IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mos/moswps/archive-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do Donors Care about Subsidy Type? An Experimental Study

Author

Abstract

An individual should be indifferent between a rebate subsidy of rate sr and a matching subsidy of rate sm = sr /(1 - sr), and the total amount received by the charity should be the same regardless of subsidy type. Recent laboratory and field experiments contradict these straightforward predictions of standard economic theory: subjects consistently make decisions that result in larger amounts going to the charity under a matching subsidy than under an equivalent rebate subsidy. This paper tests whether this result is due to rebate-aversion – a preference by donors for a match over a rebate subsidy. Consistent with theory we find no significant preference for one or the other subsidy scheme. We do however find that, as in previous studies, participants selecting the matching subsidy made decisions that resulted in approximately twice the donations of participants selecting the rebate subsidy donated.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2006. "Do Donors Care about Subsidy Type? An Experimental Study," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-10, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:mos:moswps:archive-10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.utdallas.edu/~eckelc/Catherine%20Eckel_files/EckelGrossmanREE.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Douglas D. Davis & Edward L. Millner, 2005. "Rebates, Matches, and Consumer Behavior," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(2), pages 410-421, October.
    2. Catherine Eckel, 2005. "Subsidizing Charitable Contributions: A Field Test Comparing Matching and Rebate Subsidies," Working Papers 2098, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. Douglas Davis & Edward Millner & Robert Reilly, 2005. "Subsidy Schemes and Charitable Contributions: A Closer Look," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(2), pages 85-106, June.
    4. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2003. "Rebate versus matching: does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(3-4), pages 681-701, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Christiane Reif & Dirk Rübbelke & Andreas Löschel, 2017. "Improving Voluntary Public Good Provision Through a Non-governmental, Endogenous Matching Mechanism: Experimental Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(3), pages 559-589, July.
    2. Deck, Cary & Murphy, James J., 2019. "Donors change both their level and pattern of giving in response to contests among charities," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 91-106.
    3. Emmanuel Saez, 2009. "Details Matter: The Impact of Presentation and Information on the Take-Up of Financial Incentives for Retirement Saving," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 204-228, February.
    4. Catherine Eckel, 2005. "Subsidizing Charitable Contributions: A Field Test Comparing Matching and Rebate Subsidies," Working Papers 2098, The Field Experiments Website.
    5. Livingston, Jeffrey A. & Rasulmukhamedov, Rustam, 2023. "On the Interpretation of Giving in Dictator Games When the Recipient is a Charity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 208(C), pages 275-285.
    6. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2006. "Subsidizing Charitable Contributions in the Field: Evidence from a Non-Secular Charity," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-44, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    7. Enrique Fatas & Joo Young Jeon & Paloma Ubeda, 2019. "An Experimental Investigation of Charity Rebates," Economics Discussion Papers em-dp2019-12, Department of Economics, University of Reading.
    8. Peng, Hui-Chun, 2020. "Effect of cognitive ability on matching and rebate subsidies," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 19-25.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:13-22 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Eckel, Catherine & Grossman, Philip J., 2017. "Comparing rebate and matching subsidies controlling for donors’ awareness: Evidence from the field," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 88-95.
    11. Davis, Douglas D., 2006. "Rebate subsidies, matching subsidies and isolation effects," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 13-22, July.
    12. Douglas D. Davis, 2006. "Rebate subsidies, matching subsidies and isolation effects," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 13-22, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emmanuel Saez, 2009. "Details Matter: The Impact of Presentation and Information on the Take-Up of Financial Incentives for Retirement Saving," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 204-228, February.
    2. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2006. "Subsidizing Charitable Giving with Rebates or Matching: Further Laboratory Evidence," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(4), pages 794-807, April.
    3. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2006. "Subsidizing Charitable Contributions in the Field: Evidence from a Non-Secular Charity," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-44, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    4. Deck, Cary & Murphy, James J., 2019. "Donors change both their level and pattern of giving in response to contests among charities," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 91-106.
    5. Catherine Eckel, 2005. "Subsidizing Charitable Contributions: A Field Test Comparing Matching and Rebate Subsidies," Working Papers 2098, The Field Experiments Website.
    6. Axsen, Jonn & Mountain, Dean C. & Jaccard, Mark, 2009. "Combining stated and revealed choice research to simulate the neighbor effect: The case of hybrid-electric vehicles," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 221-238, August.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:13-22 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. John List, 2008. "Introduction to field experiments in economics with applications to the economics of charity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 203-212, September.
    9. Roman M. Sheremeta & Neslihan Uler, 2021. "The impact of taxes and wasteful government spending on giving," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 355-386, June.
    10. Diederich, Johannes & Eckel, Catherine C. & Epperson, Raphael & Goeschl, Timo & Grossman, Philip J., 2019. "Subsidizing Quantity Donations: Matches, Rebates, and Discounts Compared," VfS Annual Conference 2019 (Leipzig): 30 Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall - Democracy and Market Economy 203650, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    11. Davis, Douglas D., 2006. "Rebate subsidies, matching subsidies and isolation effects," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 13-22, July.
    12. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:1058-1071 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Shusaku Sasaki & Hirofumi Kurokawa & Fumio Ohtake, 2022. "An experimental comparison of rebate and matching in charitable giving: The case of Japan," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 147-177, January.
    14. Eckel, Catherine & Grossman, Philip J., 2017. "Comparing rebate and matching subsidies controlling for donors’ awareness: Evidence from the field," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 88-95.
    15. Diederich, Johannes & Eckel, Catherine C. & Epperson, Raphael & Goeschl, Timo & Grossman, Philip J., 2020. "Subsidizing Unit Donations: Matches, Rebates, and Discounts Compared," Working Papers 0697, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    16. Douglas D. Davis, 2006. "Rebate subsidies, matching subsidies and isolation effects," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 13-22, July.
    17. Johannes Diederich & Catherine C. Eckel & Raphael Epperson & Timo Goeschl & Philip J. Grossman, 2022. "Subsidizing unit donations: matches, rebates, and discounts compared," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 734-758, April.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:1058-1071 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Neslihan Uler, 2011. "Public goods provision, inequality and taxes," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 287-306, September.
    20. Douglas D. Davis & Edward L. Millner, 2005. "Rebates, Matches, and Consumer Behavior," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(2), pages 410-421, October.
    21. Chavanne, David & McCabe, Kevin & Paganelli, Maria Pia, 2011. "Whose money is it anyway? Ingroups and distributive behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 31-39, January.
    22. Gandullia, Luca & Lezzi, Emanuela, 2018. "The price elasticity of charitable giving: New experimental evidence," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 88-91.
    23. Huck, Steffen & Rasul, Imran, 2011. "Matched fundraising: Evidence from a natural field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(5-6), pages 351-362, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:mos:moswps:archive-10. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Simon Angus (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dxmonau.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.