Non-profit differentials in crowd-based financing: Evidence from 50,000 campaigns
We use data from approximately 50,000 crowdfunding projects to assess the relative funding performance of for-profit and non-profit campaigns. We find that non-profit projects are significantly more likely to reach their minimum funding goals and that they receive more money from the average funding provider. At the same time, however, they have fewer funding providers and obtain lower total funding amounts. Our analysis shows that these results are driven by a small number of very successful for-profit projects. We argue that the findings are consistent with a simple selection mechanism in which entrepreneurs make the non-profit/for-profit decision based on expected project payoffs.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Ajay K. Agrawal & Christian Catalini & Avi Goldfarb, 2011. "The Geography of Crowdfunding," NBER Working Papers 16820, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- McManus, Brian & Bennet, Richard, 2011. "The demand for products linked to public goods: Evidence from an online field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(5-6), pages 403-415, June.
- Othmar M. Lehner, 2013. "Crowdfunding social ventures: a model and research agenda," Venture Capital, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4), pages 289-311, October.
- Daniel W. Elfenbein & Ray Fisman & Brian Mcmanus, 2012. "Charity as a Substitute for Reputation: Evidence from an Online Marketplace," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 79(4), pages 1441-1468.
- Ajay Agrawal & Christian Catalini & Avi Goldfarb, 2014.
"Some Simple Economics of Crowdfunding,"
Innovation Policy and the Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 14(1), pages 63 - 97.
- Mollick, Ethan, 2014. "The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-16.
- McManus, Brian & Bennet, Richard, 2011. "The demand for products linked to public goods: Evidence from an online field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(5), pages 403-415.
- Paul Belleflamme & Thomas Lambert & Armin Schwienbacher, 2013. "Individual crowdfunding practices," Venture Capital, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4), pages 313-333, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:123:y:2014:i:3:p:391-394. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.