Skip to main content
Log in

Economics of philanthropy—evidence from health crowdfunding

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper is the first comprehensive empirical study on the economics of health crowdfunding (HCF) campaigns. We develop a new theoretical framework that focuses on the channels Donor-Patient-Psychology and Donor-Donor-Psychology to examine campaign funding speed. Our data highlight that, on average, campaign funding goals are achieved more rapidly if the patient is an infant girl, and if campaign descriptions are more comprehensive but less technical (easier to read). Furthermore, campaigns begun around holidays are funded more quickly, with the highest funding speed found for Christian holidays. We posit that this indicates a “warm-glow” effect. Examining donations controlling for campaign fixed effects, we document strong and economically significantly negative donor-to-donor peer effects, where contributions by donors with public profiles may be crowded out by the previous contributions of their peers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The term out-of-pocket spending refers to medical costs that are not covered or reimbursed by insurance.

  2. Other forms of crowdfunding include equity crowdfunding (see, e.g., Ahlers et al. 2015; Colombo et al. 2014), reward-based crowdfunding (see, e.g., Mollick 2014), real estate crowdfunding (see Schweizer and Zhou 2017), peer-to-peer lending (see, e.g., Lin and Viswanathan 2015), and Initial Coin Offerings (see Amsden and Schweizer 2018). For excellent literature overviews, see Moritz and Block (2016), Short et al. (2017), and Wallmeroth et al. (2018).

  3. The platform takes its name from the town of Watsi in Central America, where one of the cofounders encountered a woman on a bus who was asking passengers for donations to pay for her son’s healthcare (see FAQ on Watsi.org).

  4. Watsi.org features 4677 distinct patient campaigns, and has 5314 registered donors (see Bassani et al. 2019, for cross-platform evidence on healthcare crowdfunding).

  5. In the context of this study, we follow Furnham et al. (2016), where altruism is defined as “a selfless exhibition of trading one’s personal resources to benefit another” (p. 359).

  6. A potential concern is that donations in December may be driven by the tax effect. In subsection 6.2.5, “December Tax Effect,” we re-run our tests by deleting all the campaigns posted in December. The results remain highly consistent.

  7. This differs from other crowdfunding platforms such as Indiegogo, where the number of campaigns launched is determined by demand from campaign creators, and is not managed by the platform. In other words, on Watsi, the choice set donors see during holidays is comparable to that on weekends or weekdays. Thus, there should not be an endogeneity problem driven by fluctuations in campaign supply.

  8. We assume these two variables remain donor-specific during the entire sample period. In other words, we do not know whether donors change any of their profile characteristics between their first and last donations.

  9. To control for donation dynamics, we also compare each PP Donor’s impact for a particular campaign relative to the PP Donors who donated before him. To do this, we define Public Profile Donor Reputation Higher Than Average as equal to 1 if the donor’s impact number is higher than the average of previous donors to the campaign, and 0 otherwise. In the example described above, David’s impact number is 10, which is lower than the average of the other nine donors, which was 26.37, so this dummy variable takes the value of 0. Similarly, we compare David with the PP Donor who made a donation right before him (using initial “B” (eighteenth in the queue) in panel C, Funder Sequence, in Fig. A1). In this particular case, the impact number of the previous donor is 9, so this dummy variable takes the value of 1.

  10. See Ahlers et al. (2015) for different success measures in crowdfunding campaigns, as well as Galak et al. (2011) and Allison et al. (2013) for the relevance of funding speed as a dependent variable.

  11. We classify a patient as a child in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as “a human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child” (see United Nations 1989). Infants (Latin word infans, meaning “unable to speak”) are commonly referred to as children up to 1 year of life, and thereafter usually referred to as toddlers (see, for example, Barker 2001, for a definition).

  12. For some campaigns, it could be very difficult to distinguish infant girls from infant boys from the patient picture. However, certain signs may be gender-revealing, such as ear piercing, or color and style of clothes. Even if it is not possible to guess a child’s sex from a visual inspection of a picture, it is generally revealed in the patient story.

  13. We are not able to meaningfully measure patient pictures along dimensions of “sadness.” This is because the pictures are not “randomly” selected, but are instead specifically chosen by Watsi’s medical partners to avoid facial expressions of “anger” or “sadness.” We found no patient pictures with the required confidence score for “sadness” of 0.9 or higher (see Fig. A1, panel B, for more details about the confidence scores). This clearly demonstrates how Watsi aims to avoid facial expressions with high levels of “sadness.” Therefore, the reference group for “happiness” is “neutral.”

  14. In unreported results, we checked for the influence of natural catastrophes in countries such as Haiti, which was hit by Hurricane Matthew in 2016, or Nepal, which experienced a disastrous earthquake in 2015, on our results. Because these catastrophes increase media attention, they presumably affect potential donors. We find that our results remain qualitatively unchanged.

  15. We are unable to control for both donation sequence fixed effects and donor fixed effects because we do not have enough within-case variation in donors. Our donation sequence fixed effects control partially for any systematic preferences among donors.

  16. Note that Watsi holds the number of campaigns on its website constant at all times. However, campaigns tend to be funded more quickly during the holidays, which results in a higher number being funded at that time. This means there is no obvious difference in the choice set over time.

  17. Related literature in reward-based and equity crowdfunding documented a positive “female effect” on campaign success (see Greenberg and Mollick, 2017 and Cumming et al. 2019b).

  18. The hypothesis Religious Holiday coef. = Federal Holiday coef. and Religious Holiday coef. = Weekend coef. was rejected at the 1% level for all model specifications.

  19. We find that incident rate ratios, calculated by exponentiating the Poisson regression coefficient for the ARI, CL, Gunning Fog, and FKG indices reported in Table 6, range from 1.05 to 1.14.

  20. In an unreported robustness check on the subsampling, we check whether the results are sensitive to the number of allocations by Watsi on behalf of the donors who choose the “monthly” option. Similarly to the previous subsampling, we create a subsample of campaigns with a high level of support by Passive Donors. To define a “high” level, we use the upper quartile (75th percentile) of # of Monthly Donors, which corresponds to more than three contributions from the monthly donors. Therefore, our subsample with a “high” level of Passive Donors consists of campaigns with more than three Passive Donors; the subsample with a “medium-to-low” level of Passive Donors consists of campaigns with three or fewer monthly donors. Instead of using the upper quartile to define a “high” level of Passive Donors, we also tried using the median. Results for the upper quartile and median are available upon request, and are qualitatively similar to those when a single donation from a Passive Donor is classified as failed.

  21. We also re-run our analyses by deleting all donations funded in December, and reach the same conclusion. The results are untabulated, but are available from the authors upon request.

  22. We are unable to add donor fixed effects because of the small number of donations made per donor (i.e., there is no reason to treat all the anonymous donors the same.) Note that these two controls are constructed using the conditional mean. In the example described in the “Data” section, David’s impact number was 10, which was lower than the average of the nine previous PP Donors, which was 71. Therefore, this dummy variable takes the value of 0. Similarly, we compare David with the PP Donors who donated right before him (using initial “B” (eighteenth in the queue) in panel C, Funder Sequence, in Fig. A1). In this particular case, the impact number of the previous donor is 9, so this dummy variable equals 1.

References

  • Acemoglu, D., Dahleh, M. A., Lobel, I., & Ozdaglar, A. (2011). Bayesian learning in social networks. Review of Economic Studies, 78(4), 1201–1236.

  • Agrawal, A., Catalini, C., and Goldfarb, A. (2010). The geography of crowdfunding, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1692661.

  • Ahlers, G. K. C., Cumming, D. J., Guenther, C., & Schweizer, D. (2015). Signaling in equity crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4), 955–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ai, C., & Norton, E. (2003). Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters, 80(1), 123–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, T. H., Davis, B. C., Short, J. C., & Webb, J. W. (2015). Crowdfunding in a prosocial microlending environment: Examining the role of intrinsic versus extrinsic cues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1), 53–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, T. H., Davis, B. C., Webb, J. W., & Short, J. C. (2017). Persuasion in crowdfunding: An elaboration likelihood model of crowdfunding performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(6), 707–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, T. H., McKenny, A. F., & Short, J. C. (2013). The effect of entrepreneurial rhetoric on microlending investment: An examination of the warm-glow effect. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6), 690–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amsden, R., and Schweizer, D. (2018). Are blockchain crowdsales the new “gold rush”? Success determinants of initial coin offerings, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3163849.

  • André, K., Bureau, S., Gautier, A., & Rubel, A. (2017). Beyond the opposition between altruism and self-interest: Reciprocal giving in reward-based crowdfunding. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(2), 313–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1447–1458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni, J., & Petrie, R. (2004). Public goods experiments without confidentiality: A glimpse into fund-raising. Journal of Public Economics, 88(7–8), 1605–1623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anglin, A. H., Short, J. C., Drover, W., Stevenson, R. M., McKenny, A. F., & Allison, T. H. (2018). The power of positivity? The influence of positive psychological capital language on crowdfunding performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(4), 470–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Moore, D. J. (1994). Public service advertisements: Emotions and empathy guide Prosocial behavior. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 56–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, R. (2001). The mighty toddler: The essential guide to the toddler years, M. Evans & Company, 1st edition.

  • Bassani, G., Marinelli, N., & Vismara, S. (2019). Crowdfunding in healthcare. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(4), 1290–1310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., & Dawson, K. (1997). Is empathy-induced helping due to self-other merging? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 485–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism ofp motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 107–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2010). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R., and Wiepking, P. (2016). Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving, In The philanthropy reader, ed. Moody, M., and Breeze, B. (Routledge 1st edition), 67-73.

  • Benson, P. L., & Catt, V. L. (1978). Soliciting charity contribution: The parlance of asking for money. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8(1), 84–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betancourt, H. (1990). An attribution-empathy model of helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(3), 573–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., & Welch, I. (1992). A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy, 100(5), 992–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, J., Colombo, M., Cumming, D., & Vismara, S. (2018). New players in entrepreneurial finance and why they are there. Small Business Economics, 50, 239–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, D. E., Eastman, J. K., & Eastman, K. L. (2018). Encouraging consumer charitable behavior: The impact of charitable motivations, gratitude, and materialism. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(4), 1213–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. (1972). Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28(2), 59–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buis, M. (2010). Stata tip 87: Interpretation of interactions in nonlinear models. Stata Journal, 10(2), 305–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burman, E. (1994). Innocents abroad: Western fantasies of childhood and the iconography of emergencies. Disasters, 18(3), 238–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, C. D. B., & Strongman, K. (2004). Use of images in charity advertising: Improving donations and compliance rates. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 8(8), 571–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D., Carr, S. C., & MacLachlan, M. (2001). Attributing “third world poverty” in Australia and Malawi: A case of donor Bias? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(2), 409–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carman, K. (2004). Social influences and the private provision of public goods: Evidence from charitable contributions in the workplace, SIEPR discussion paper no. 02-13, Available at https://siepr.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/02-13_0.pdf.

  • Clark, J. (2002). Recognizing large donations to public goods: An experimental test. Managerial and Decision Economics, 23(1), 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M. G., Franzoni, C., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2014). Internal social capital and the attractions on early contributions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1), 75–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, D., and Ribert, J. P. (2017). America’s changing religious identity. Findings from the 2016 American Values Atlas. Public Religion Research Institute.

  • Cumming, D. J., Hornuf, L., Karami, M., and Schweizer, D. (2019a). Disentangling crowdfunding from fraudfunding. Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 16-09. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2828919.

  • Cumming, D., Meoli, M., & Vismara, S. (2019b). Does equity crowdfunding democratize entrepreneurial finance? Forthcoming: Small Business Economics.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, M. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 925–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dale, E., Ackerman, J., Mesch, D. J., Osili, U. O., & Garcia, S. (2018). Giving to women and girls: An emerging area of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(2), 241–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DellaVigna, S., List, J. A., & Malmendier, U. (2012). Testing for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(1), 1–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dovidio, J. F. (1982). Sex, costs, and helping behavior. Journal of Psychology, 112(2), 231–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekström, M. (2018). Seasonal altruism: How Christmas shapes unsolicited charitable giving. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 153, 177–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A., Treglown, L., Hyde, G., & Trickey, G. (2016). The bright and dark side of altruism: Demographic, personality traits, and disorders associated with altruism. Journal of Business Ethics, 134(3), 359–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galak, J., Small, D., & Stephen, A. T. (2011). Microfinance decision making: A field study of Prosocial lending. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 130–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Larimer, C. W. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 33–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giudici, G., Guerini, M., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2018). Reward-based crowdfunding of entrepreneurial projects: The effect of local altruism and localized social capital on proponents’ success. Small Business Economics, 50(2), 307–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glazer, A., & Konrad, K. (1996). A signaling explanation for charity. American Economic Review, 86(4), 1019–1028.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J., & Mollick, E. (2017). Activist choice homophily and the crowdfunding of female founders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(2), 341–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. H. (2017). Econometric analysis, Pearson, 8th edition.

  • Günther, C., Johan, S., & Schweizer, D. (2018). Is the crowd sensitive to distance?—How investment decisions differ by investor type. Small Business Economics, 50(1), 289–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helgeson, V. S. (2016). Psychology of gender. Routledge, 5th edition.

  • Hafer, C. L., & Bègue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 128–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harbaugh, W. T., Mayr, U., & Burghart, D. R. (2007). Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science, 316(5831), 1622–1624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heutel, G. (2014). Crowding out and crowding in of private donations and government Grants. Public Finance Review, 42(2), 143–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrandt, K. A., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (1977). Gender bias in observers’ perceptions of infants’ sex: It’s a boy most of the time. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 45(2), 472–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, C., Chen, Z. F., & Li, C. (2017). “Liking” and being “liked”: How are personality traits and demographics associated with giving and receiving “likes” on Facebook? Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 292–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornuf, L., & Neuenkirch, M. (2017). Pricing shares in equity crowdfunding. Small Business Economics, 48(4), 795–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornuf, L., & Schwienbacher, A. (2018). Market mechanisms and funding dynamics in equity crowdfunding. Journal of Corporate Finance, 50(1), 556–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, L. M., & Esses, V. M. (1997). Of scripture and ascription: The relation between religious fundamentalism and intergroup helping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(8), 893–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies (2019). The 2019 nonprofit employment report, Available at ttp://ccss.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2019/01/2019-NP-Employment-Report_FINAL_1.8.2019.pdf.

  • Karns, C. M., Iii, W. E. M., Mayr, U., & Fox, G. R. (2017). The cultivation of pure altruism via gratitude: A functional MRI study of change with gratitude practice. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krause, N. (2009). Religious involvement, gratitude, and change in depressive symptoms over time. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 19(3), 155–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuppuswamy, V., and Bayus, B. L. 2014. Crowdfunding creative ideas: The dynamics of project backers in Kickstarter. UNC Kenan-Flagler Research Paper. 2013-15.

  • Lamers, M. (2005). Representing poverty, impoverishing representation? A discursive analysis of a NGOs fundraising posters. Graduate Journal of Social Science, 2(1), 37–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landry, C., Lange, A., List, J. A., Price, M. K., & Rupp, N. G. (2006). Toward an understanding of the economics of charity: Evidence from a field experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2), 747–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latane, B., & Dabbs, J. M. (1975). Sex, group size and helping in three cities. Sociometry, 38(2), 180–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehner, O. M. (2013). Crowdfunding social ventures: A model and research agenda. Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 15(4), 289–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, M. J., & Simmons, C. H. (1966). Observer’s reaction to the “innocent victim”: Compassion or rejection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2), 203–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lifeway Research (2012). Highest attendance days – Survey of 1,000 Protestant pastors, Available at http://lifewayresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/lifeway-research-highest-attendance-days-may-2012.pdf.

  • Lin, M., & Viswanathan, S. (2015). Home Bias in online investments: An empirical study of an online crowdfunding market. Management Science, 62(5), 1393–1414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, K. (1943). Die Angeborenen Formen Möglicher Erfahrung. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 5(2), 235–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, L. Z., Li, H., & Lee, K. (2011). Are Children’s faces really more appealing than those of adults? Testing the baby schema hypothesis beyond infancy. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110(1), 115–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacLaughlin, S. (2014). Charitable giving report: How nonprofit fundraising performed in 2014, Blackbaud, Charleston, 1–20.

  • Malhotra, D. (2010). (When) Are religious people nicer? Religious salience and the “Sunday Effect” on pro-social behavior. Judgement and Decision Making, 5(2), 138–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R., & Randal, J. (2009). How Sunday, price, and social norms influence donation behaviour. Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(5), 722–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenny, A. F., Allison, T. H., Ketchen, D. J., Short, J. C., & Ireland, R. D. (2017). How should crowdfunding research evolve? A survey of the entrepreneurship theory and practice editorial board. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2), 291–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meer, J. (2011). Brother, can you spare a dime: Peer pressure in charitable solicitation. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8), 926–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mollick, E. R. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: Determinants of success and failure. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moritz, A., and Block, J. H. (2016). Crowdfunding: A literature review and research directions, in D. Brüntje, & O. Gajda (eds.), Crowdfunding in Europe (pp. 25–53), Springer International Publishing.

  • Muehleman, J., Bruker, C., & Ingram, C. (1976). The generosity shift. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(3), 344–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New America (2016). Beyond the helpless victim media representation of women in conflict zones, by Carolina Marques de Mesquita (December 8).

  • New York Times. (2013). The charitable-industrial complex. Page, A19(July 27).

  • Pew Research Center. (2016). Shared, collaborative and on demand: The new digital economy, chapter 4. Collaborative: Crowdfunding platforms. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/05/19/collaborative-crowdfunding-platforms/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piliavin, I. M., Rodin, J., & Piliavin, J. A. (1969). Good Samaritanism: An underground phenomenon? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13(4), 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, R. (1984). A positive model of private charity and public transfers. Journal of Political Economy, 92(1), 136–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satow, K. L. (1975). Social approval and helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11(6), 501–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer, D., & Zhou, T. (2017). Do principles pay in real estate crowdfunding? Journal of Portfolio Management, 43(6), 120–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seu, I. B. (2016). “The deserving”: Moral reasoning and ideological dilemmas in public responses to humanitarian communications. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55(4), 739–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., McKenny, A. F., Allison, T. H., & Ireland, R. D. (2017). Research on crowdfunding: Reviewing the (very recent) past and celebrating the present. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2), 149–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skågeby, J. (2010). Gift-giving as a conceptual framework: Framing social behaviour in online networks. Journal of Information Technology, 25(2), 170–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, D. A., & Verrochi, N. M. (2009). The face of need: Facial emotion expression on charity advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 777–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smillie, I. (1995). The Alms Bazaar: Altruism Under Fire - Non-profit Organizations and International Development (Practical Action Publishing).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S., Windmeijer, F., & Wright, E. (2013). Peer effects in charitable giving: Evidence from the (running) field. Economic Journal, 125(585), 1053–1071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, J., Mathers, A., & Crooks, V. A. (2016). Fund my treatment!: A call for ethics-focused social science research into the use of crowdfunding for medical care. Social Science & Medicine, 169, 27–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soetevent, A. R. (2005). Anonymity in giving in a natural context—A field experiment in 30 churches. Journal of Public Economics, 89(11–12), 2301–2323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Time (August 25, 2017). How the kindness of strangers became a multi-billion-dollar industry, Available at http://time.com/4912910/crowdfunding-gofundme-youcaring/.

  • United Nations (1989). Convention on the rights of the child, Available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx.

  • Vesterlund, L. (2003). The informational value of sequential fundraising. Journal of Public Economics, 87(3–4), 627–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vismara, S. (2016). Equity retention and social network theory in equity crowdfunding. Small Business Economics, 46(4), 579–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vismara, S. (2018). Information cascades among investors in equity crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(3), 467–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagstaff, A. (2007). Health insurance for the poor: Initial impacts of Vietnam’s health care fund for the poor, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4134, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=961760.

  • Wallmeroth, J., Wirtz, P., & Groh, A. P. (2018). Venture capital, angel financing, and crowdfunding of entrepreneurial ventures: A literature review. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 14(1), 1–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, W., Mahmood, A., Sismeiro, C., and Vulkan, N. (2019). The evolution of equity crowdfunding: Insights from co-investments of angels and the crowd, Research Policy 48, Forthcoming.

  • Warr, P. (1982). Pareto optimal redistribution and private charity. Journal of Public Economics, 19(1), 131–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B. (1993). On sin versus sickness: A theory of perceived responsibility and social motivation. American Psychologist, 48(9), 957–965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, S. G., & Brown, T. J. (1975). Physical attractiveness, the severity of the emergency and helping: A field experiment and interpersonal simulation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11(6), 531–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank and WHO (2017). Half the world lacks access to essential health services, 100 million still pushed into extreme poverty because of health expenses, Available at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2017/half-lacks-access/en/.

  • WHO (2010). World Health Statistics 2010, Available at http://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/whr_background/en/.

  • WHO (2011). World Health Statistics 2011, Available at http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/2011/en/.

  • Wiepking, P. (2008). Picturing generosity: National campaigns for charitable causes in the Netherlands. For the love of mankind. A sociological study on charitable giving (pp. 73-94). Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Philanthropic Studies, VU University Amsterdam: Amsterdam, Netherlands.

  • Wiesenthal, D. L., Austrom, D., & Silverman, I. (1983). Diffusion of responsibility in charitable donations. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 4(1), 17–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. T. (1994). Gendered media: The influence of media on views of gender.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., & Liu, P. (2012). Rational herding in microloan markets. Management Science, 58(5), 892–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to guest editors Jörn H. Block, Lars Hornuf, Alexander Groh, Tom Vanacker, and Silvio Vismara, and two anonymous referees for their many helpful comments. We thank Yan Alperovych, Eric Braune, Philipp Geiler, Bianca Grohmann, Christian Koziol, Jean-Michel Sahut, Armin Schwienbacher, and Silvio Vismara, as well as the participants of the conference on Digital Innovation, Entrepreneurship & Financing (Lyon, France) and the Workshop: Developments in Entrepreneurial Finance: Crowdfunding, Blockchain, and ICOs (Lyon, France) for helpful comments and suggestions, and to Isabelle Jolin, Moein Karami, Qiao Nie, Xiao Ma, and Stéphane Sévigny for excellent research assistance.

Funding

Denis Schweizer is financially supported through the Manulife Professorship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juliane Proelss.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 97 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 2254 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Proelss, J., Schweizer, D. & Zhou, T. Economics of philanthropy—evidence from health crowdfunding. Small Bus Econ 57, 999–1026 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00336-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00336-w

Keywords

JEL classification

Navigation