1 Introduction
2 Literature review
2.1 Summary of Wang (2023)
Variables | Results at p < 0.1 or lower | Notes |
---|---|---|
Organizational legitimacy | ||
Nonprofit evaluation score | Positive | Ordinal. The values of 0 to 5 represent not being evaluated and the scores of 1 to 5 A, the extent to which a foundation has signaled its legitimacy. |
Nonprofit tax exemption qualification | Positive | Dummy. Whether a foundation has obtained this qualification. |
Nonprofit pretax deduction qualification | Positive | Dummy. Whether a foundation has obtained this qualification. |
Political connections | ||
Government officials | Insignificant | Discrete. The number of government officials assuming managerial roles on the board of directors. |
Political affiliation | Categorical. It contains three categories of affiliation. | |
Civic (no formal affiliation) | Reference category. | |
Quasi-governmental affiliation | Insignificant | Comparison category. Whether a foundation was created by a quasi-government agency. |
Governmental affiliation | Insignificant | Comparison category. Whether a foundation was created by a government agency or a party organ. |
Organizational attributes | ||
Age | Negative | Discrete. |
Board size | Positive | Discrete. |
Full-time employees (logged) | Positive | Discrete. |
Public fundraising qualification | Positive | Dummy. Whether a foundation has obtained this qualification. |
Scope of operation | Positive | Dummy. Whether a foundation was registered to operate nationally or sub-nationally (within a province or a city). |
Issue area | Positive | Dummy. Whether a foundation works on issues defined as charitable activities in the Charity Law (2016). |
University foundation | Positive | Dummy. Whether a foundation was created by a university. |
Fundraising expenditure (logged) | Positive | Continuous. |
Total assets 2012 (logged) | Positive | Continuous. |
Environmental factors | ||
Nonprofit policy environment | Insignificant | Continuous. Provincial. Created by China Philanthropy Research Institute. |
GDP per capita | Positive | Continuous. Provincial. |
2.2 A brief review of corporate giving and individual giving
2.3 Organizational legitimacy through nonprofit certification
Study | Setting | Accreditation and certification | Main findings |
---|---|---|---|
Adena et al. (2019)* | Germany | DZI Spendensiegel | • Compared to the control group, participants presented with a quality certificate (DZI) chose higher donations and reported higher trust in the same nonprofit. |
Becker (2018)* | Germany | Fictious certification program | • Relative to other accountability conditions, externally certified voluntary accountability demonstrates higher reputation and perceived qualify among nonprofits, but not higher public trust and donation behavior. • Relative to other accountability conditions, no accountability is associated with less public trust, reputation, and perceived quality; when compared to minimum legal accountability, less donation behavior. |
Bekkers (2003) | The Netherlands | CBF-Keur | • Accreditation signals trustworthiness to the public. • Donors who are aware of the accreditation system have more trust in nonprofits than who are not and give more money to charitable causes. |
Feng et al. (2016) | United States | Standards for Excellence | • Certification is associated with increases in donations relative to a control group of nonprofits that did not earn the certificate. |
Gordan et al. (2009) | United States | Charity Navigator | • Positive rating changes to nonprofits are associated with an increase in donation income, and negative rating changes with a decrease in donation income. |
Harris and Neely (2016) | United States | BBB Wise Giving Alliance, Charity Navigator, and American Institute for Philanthropy | • Rated nonprofits received more donations than unrated nonprofits. • Better rating is tied to more donations. • Nonprofits with ratings from multiple rating organizations received incrementally more donations. |
Peng et al. (2019)* | United States | Fictious certification program | • Among two hypothetical nonprofits, the accredited nonprofit received more donations. |
Sloan (2009) | United States | BBB Wise Giving Alliance | • A “pass” rating increases donations to a nonprofit. |
Wang (2023) | China | Nonprofit evaluation score, tax exemption qualification, and pretax deduction qualification | • Results from all the three certification programs are positively tied to increases in donations to foundations. |
2.4 Political connections
Study | Main findings |
---|---|
Cheng and Wu (2021) | • The presence of government officials who are managerial board members is not directly tied to more donation income. |
Johnson and Ni (2015) | • Neither is the number of incumbent government officials nor the number of retired senior government officials assuming managerial roles on the board related to more donation income. |
Ni and Zhan (2017) | • Political affiliation and the presence of government officials who are managerial board members, when operationalized into a binary variable for political embeddedness, is not tied to more donation income. |
Wang (2023) | • Neither is organizational level (i.e., governmental and quasi-governmental) political connections nor individual level political connections (number of government officials assuming managerial roles on the board) tied to more donation income. |
Zheng et al. (2019) | • At the organizational level, political affiliation is tied to more corporate donation income. • At the individual level, the number of government officials assuming managerial roles on the board is not tied to more corporate donation income. |
Zhou and Ye (2021) | • Explicit political connections (i.e., government-organized nonprofits) are tied to less donation income. • Implicit political connections (i.e., the number of incumbent government official assuming managerial roles on the board) are tied to more donation income. |
2.5 Organizational attributes
2.6 Environmental factors
3 Methodology
4 Results and discussion
Variables | Observation | Mean | Standard deviation | Minimum | Maximum |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent variables | |||||
Corporate giving | 2,021 | 8,413 | 48,711 | 0 | 1,229,085 |
Corporate giving (logged) | 2,021 | 4.791 | 3.978 | 0 | 14.022 |
Individual giving | 2,021 | 2,409 | 11,211 | 0 | 250,000 |
Individual giving (logged) | 2,021 | 3.373 | 3.534 | 0 | 12.429 |
Organizational legitimacy | |||||
Nonprofit evaluation score | 2,021 | 0.979 | 1.654 | 0 | 5 |
Nonprofit tax exemption qualification | 2,021 | 0.271 | 0 | 1 | |
Nonprofit pretax deduction qualification | 2,021 | 0.701 | 0 | 1 | |
Political connections | |||||
Government officials | 1,928 | 0.573 | 1.473 | 0 | 16 |
Political affiliation | 2,021 | 2.205 | 1 | 3 | |
1-Civic | 599 | ||||
2-Quasi-governmental | 408 | ||||
3-Governmental | 1,014 | ||||
Organizational attributes | |||||
Age | 2,021 | 7.808 | 7.458 | 1 | 32 |
Board size | 1,911 | 13.114 | 6.480 | 5 | 25 |
Full-time employees | 2,019 | 3.714 | 6.205 | 0 | 111 |
Full-time employees (logged) | 2,019 | 1.144 | 0.863 | 0 | 4.718 |
Public Fundraising qualification | 2,021 | 0.454 | 0 | 1 | |
Scope of operation | 2,021 | 0.080 | 0 | 1 | |
Issue area | 2,021 | 0.880 | 0 | 1 | |
University foundation | 2,021 | 0.117 | 0 | 1 | |
Fundraising expenditure | 2,021 | 42.28 | 578.44 | 0 | 18,962 |
Fundraising expenditure (logged) | 2,021 | 0.650 | 1.531 | 0 | 9.850 |
Total assets 2012 | 2,021 | 37,876 | 150,599 | 3.69 | 2,871,878 |
Total assets 2012 (logged) | 2,021 | 9.208 | 1.423 | 1.545 | 14.87 |
Environmental factors | |||||
Nonprofit policy environment | 2,021 | 0.486 | 0.164 | 0.110 | 0.803 |
GDP per capita | 2,021 | 61.923 | 21.395 | 22.921 | 99.607 |
Total giving (Replication of Wang, 2023) | Corporate giving | Individual giving | |
---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
Organizational legitimacy | |||
Nonprofit evaluation score | 0.103* | 0.112+ | 0.205*** |
(0.052) | (0.060) | (0.055) | |
Nonprofit tax exemption qualification | 0.582*** | 0.819*** | 0.286 |
(0.180) | (0.209) | (0.196) | |
Nonprofit pretax deduction qualification | 1.052*** | 1.669*** | 0.472** |
(0.178) | (0.194) | (0.178) | |
Political connections | |||
Government officials | -0.072 | 0.038 | -0.107* |
(0.051) | (0.053) | (0.053) | |
Quasi-governmental affiliation | 0.095 | -0.064 | -0.160 |
(0.263) | (0.311) | (0.279) | |
Governmental affiliation | -0.126 | -0.045 | -0.569+ |
(0.291) | (0.342) | (0.296) | |
Organizational attributes | |||
Age | -0.060*** | -0.020 | -0.023+ |
(0.012) | (0.013) | (0.012) | |
Board size | 0.031* | 0.021 | 0.050*** |
(0.013) | (0.015) | (0.014) | |
Full-time employees (logged) | 0.330** | 0.219+ | 0.563*** |
(0.108) | (0.116) | (0.109) | |
Public fundraising qualification | 0.474+ | 0.711* | 0.500+ |
(0.282) | (0.334) | (0.283) | |
Scope of operation | 1.239*** | 1.497*** | 0.201 |
(0.311) | (0.363) | 0.362 | |
Issue area | 1.183*** | 1.474*** | 1.096*** |
(0.275) | (0.291) | (0.277) | |
University foundation | 1.577*** | 1.792*** | 1.985*** |
(0.280) | (0.354) | (0.323) | |
Fundraising expenditure (logged) | 0.293*** | 0.196*** | 0.162** |
(0.047) | (0.057) | (0.057) | |
Total assets 2012 (logged) | 0.279*** | 0.264** | 0.196* |
(0.079) | (0.087) | (0.758) | |
Environmental factors | |||
Nonprofit policy environment | 0.459 | -1.251* | 1.832*** |
(0.494) | (0.570) | (0.546) | |
GDP per capita | 0.009* | 0.012** | -0.007+ |
(0.004) | (0.004) | (0.004) | |
Constant | -0.080 | -1.634* | -1.732* |
(0.725) | (0.810) | (0.732) | |
R2 | 0.226 | 0.225 | 0.160 |
F | 40.310*** | 39.050*** | 23.790*** |
5 Conclusion
6 Appendix 1
Year | China | The United States | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total (billion Chinese yuan) | Corporate (%) | Individual (%) | Total (billion US dollars) | Corporate (%) | Individual (%) | |
2009 | N/A | 58.50% | N/A | 303.75 | 4.64% | 74.87% |
2010 | N/A | 65.79% | N/A | 290.89 | 5.26% | 72.80% |
2011 | 84.50 | 57.51% | 31.62% | 298.42 | 4.88% | 72.98% |
2012 | 81.73 | 58.02% | 26.00% | 316.23 | 5.74% | 72.39% |
2013 | 98.94 | 69.67% | N/A | 335.17 | 5.33% | 71.78% |
2014 | 104.23 | 69.23% | 11.09% | 358.38 | 4.96% | 72.13% |
2015 | 110.86 | 70.72% | 16.38% | 373.25 | 4.94% | 70.89% |
2016 | 139.29 | 65.20% | 21.09% | 390.05 | 4.76% | 72.26% |
2017 | 149.99 | 64.23% | 23.28% | 410.02 | 5.07% | 69.91% |
2018 | 143.92 | 61.89% | 25.05% | 427.71 | 4.69% | 68.29% |
2019 | 150.94 | 61.71% | 26.40% | 449.64 | 4.69% | 68.87% |
2020 | 208.61 | 58.39% | 25.13% | 471.44 | 3.58% | 68.75% |
7 Appendix 2
Total giving (Replication of Wang, 2023) | Corporate giving | Individual giving | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1H: Receipt | 2H: Amount | Marginal effects | 1H: Receipt | 2H: Amount | Marginal Effects | 1H: Receipt | 2H: Amount | Marginal effects | |
Model 4 | Model 5 | dy/dx | Model 6 | Model 7 | dy/dx | Model 8 | Model 9 | dy/dx | |
Organizational legitimacy | |||||||||
Nonprofit evaluation score | 0.027 | 0.060* | 0.096 + | 0.029 | 0.045 | 0.098 + | 0.065** | 0.083 + | 0.183*** |
(0.026) | (0.029) | (0.051) | (0.023) | (0.031) | (0.058) | (0.022) | (0.048) | (0.052) | |
Nonprofit tax exemption qualification | 0.211* | 0.293** | 0.603*** | 0.270*** | 0.270* | 0.827*** | 0.145 + | -0.065 | 0.271 |
(0.099) | (0.103) | (0.184) | (0.083) | (0.108) | (0.210) | (0.078) | (0.178) | (0.191) | |
Nonprofit pretax deduction qualification | 0.272*** | 0.636*** | 1.007*** | 0.523*** | 0.525*** | 1.645*** | 0.189** | 0.098 | 0.458* |
(0.079) | (0.106) | (0.169) | (0.071) | (0.121) | (0.195) | (0.072) | (0.185) | (0.182) | |
Political connections | |||||||||
Government officials | -0.022 | -0.032 | -0.065 | 0.018 | 0.001 | 0.044 | -0.043* | -0.048 | -0.118* |
(0.024) | (0.028) | (0.048) | (0.022) | (0.031) | (0.055) | (0.022) | (0.057) | (0.057) | |
Quasi-governmental affiliation | 0.178 | -0.230 | 0.087 | 0.065 | -0.367* | -0.092 | 0.018 | -0.317 | -0.144 |
(0.142) | (0.165) | (0.256) | (0.121) | (0.173) | (0.297) | (0.114) | (0.254) | (0.284) | |
Governmental affiliation | -0.097 | 0.063 | -0.124 | -0.039 | 0.129 | -0.013 | -0.165 | -0.460 | -0.606 + |
(0.132) | (0.175) | (0.283) | (0.126) | (0.192) | (0.342) | (0.125) | (0.333) | (0.312) | |
Organizational attributes | |||||||||
Age | -0.017** | -0.033*** | -0.057*** | -0.003 | -0.020** | -0.021 | -0.001 | -0.045*** | -0.027* |
(0.005) | (0.007) | (0.011) | (0.005) | (0.007) | (0.013) | (0.005) | (0.012) | (0.012) | |
Board size | 0.014* | 0.006 | 0.029* | 0.006 | 0.012 | 0.021 | 0.020*** | 0.014 | 0.050*** |
(0.006) | (0.007) | (0.012) | (0.006) | (0.008) | (0.014) | (0.005) | (0.013) | (0.013) | |
Full-time employees (logged) | 0.086 + | 0.264*** | 0.367*** | 0.032 | 0.24*** | 0.231* | 0.182*** | 0.340*** | 0.570*** |
(0.051) | (0.059) | 0.103 | (0.043) | (0.064) | (0.115) | (0.043) | (0.104) | (0.107) | |
Public fundraising qualification | 0.099 | 0.307 + | 0.432 | 0.242* | 0.120 | 0.652* | 0.136 | 0.416 | 0.515 + |
(0.126) | (0.172) | (0.265) | (0.122) | (0.184) | (0.322) | (0.12) | (0.314) | (0.293) | |
Scope of operation | 0.297 + | 0.691*** | 1.071*** | 0.424** | 0.480* | 1.314*** | -0.073 | 0.420 | 0.065 |
(0.176) | (0.178) | (0.309) | (0.156) | (0.192) | (0.370) | (0.138) | (0.289) | (0.344) | |
Issue area | 0.223* | 0.933*** | 1.140*** | 0.368*** | 0.868*** | 1.402*** | 0.397*** | 0.371 | 1.025*** |
(0.113) | (0.172) | (0.248) | (0.106) | (0.184) | (0.273) | (0.105) | (0.321) | (0.263) | |
University foundation | 0.763*** | 0.763*** | 1.714*** | 0.558*** | 0.665*** | 1.739*** | 0.745*** | 0.560* | 1.886*** |
(0.208) | (0.178) | (0.260) | (0.146) | (0.191) | (0.334) | (0.138) | (0.269) | (0.323) | |
Fundraising expenditure (logged) | 0.133*** | 0.120*** | 0.332*** | 0.062** | 0.074* | 0.196*** | 0.063** | 0.044 | 0.157** |
(0.034) | (0.027) | (0.062) | (0.024) | (0.030) | (0.060) | (0.023) | (0.044) | (0.054) | |
Total assets 2012 (logged) | -0.058 + | 0.492*** | 0.299*** | -0.015 | 0.478*** | 0.271** | -0.020 | 0.446*** | 0.199** |
(0.033) | (0.053) | (0.077) | (0.029) | (0.059) | (0.086) | (0.028) | (0.077) | (0.076) | |
Environmental factors | |||||||||
Nonprofit policy environment | -0.017 | 0.355 | 0.259 | -0.475* | -0.351 | -1.367* | 0.275 | 2.008*** | 1.673** |
(0.254) | (0.303) | (0.511) | (0.220) | (0.338) | (0.567) | (0.217) | (0.516) | (0.538) | |
GDP per capita | 0.004* | 0.002 | 0.010* | 0.004* | 0.004 + | 0.012** | -0.002 | -0.003 | -0.006 |
(0.002) | (0.002) | (0.004) | (0.002) | (0.002) | (0.005) | (0.002) | (0.004) | (0.004) | |
Constant | 0.435 | 0.858 + | -0.578* | 1.121* | -0.785** | 0.385 | |||
(0.321) | (0.486) | (0.279) | (0.528) | (0.274) | (0.720) | ||||
Pseudo R2 | 0.106 | 0.100 | 0.054 | ||||||
Chi2 | 907.280*** | 570.030*** | 214.450*** |