This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Private Versus Collectivized Charity: Further Explorations Of The Crowding Out Debate

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Edwin G. West () (Department of Economics, Carleton University)
J. Stephen Ferris () (Department of Economics, Carleton University)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Part of Introduction: The question whether society can readily substitute public action for private initiative with respect to public goods is still very much open. Bergstrom, Blume and Varian (1986, hereafter BBV) and Andreoni (1993) challenge the proposition that government provision "crowds out" an exactly equal amount of private donations. Their analysis builds on original papers by Peter G. Warr (1982, 83) and Roberts (1987) which suggest that government policies toward privately provided public goods will be entirely neutral. Roberts, for instance, maintains that the introduction of large-scale government welfare programs in the U.S. was indeed accompanied by a one for one reduction in private charitable contributions. BBV question Roberts’ precise prediction of a "dollar for dollar" reduction in private contributions by challenging his assumption that the taxes paying for the government’s contribution are collected exclusively from those who were previously in the set of private contributors. Because BBV believe this group to be a small subset of the taxpaying population, its contribution via taxes will be much less than the total government expenditure. For this reason "crowding out" can be expected to be less than one for one. Even without this proviso, however, Andreoni’s laboratory experiments (1993) allow him to conclude that crowding out will be incomplete.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www2.carleton.ca/economics/research/working-papers/carleton-economic-papers-cep/1991-2000/
File Format:
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Carleton University, Department of Economics in its series Carleton Economic Papers with number 99-01.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 30 pages
Date of creation: Jan 1999
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:car:carecp:99-01

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa Ontario, K1S 5B6 Canada
Phone: 1-613-520-3744
Fax: 1-613-520-3906

Order Information:
Email:

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Deirdre Nelson).

Related research
Keywords: private charity; crowding out; deadweight cost of taxation;

Find related papers by JEL classification:
I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs
H11 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Structure and Scope of Government
H53 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Government Expenditures and Welfare Programs

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? RePEc and its associated services are free for contributors and users, and do not accept any advertising.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-11.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.