplays an essential role in defining, advocatingand achieving the public good.Philanthropic actions are a key part of the ongoingpublic deliberation about what thepublic good is and how best to pursue it...Both government and philanthropy providepublic goods. Sometimes they do so in partnership– government money is a primarysource of funding for non-profit organizations– and other times philanthropy steps into provide public goods... when both the marketand government fail to do so. Democracyneeds philanthropy because democracy is notsimply a political phenomenon”.More than ever before, with the troubles facingthe world today, democratic forces needto act. Foundations do.

This article presents and discusses the findings of a survey conducted among Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) in most of the twenty-seven countries within the European Union, which studied the extent and success of fundraising from philanthropic sources for research. Our data demonstrate that success in fundraising is related to institutional privilege (in terms of the universities' reputation, wealth and networks) as well as factors relating to the internal organization, activities and cultures of universities (such as the extent of investment in fundraising activities) and factors relating to the external social, economic and political environments (such as national cultural attitudes towards philanthropy and the existence of tax breaks for charitable giving). Our findings identify the existence of a 'Matthew effect', such that privilege begets privilege, when it comes to successful fundraising for university research. We argue that, despite the existence of some untapped philanthropic potential, not all universities are equally endowed with the same fundraising capacities. The article concludes by suggesting that policy-makers pay more heed to the structural constraints within which fundraising takes place, to ensure that policies that seek to promote philanthropy are realistic. © 2011 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.

textabstractAbstract This is the first of two articles in which we present a comprehensive review of the multi-disciplinary academic literature on philanthropy, identifying the predictors of charitable giving. For each predictor, we discuss the evidence for the mechanisms that may explain why the predictor is correlated with giving. We conclude with a brief agenda for future research. In this first article we present the evidence on the relationship of giving with religion, education, age, and socialization.

Philanthropy is growing rapidly in Europe and in most of the countries in the industrialized world. A well-known phenomenon from history, philanthropy has made a come-back in recent years and is finding new form and meaning in an emerging ‘civil society’. But how do we define this new ‘modern’ philanthropy? Does it differ from concepts such as ‘charity’ and the ‘third sector’? Has it already earned a place at the table of EC policymakers? Is this ‘old’ but ‘new’ phenomenon awakening scholarly interest? These questions are discussed in this article. Philanthropy is defined by applying theoretical insights on the concept of philanthropy. Scholarly interest is measured by using the attention paid to philanthropy in leading English-language political science journals between 2000 and 2008 as a yardstick. The results show that though philanthropy is a distinct concept, it receives very little scholarly attention in these journals. The article concludes by arguing that the growth of philanthropy today offers a promising challenge for policymakers in welfare states provided that ‘private actions for the public good’ can be incorporated in the welfare-state paradigm. Points for practitioners Philanthropy is playing an increasingly stronger role in welfare states. However, governments and public administrators searching for new ways to fund welfare services have still to fully recognize the potential of philanthropy. In addition to commercialization and the market, a non-profit sector based more on philanthropic revenue could be an interesting option for delivering services. Public administrators will therefore have to rise to the challenging task of creating a legal, economic and cultural framework that will stimulate and enhance philanthropy.

Effects of material, social, and psychological incentives for giving and volunteering as well as socio-demographic and personality characteristics are studied in a factorial survey (n=1248). Social incentives for giving strongly increase intentions to give money and time. Requests for more efficient ways of contributing as well as requests for contributions to local as opposed to (inter)national organizations are also more likely to be honored. More highly educated and more empathic respondents were more likely to intend giving and volunteering. © 2009 Elsevier Inc.

We study differences in contributions of time and money to churches and non-religious nonprofit organizations between members of different religious denominations in the Netherlands. We hypothesize that contributions to religious organizations are based on involvement in the religious community, while contributions to non-religious organizations are more likely to be rooted in prosocial values such as altruism, equality, and responsibility for the common good, which are socialized in religious traditions. Data from the first wave of the Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey (n=1, 964) support the hypotheses. We find higher levels of volunteerism and generosity among members of Protestant churches than among Catholics and the non-religious. Higher contributions to church among members of Protestant churches are mostly due to higher levels of church attendance and social pressure to contribute. In contrast, higher contributions to non-religious organizations by members of Protestant churches, especially charitable donations, are mostly due to prosocial values.

Using data from 1,373 households participating in the 2005 Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey, this paper examines the characteristics of educational donors in comparison with other types of charitable donors and with nondonors. Charitable giving is quite common in the Netherlands, but there is no established higher education advancement profession. Similar to US findings, Dutch educational donors were among the most generous, giving more than other donors did to religion and other noneducational charities. Educational gifts were, however, much smaller in the Netherlands. Probit and Tobit analyses revealed the dominant importance of the presence of children in the home in predicting educational charitable giving. Dutch educational giving may be more focused on small gifts supporting extra-curricular primary school activities, rather than large gifts to higher education. The absence of a strong positive effect of graduate education, such as was found in previous US research on educational giving, may result from a difference in philanthropic cultures regarding higher education.

The central purpose of the present research is to examine the ability of social value orientation (i.e., prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientation), as measured with methods rooted in game theory (i.e., decomposed games), to predict real-life prosocial behavior. Consistent with hypotheses, results revealed that individual differences in social value orientation are predictive of various donations. Relative to individualists and competitors, prosocials reported to engage in a greater number of donations, especially donations to organizations aimed at helping the poor and the ill. Results are discussed in terms of theory and methodology regarding the individual differences in social value orientation, as well as in terms of societal implications for enhancing donations to noble causes.

This study focuses on the effects of news and advertising expenditures on corporate reputation. Both advertisement expenditures and the tone (or tenor) of business news exert a positive influence on corporate reputation. In addition, advertising expenditures were found to magnify the effects of the tone of the news. In particular, moderately educated customers are susceptible to the tone of the news. These research results follow from a repeated yearly survey regarding the corporate reputation of 10 focal companies, and from advertising expenditures and a daily content analysis of the tone of the news in the media used by the respondents. Because advertisements magnify the effects of negative news, negative news renders advertisements unfit, especially for moderately informed consumers. The research results suggest that advertisers should wait for a storm of negative news to subside before advertising. They may monitor word of mouth to anticipate such a storm.

Country report on the contribution of Dutch foundations for Research and Innovation in the Netherlands. Proceedings from the European Foundations for Research and Innovation (EUFORI) Study.

One of the key questions in the science of philanthropy is to what extent donations to charity are motivated by altruism – concern for public benefits, including the well-being of recipients – and warm glow – concerns for private benefits, including emotional gratification. To disentangle altruism and warm glow as motivations for giving we propose a crowding-out field experiment in the Netherlands, for which funding from the Science of Philanthropy Initiative was granted. The field experiment also seeks to test whether empathic concern for recipients and an appeal to the moral principle of care affect the level of crowding-out. This report documents the steps taken towards the execution of the field experiment. In three pilot experiments we developed and tested materials and procedures required for a valid and reliable test. In the first experiment we tested a method commonly used in social psychology to induce empathy, finding no significant effects on a reliable measure of the temporary state of empathy among participants in the Netherlands. However, we did find that inductions of empathy and the principle of care affected the level of crowding-out. In the second experiment among participants in the Netherlands we tested a set of subtle manipulations of warm glow motivations and developed a reliable measure of the temporary state of moral care similar to the measure of the state of empathic concern. In addition, we tested a procedure developed in a previous experiment with charitable giving designed to measure altruism and warm glow motives, finding no meaningful crowd-out. In the third experiment we tested among US participants whether an appeal to the principle of care incorporated in three visually different versions of a mission statement of a large international development charity (Oxfam America) affected the principle of care, empathic concern, personal distress, and several evaluations of the charity. We found consistently positive though modest effects of a text-only version. Based on these experiments we propose a fourth experiment testing a text-only manipulation of the principle of care.

De totale waarde van giften van geld en goederen door Nederlandse huishoudens bedraagt in 2009 € 1.938 miljoen. Het bedrag is vrijwel gelijk aan het bedrag over 2007 (€ 1.945 miljoen). Gecorrigeerd voor de infl atie in de afgelopen jaren is de waarde van de giften en goederen die zijn gegeven door huishoudens in Nederland licht gedaald (-4,2%). De giften van huishoudens vertegenwoordigen 0,34% van het BBP. Gemiddeld geven alle huishoudens in 2009 giften in de vorm van geld ter waarde van € 210. Dit bedrag is vergeleken met 2007 gedaald met 9% en is terug op het niveau van 2005. 87% van de Nederlandse huishoudens geeft geld aan goededoelenorganisaties. Hoewel de waarde van giften aan organisaties op het gebied van kerk en levensbeschouwing is gedaald ontvangen zij nog steeds het grootste gedeelte van alle giften van huishoudens (43%). Organisaties op het terrein van internationale hulp en gezondheid ontvangen elk 15% van de giften. Op lokaal niveau wordt het vaakst gegeven aan organisaties in de sector sport. Giften aan lokale initiatieven voor internationale hulp volgen op de tweede plaats maar zijn minder populair geworden (van 10% naar 7%). Nederlandse huishoudens geven nog vaak op traditionele manieren zoals de huis aan-huis collecte en direct mail, maar deze manieren van geven worden wel minder gangbaar. Nog steeds geven huishoudens het vaakst via een collecte aan de deur (83%), maar deze manier van geven is minder populair geworden. In 2005 gaf nog 90% op deze manier. Direct mail levert ook minder vaak giften op (17% in 2009 tegen 27% in 2005). Slechts 8% geeft in 2009 via internet. Voor autochtonen is een profiel gemaakt van huishoudens die vaker en meer geven. De respondenten in deze huishoudens zijn ouder, hebben een middelbare of hogere opleiding, een gemiddeld of hoger inkomen, een eigen huis, zijn protestant en gaan frequenter naar de kerk. Deze huishoudens worden vaker gevraagd door goededoelenorganisaties om giften te doen, ervaren meer sociale druk om te geven, en hebben meer vertrouwen in goededoelenorganisaties. Bovendien vinden de respondenten in deze huishoudens het belangrijker om anderen te helpen en voelen zij zich meer verantwoordelijk voor de samenleving als geheel. Geefgedrag is een uiting van deze betrokkenheid. Nederlanders spreken weinig met anderen over geven aan goededoelenorganisaties en weten dan ook meestal niet wat anderen geven. Het geefgedrag van anderen wordt onderschat. Er zijn meer Nederlanders die veel of erg veel vertrouwen hebben in goededoelenorganisaties dan Nederlanders die geen of weinig vertrouwen hebben. Huishoudens die meer vertrouwen kregen in goededoelenorganisaties en die de indruk hebben gekregen dat andere huishoudens meer zijn gaan geven, zijn zelf ook meer gaan geven. Onder alle huishoudens is het vertrouwen in goededoelenorganisaties gedaald, terwijl Nederlanders positiever zijn gaan denken over het geefgedrag van anderen. Het negatieve effect van het dalende vertrouwen en het positieve effect van de hogere verwachtingen houden elkaar ongeveer in evenwicht, waardoor het geefgedrag gemiddeld niet veranderd is.

Prosocial behavior involves costs for the self and results in benefits for others. Altruistic acts confer benefits to others, but net costs to the self. Different types of prosocial behavior are distinguished, depending on whether it is enacted by an individual or as part of a group effort, and whether it is first order (direct contributions) or second order (sanctioning) behavior. Six theoretical approaches are outlined (evolutionary, rationalist, structural, institutional, situational, and individual differences). They explain the evolution of prosocial behavior and its variation across groups, contexts, and situations. Avenues for future research are discussed.

According to a popular version of social capital theory, civic engagement should produce generalized trust among citizens. We put this theory to the test by examining the causal connection between civic engagement and generalized trust using multiple methods and multiple (prospective) panel datasets. We found participants to be more trusting. This was mostly likely caused by selection effects: the causal effects of civic engagement on trust were very small or nonsignificant. In the cases where small causal effects were found, they turned out not to last. We found no differences across types of organizations and only minor variations across countries.

Grote gevers onderzoek. Bilateraal onderzoek naar de wensen, behoeften en tevredenheid van grote gevers en de gekozen strategie en perceptie door non-profit organisaties.

Entrepreneurial philanthropy gives the impression of being a paradox because personal gains and societal benefits are generally seen as opposing forces, which particularly will become clear when philanthropreneurs emerge in the non-profit sector. It is suggested this charitable giving with venture bent might affect an alignment of both worlds. What will happen: a culture clash or a smooth transition? On what issues a partnership is easy to reach, and what are causes for concern? To answer these questions, a literature study has been carried out to construct a preliminary “theoretical framework of entrepreneurial philanthropy alignment”. In this paper a framework has been tested among seven Dutch senior executives of non-profit organisations and five philanthropreneurs. A series of semi-structured interviews were held to explore the variables that could determine the degree of their alignment. These variables were grouped in three domains: 1) Leadership, the linking path; 2) Strategy, the guiding path; and 3) Culture, the driving path. The outcome gave insights to modify and upgrade the theoretical framework, and provided support to study alignment maturity more extensively in a subsequent survey.

The Netherlands has a rich philanthropic history. However, since the introduction of the welfare state during the first half of the twentieth century, the Dutch government took over responsibility for the provision of most public goods and services. In 2007, the Dutch government spent 20 per cent of GDP on public social expenditures. Despite the strong state involvement in the production of public goods and services, philanthropy still thrives in the Netherlands: at least 55,000 nonprofits exist within a Dutch population of 16.6 million. This large and vibrant nonprofit sector, along with the presence of a small but very generous Protestant (Reformed) population, stimulates philanthropic giving in the Netherlands. Nonprofit organizations in the Netherlands serve a mainly complementary role to the state, which is reflected in the donation behavior of the Dutch. People in the Netherlands typically donate to nonprofit organizations active in fields that are not considered core state responsibilities, such as education, public health, and public and social benefits. Over the course of 2005, 94 per cent of the Dutch donated to one or more charitable organizations, donating on average 338 US dollars. Higher educated, female, and religiously affiliated Dutch people are all more likely to make a donation. Higher donations in the Netherlands are made by those who are older, have a higher education, have a higher income, own their home, are religiously affiliated (especially Protestants), attend religious services more often, have more trust in people, and are women. There are two main factors which potentially inhibit Dutch philanthropic giving in comparison to giving in other countries. First, the high level of public spending on the nonprofit sector has created a strong ‘subsidy-dependence’ among nonprofit organizations in the Netherlands. Since the economic crisis of 2008, the need for nonprofits to acquire income from fees and donations has increased, and it remains to be seen whether all organizations are equipped to deal with this rather sudden shift in funding sources. Second, philanthropic giving is inhibited in the Netherlands due to its charitable deduction system. The existing threshold for charitable tax deductions limits the number of households who use this stimulating measure, which in 2005 was only five per cent of the Dutch population.

This paper replicates and refines the finding that subsidies for charitable contributions of a rebate type are less effective than matching subsidies. A survey based field experiment with health charities was conducted among a national sample representative of the Dutch population on key demographic characteristics. The greater effectiveness of matching subsidies found in laboratory experiments is replicated. Also some evidence is provided on why matches are more effective than rebates. Matches attract a larger pool of donors, in part because donors expect more people to make donations and “join in.” Matches also increase the amount contributed among the higher educated, higher income households and larger donors. Subsidies of either type do not decrease subsequent giving in a campaign for tsunami relief. The experiment could not test whether the greater effectiveness of a matching subsidy is due to a change in the donor’s attention to the benefits of a donation to the cause. This explanation should be tested in future research. The findings imply that a given budget available to subsidize charitable contributions can be used more effectively if the subsidy is framed in the form of a match than in the form of a rebate. Nonprofit organizations can use this insight in the design of fundraising campaigns. For governments the finding suggests that the effectiveness of current subsidies for charitable contributions can be enhanced by matching them rather than providing a deduction in the income tax, which works as a rebate.