Does philanthropy reduce inequality?

Dasgupta, Indraneel; Kanbur, Ravi

doi:10.1007/s10888-009-9123-6

Cited by 62 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with the literature (Vaidyanathan et al, 2011;Forbes and Zampelli, 1997;Will and Cochran, 1995;Ottoni-Wilhelm, 2010;Ottoni-Wilhelm et al, 2007) [12]- [16], we find an association in the maps as well as the Chi-square tests between attendance at religious services and income donated to charities. Similar associations are found between income donated to charities and inequality, supporting notions that philanthropy and inequality are related (Laskowski, 2011;Greve, 2009;Dasgupta and Kanbur, 2011) [17]- [19]. Regarding this variable, we believe there is a "home region" effect (Muller and Whiteman, 2009) [2] or proximity effect (Gilbert, 2009) [35], where landscapes of inequality and unhappiness are associated with people more actively making donations to charities.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

“…However, other research suggests philanthropic giving might increase inequality. Dasgupta and Kanbur (2011, p. 18) [19] state, "using measures of both absolute and relative inequality, we have shown that philanthropy may actually exacerbate inequality, instead of reducing it." By giving tax credits for charitable donations, it reduces the amount of "resources available for direct redistribution" (Dasgupta and Kanbur, 2011, p. 19) [19].…”

Section: Income Inequality and Happinessmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…Dasgupta and Kanbur (2011, p. 18) [19] state, "using measures of both absolute and relative inequality, we have shown that philanthropy may actually exacerbate inequality, instead of reducing it." By giving tax credits for charitable donations, it reduces the amount of "resources available for direct redistribution" (Dasgupta and Kanbur, 2011, p. 19) [19]. Thus, philanthropic giving does not reduce inequality, but may produce greater inequality by further concentrating wealth in few hands by reducing the resources available to the poor.…”

Section: Income Inequality and Happinessmentioning

confidence: 80%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Regional Patterns of Giving in the United States during the Great Recession

Lopez¹,

Mohapatra²,

Prew³

2017

IJCH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Recently, studies on regional patterns of caring, which includes philanthropic giving, are emerging in the social science and human geography literature. Our study examines the geographic patterns of giving in the U.S.A. during the late 2000s and early 2010s, and the association between giving and five social conditions: attendance to religious services, economic inequality, levels of happiness, age, and percentage of minority population. This research aims to look at these issues in an interdisciplinary fashion by combining sociological insights with thematic mapping and human geography. We endeavor to add to the growing literature on the study of regional patterns of caring and philanthropic giving by asking the question, "can we discern regional patterns of philanthropic giving consistent with socioeconomic phenomena?" Our results demonstrate distinguishable geographic patterns of giving associated with the social conditions included here. Above average percentage of households' income donated to charities is associated with regions of the United States with above average religious attendance, greater inequality, higher levels of unhappiness, and minority population.Index Terms-Geography of caring, thematic mapping, philanthropic giving, religious service attendance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Section: Income Inequality and Happinessmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Income Inequality and Happinessmentioning

confidence: 80%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Regional Patterns of Giving in the United States during the Great Recession

Lopez¹,

Mohapatra²,

Prew³

2017

IJCH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lastly, in line with much of the existing empirical literature, the nature of the ‘community’ that is supposed to ‘participate’ has been left unexplored in our analysis. Dasgupta and Kanbur (, , ) have shown how differences in patterns of voluntary provision of public goods crucially affect inequality, distributive tensions and poverty levels, both within and across communities. It is conceivable that such differences, by influencing the costs of consensus‐building within a community, may also have a bearing on whether greater community participation leads to substantial improvements in decision‐making or simply creates blocking coalitions.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

WHY PAY NGOs TO INVOLVE THE COMMUNITY?

Burger

Dasgupta

Owens

2015

Ann Public Coop Econ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:We examine the case for donors providing financial incentives to, i.e. subsidizing, NGOs to increase community participation. We show that the introduction of such a 'participation subsidy' may reduce beneficiary welfare. Thus, eliminating community participation from the set of conditions for funding an NGO may in fact benefit target communities. We show how our theoretical analysis may be operationalized by applying it to data from the NGO sector in Uganda. Our empirical findings appear to reject the case for providing a participation subsidy in that context. Keywords:Regulation of non-governmental organizations, developing countries, community participation, Uganda JEL Classification Numbers: I38, L31, L38 We thank an anonymous referee for many helpful comments and suggestions.

show abstract

“…Building on these contributions, the impact of private provision on measured inequality has been explored by Dasgupta and Kanbur (). They show that private provision increases the absolute difference in real income between any two noncontributors relative to the difference in nominal incomes.…”

Section: Neutrality and Income Distributionmentioning

confidence: 99%