IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/oplwec/qt9cm5h0qr.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Charity, Publicity, and the Donation Registry

Author

Listed:
  • Cooter, Robert D
  • Broughman, Brian

Abstract

Many Americans donate little or nothing to charity. Our social environment is the cause, not human nature. Experiments show that people are generous when their contributions are observable by others. Taking advantage of this fact, we propose a small policy change to increase transparency and elicit generosity. Specifically, we propose that the IRS establish a voluntary donation registry to publicize the proportion of income that individuals donate to charity. Although participation would be voluntary, it would be subject to social pressure. The disclosure created by the registry should significantly increase funds for social goods without increasing taxes.

Suggested Citation

  • Cooter, Robert D & Broughman, Brian, 2005. "Charity, Publicity, and the Donation Registry," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt9cm5h0qr, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdl:oplwec:qt9cm5h0qr
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/9cm5h0qr.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hugh-Jones, David & Reinstein, David, 2012. "Anonymous rituals," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 478-489.
    2. Blumkin, Tomer & Sadka, Efraim, 2007. "A case for taxing charitable donations," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(7-8), pages 1555-1564, August.
    3. Tomer Blumkin & Efraim Sadka, 2007. "On the Desirability of Taxing Charitable Contributions," CESifo Working Paper Series 1900, CESifo.
    4. David Reinstein & Gerhard Riener, 2012. "Reputation and influence in charitable giving: an experiment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(2), pages 221-243, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:oplwec:qt9cm5h0qr. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lebrkus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.