IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/not/notcre/19-02.html

Does transparency come at the cost of charitable services? Evidence from investigating British charities

Author

Listed:
  • Canh Thien Dang
  • Trudy Owens

Abstract

Recent high-profile scandals related to misuse of funding and donations have raised the demand for scrutiny over financial transparency and operational activities of non-profit organizations in developed countries. Our analysis challenges the common practice in the sector of using programme ratios and overhead costs as indicators for non-profit accountability. Using Benford's Law to measure irregularities in financial data for a large sample of public charities we estimate that 25% of the sample potentially misreport their financial information. We show theoretically and empirically that charities with a higher programme ratio (their level of spending on charitable activities), will be less likely to misreport their financial information only when their overhead costs (spending on governing activities) are also sufficiently high. Tighter monitoring becomes ineffective in increasing the sectoral transparency and accountability unless accompanied by a sufficiently high charitable spending.

Suggested Citation

  • Canh Thien Dang & Trudy Owens, 2019. "Does transparency come at the cost of charitable services? Evidence from investigating British charities," Discussion Papers 2019-02, University of Nottingham, CREDIT.
    • Handle: RePEc:not:notcre:19/02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/credit/documents/papers/2019/19-02.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Margaret Samahita & Leonhard K. Lades, 2021. "The Unintended Side Effects of Regulating Charities: Donors Penalise Administrative Burden Almost as Much as Overheads," Working Papers 202106, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    3. Canh Thien Dang & Trudy Owens, 2024. "Non-governmental organizations’ motivation to diversify: self-interest or operation-related? Evidence from Uganda," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 76(2), pages 561-584.
    4. Iman Parsa & Mahyar Eftekhar & Charles J Corbett, 2022. "Does governance ease the overhead squeeze experienced by nonprofits?," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(8), pages 3288-3303, August.
    5. Gani Aldashev & Esteban Jaimovich & Thierry Verdier, 2023. "The Dark Side of Transparency: Mission Variety and Industry Equilibrium in Decentralised Public Good Provision," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 133(654), pages 2085-2109.
    6. repec:osf:socarx:48g5c_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Hao, Zhuang & Zhang, Xudong & Wang, Yuze, 2024. "Assessing the accuracy of self-reported health expenditure data: Evidence from two public surveys in China," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 356(C).
    8. McDonald, Bruce D. III & Goodman, Christopher B, 2020. "The Truth about Honesty in the Nonprofit Sector," SocArXiv 48g5c, Center for Open Science.
    9. Baudier, Patricia & Kondrateva, Galina & Ammi, Chantal, 2023. "Can blockchain enhance motivation to donate: The moderating impact of religion on donors' behavior in the USA's charity organizations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • L31 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise - - - Nonprofit Institutions; NGOs; Social Entrepreneurship
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • H83 - Public Economics - - Miscellaneous Issues - - - Public Administration
    • H49 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Other

    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:not:notcre:19/02. 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: Hilary Hughes (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cenotuk.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.