LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Zischka, L.
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
Subjects:
This thesis explores the role of prosocial considerations in society. It suggests that a willingness to take other persons into consideration in one’s resource allocation decisions is an essential element of social cohesion which, in the civic sector, is manifest in giving. An inclination to give is influenced by one’s wider social environment (norms, pressures and incentives) and also by one’s own values and attitudes, which sometimes motivate a person to act for the good or bad of others independently of her social environment. The combination of these factors drives prosocial behaviours like giving to positively impact the wider social environment and the prosocial inclinations of others. The altered social environment then feeds back to the prosocial motivation of the individual. This response and counter-response as people interact determines whether social cohesion expands or contracts over time. Giving behaviours then comprise one, easy-to-measure flow from a highly complex social stock. By monitoring giving behaviours we gain insight into civic sector pro-sociality and the way that the civic sector is contributing to social cohesion. Civic sector cohesion is valuable, and thus I find that giving is associated with a host of better welfare outcomes: improved life-satisfaction, improved trust, improved incomes, improved neighbourhood ratings, improved sense of security and reduced crime and deprivation: In some ways, giving interacts with these factors on a scale comparable to the big social drivers like education, health and wealth, and predicts welfare outcomes better than incomes can. I find that giving within one’s close social circle and giving outside of it both have their own significance. By monitoring giving behaviours then, governments and development agents gain insight into a community’s social strengths and weaknesses, and the way that their interventions are influencing these vital attributes. This provides them with a basis for policy evaluation and adjustment.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Aknin, L., Barrington-Leigh, C., Dunn, E., Helliwell, J., Biswas-Diener, R., Kemeza, I., et al. (2010).
    • Prosocial spending and well-being: Cross-cultural evidence for a psychological universal Retrieved March 2014, from http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/11-038.pdf Aknin, L. B., Barrington-Leigh, C. P., Dunn, E. W., Helliwell, J. F., Burns, J., Biswas-Diener, R., et al. (2013). Prosocial Spending and Well-Being: Cross-Cultural Evidence for a Psychological Universal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 635-652.
    • Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2000). Participation in heterogeneous communities. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 847-904.
    • Algan, Y., & Cahuc, P. (2013). Trust, Growth and Well-being: New Evidence and Policy Implications.
    • IZA Discussion Paper No. 7464.
    • Anderson, L. R., Mellor, J. M., & Milyo, J. (2004). Social capital and contributions in a public-goods experiment. American Economic Review, 94(2), 373-376.
    • Andreoni, J. (1995). Warm-Glow Versus Cold-Prickle - the Effects of Positive and Negative Framing on Cooperation in Experiments. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(1), 1-21.
    • Andreoni, J. (2006). Philanthropy. In S.-C. Kolm & J. M. Ythier (Eds.), Handbook on the economics of giving, reciprocity and altruism. Amsterdam; London: Elsevier.
    • Andreoni, J., Gale, W., & Scholz, J. K. (1996). Charitable Contributions of Time and Money.
    • Retrieved March 2015, from http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~jandreon/WorkingPapers/ags-v8.pdf Andreoni, J., & Scholz, J. K. (1998). An econometric analysis of charitable giving with interdependent preferences. Economic Inquiry, 36(3), 410-428.
    • Anik, L., Aknin, L., Norton, M., & Dunn, E. (2009). Feeling Good about Giving: The Benefits (and Costs) of Self-Interested Charitable Behaviour. Retrieved June 2014, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1444831 Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational: the hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York: HarperCollins.
    • Arrondel, L., & Masson, A. (2006). Altruism, exchange or indirect reciprocity: what do the data on family transfers show? In S.-C. Kolm & J. M. Ythier (Eds.), Handbook on the economics of giving, reciprocity and altruism. Amsterdam; London: Elsevier.
    • Arrow, K. J. E., Sen, A. E., & Suzumura, K. E. (1997). Social choice re-examined. MacMillan Press: St Martin's Press.
    • Attanasi, G., Casoria, F., Centorrino, S., & Urso, G. (2013). Cultural investment, local development and instantaneous social capital: A case study of a gathering festival in the South of Italy. Journal of Socio-Economics, 47, 228-247.
    • Auten, G. E., Clotfelter, C., & Schmalbeck, R. L. (2000). Taxes and philanthropy among the wealthy.
    • In J. Slemrod (Ed.), Does atlas shrug? the economic consequences of taxing the rich (pp. 392-424).
    • Auten, G. E., & Rudney, G. (1990). The Variability of Individual Charitable Giving in the US.
    • Voluntas, 1(2), 80-97.
    • CAF. (2014). World giving index 2014. Charities Aid Foundation. Retrieved March 2015, from https://www.cafonline.org/pdf/CAF_WGI2014_Report_1555AWEBFinal.pdf Wit, A. P., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1992). The Effect of Social Categorization on Cooperation in 3 Types of Social Dilemmas. Journal of Economic Psychology, 13(1), 135-151.
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
    54
    54%
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article