CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12Nonprofit Sector and VolunteeringCommunity Development and Social ImpactPublic Policy and Administration Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Government funding and fundraising: an online experiment of nonprofit leader preferences and personality

Kim, Mirae, Mason, Dyana P.·2020·Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management
DOI 10.1108/jpbafm-12-2019-0179
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose Many empirical studies have focused on whether public funding leverages (crowds in) or discourages (crowds out) private giving behavior, finding mixed results. Recent studies suggest the need to examine how nonprofits adjust their fundraising efforts after experiencing cuts or increases in government funding, which can then influence donor behavior. Design/methodology/approach In this study, the authors conduct an online survey experiment with nonprofit managers to test how nonprofits respond to changes in government funding. Findings The authors find some evidence that nonprofit organizations would change their fundraising expenses when facing cuts in government funding, yet the authors also find that the change could be either to increase or decrease fundraising spending. Since decisions are made by executive directors, the study also considered how executive personality type as maximizers or satisficers may interact with institutional and environmental constraints in decision-making. When funding goals are met, executives tend to behave as “satisficers” and are unlikely to make significant changes, even when their individual personality is more consistent with being a “maximizer.” Research limitations/implications The authors find these results to be the reflection of the current environment in which many nonprofits operate, characterized by pressures to keep operating costs low. The results of the experiment have implications for both funding agencies and nonprofi…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/jpbafm-12-2019-0179

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 66

  1. 2013, The personality factor: how top management teams make decisions. A literature review, Journal of Management and Governance, 17, 1073, 10.1007/s10997-011-9189-y · DOI
  2. 2014, Toward A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. On maximizing versus satisficing value capture, Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 709, 10.1007/s10551-013-1948-z · DOI
  3. 1999, Logistic Regression Using the SAS System. Theory and Application
  4. 2003, Do government grants to private charities crowd out giving or fund-raising?, The American Economic Review, 93, 792, 10.1257/000282803322157098 · DOI
  5. 2011, Is crowding out due entirely to fundraising? Evidence from a panel of chairities, Journal of Public Economics, 95, 334, 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.011 · DOI
  6. 1990, Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving, The Economic Journal, 100, 464, 10.2307/2234133 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 2006, Leadership giving in charitable fund-raising, Journal of Public Economic Theory, 8, 1, 10.1111/j.1467-9779.2006.00250.x · DOI
  8. 2006, Do public grants to American theatres crowd-out private donations?, SpringerLink. Public Choice, 126, 429
  9. 2000, Public subsidies and charitable giving: crowding out, crowding in, or both?, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19, 451, 10.1002/1520-6688(200022)19:3<451::AID-PAM5>3.0.CO;2-E · DOI
  10. 2006, Interactive effects of situational judgment effectiveness and proactive personality on work perceptions and work outcomes, Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 475, 10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.475 · DOI
  11. 2002, Crowding-out voluntary contributions to public goods, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 48, 305, 10.1016/S0167-2681(01)00232-3 · DOI
  12. 2009, Revenue diversification in nonprofit organizations: does it lead to financial stability?, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 947, 10.1093/jopart/mun025 · DOI
  13. 2009, The time-harried shopper: exploring the differences between maximizers and satisficers, Marketing Letters, 20, 155, 10.1007/s11002-008-9063-0 · DOI
  14. 2016, Do donors care about results? An Analysis of nonprofit arts and cultural organizations, Public Performance and Management Review, 39, 864, 10.1080/15309576.2015.1137775 · DOI
  15. 2013, Political ideologies of CEOs the influence of executives’ values on corporate social responsibility, Administrative Science Quarterly, 58, 197, 10.1177/0001839213486984 · DOI
  16. 2017, Extrovert and engaged? Exploring the connection between personality and involvement of stakeholders and the perceived relationship investment of nonprofit organizations, Public Relations Review, 43, 729, 10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.07.008 · DOI
  17. 2017, Government support and charitable donations: a meta-analysis of the crowding-out hypothesis, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27, 301
  18. Dokko, J. (2008), “Does the NEA crowd out private charitable contributions to the arts?”, available at: SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1327111). Retrieved from Social Science Research Network website: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1327111. · DOI
  19. 1983, Separation of ownership and control, Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 301, 10.1086/467037 · DOI
  20. 1984, Bounded rationality and the politics of muddling through, Public Administration Review, 44, 23, 10.2307/975658 · DOI
  21. 2013, Myers-briggs type indicator, A/B personality types, and locus of control: where do they intersect?, American Journal of Management, 13, 57
  22. 2011, Diversification reconsidered: the risks and rewards of revenue concentration, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2, 151, 10.1080/19420676.2011.614630 · DOI
  23. 2013, Maximizing as a predictor of job satisfaction and performance: a tale of three scales, Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 448, 10.1017/S1930297500005301 · DOI
  24. 1995, Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality, Psychological Review, 103, 650
  25. 2002, Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox
  26. 2011, Personality and language in CMC, Information Design Journal, 19, 250, 10.1075/idj.19.3.06gil · DOI
  27. 2001, Not-for-profit entrepreneurs, Journal of Public Economics, 81, 99, 10.1016/S0047-2727(00)00130-4 · DOI
  28. 1996, A signaling explanation for charity, The American Economic Review, 86, 1019
  29. 2014, Avoiding overhead aversion in charity, Science, 346, 632, 10.1126/science.1253932 · DOI
  30. 2001, Financial vulnerability among arts organizations: a test of the Tuckman-chang measures, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30, 376, 10.1177/0899764001302010 · DOI
  31. 2003, Current practices in allocation of fundraising expenditures, New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 41, 39
  32. 2002, How fundraising is carried out in US nonprofit organisations, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7, 311, 10.1002/nvsm.188 · DOI
  33. Hansmann, H.B. (1987), “Economic theories of nonprofit organizations”, in Powell, W.W. (Ed.), The Non-profit Sector: A Research Handbook, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
  34. 1995, Alumni donations and colleges’ development expenditures: does spending matter?, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 54, 397, 10.1111/j.1536-7150.1995.tb03243.x · DOI
  35. 2005, Do charitable donors know enough—and care enough—about government subsidies to affect private giving to nonprofit organizations?, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34, 136, 10.1177/0899764004272192 · DOI
  36. 2019, The impact of revenue diversification on nonprofit financial health: a meta-analysis, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48, 5, 10.1177/0899764018807080 · DOI
  37. 2014, Crowding-out and fundraising efforts, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 24, 445, 10.1002/nml.21102 · DOI
  38. 2014, Impact of government funding on donations to arts organizations a survey experiment, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43, 910, 10.1177/0899764013487800 · DOI
  39. 1997, Public good theories of the non-profit sector: Weisbrod revisited, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 8, 135, 10.1007/BF02354191 · DOI
  40. 2010, The effect of status on charitable giving, Journal of Public Economic Theory, 12, 709, 10.1111/j.1467-9779.2010.01471.x · DOI
  41. 2010, The audit commission's view of politics: a critical evaluation of the CPA process, Local Government Studies, 36, 455
  42. 2015, Anatomy of the nonprofit starvation cycle: an analysis of falling overhead ratios in the nonprofit sector, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44, 539, 10.1177/0899764014527175 · DOI
  43. 2017, Maximization paradox: result of believing in an objective best, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 652, 10.1177/0146167217695552 · DOI
  44. 2015, Advocacy in nonprofit organizations: a leadership perspective, Nonprofit Policy Forum, 6, 297, 10.1515/npf-2014-0036 · DOI
  45. 2014, Effects of the price of charitable giving: evidence from an online crowdfunding platform, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 103, 113, 10.1016/j.jebo.2014.04.010 · DOI
  46. 2004, Factors influencing the successful use of vision-based strategy planning by nonprofit human service organizations, International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 7, 107
  47. 2018, Do the ends justify the means? the relative focus on overhead versus outcomes in charitable fundraising, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48, 71
  48. 2000, Determinants of donations in private nonprofit markets, Journal of Public Economics, 75, 255, 10.1016/S0047-2727(99)00066-3 · DOI
  49. 2007, Maximizers versus satisficers: decision-making styles, competence, and outcomes, Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 9
  50. 2010, Why are maximizers less happy than satisficers? Because they maximize positive and negative outcomes, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23, 179, 10.1002/bdm.647 · DOI
  51. 1985, Does government spending crowd out charitable contributions?, National Tax Journal, 38, 535, 10.1086/NTJ41792113 · DOI
  52. 2002, Maximizing versus satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1178, 10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1178 · DOI
  53. 2000, Self-determination: the Tyranny of freedom, American Psychologist, 55, 79, 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.79 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Schwartz, B. (2012), “Can there ever Be too many flowers blooming?”, in Tepper, S.J. and Ivey, B. (Eds), Engaging Art: The Next Great Transformation of America's Cultural Life, Routledge, New York.
  55. 2019, Bounded Rationality and Cognitive Limits in Political Decision Making
  56. 2016, Revenue diversification in housing nonprofits: impact of state funding environments, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45, 548, 10.1177/0899764015593643 · DOI
  57. 1947, Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-making Processes in Administrative Organizations
  58. 1955, A behavioral model of rational choice, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99, 10.2307/1884852 · DOI · Paper page
  59. 1957, Models of Man: Social and Rational; Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in Society Setting
  60. 2007, The impact of government funding on private contributions to nonprofit performing arts organizations, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 78, 137, 10.1111/j.1467-8292.2007.00329.x · DOI
  61. 2017, Maximizing decision making style and managerial effectiveness: understanding how maximizing and locus of control limpact managers’ performance on the job, Managing Global Transitions, 15, 215, 10.26493/1854-6935.15.215-230 · DOI
  62. Tinkelman, D. (2010), “Revenue interactions: crowding out, crowding in, or neither?”, in Seaman, B.A. and Young, D. (Eds), Handbook of Research on Nonprofit Economics and Management. · DOI
  63. 1991, A methodology for measuring the financial vulnerability of charitable nonprofit organizations, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 20, 445, 10.1177/089976409102000407 · DOI
  64. 1982, Pareto optimal redistribution and private charity, Journal of Public Economics, 19, 131, 10.1016/0047-2727(82)90056-1 · DOI
  65. 1977, The Voluntary Nonprofit Sector: An Economic Analysis
  66. 1991, The Nonprofit Economy

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 12

Metadata

Authors
Kim, M., & Mason, D. P.
Affiliations
  • George Mason University (US)
  • University of Oregon (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2020-08-01
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
605-622
ISSN
  • 1096-3367 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-1814
DOI
10.1108/jpbafm-12-2019-0179
OpenAlex
W3046781386
Cited by
12
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5
FWCI
3.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Public Budgeting Accounting & Financial Management (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Nonprofit Sector and Volunteering
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Community Development and Social Impact
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
Keywords
government funding, charity fundraising, crowding out, crowding in, nonprofit executives, executive personality, satisficers, maximizers, fundraising expenses, donor behavior, nonprofit management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review