![]() Moreover, because experiments are typically fielded in one or few sites, they cannot assess intergroup behavior across varied institutional and geographic contexts. For instance, they often involve researcher money and subjects who know they are being observed, which can lead scholars to overestimate generosity and underestimate prejudice (Harrison and List Reference Harrison and List2004). However, even the best designed lab and lab-in-the-field experiments raise external validity concerns. Over the last few decades, the field has reoriented toward experimental research to examine intergroup dynamics with higher internal validity. However, they may overstate the effect of ethnic heterogeneity because minority communities suffer from multiple disadvantages (including less wealth, weaker institutions, and weaker social trust) for which observational research cannot fully control (Lee Reference Lee2018 Singh and vom Hau Reference Singh2016). Numerous observational studies suggest that diverse communities provide less funding for public goods than homogenous ones (e.g., Alesina and La Ferrara Reference Alesina and La Ferrara2000 Stichnoth and van der Straeten Reference Stichnoth and van der Straeten2013). ![]() Since we do not fully understand how ethnic diversity shapes generosity, it is unclear whether in-group appeals, appeals to universal rights, or other strategies increase donations and how sizeable the trade-offs of each strategy might be. Similarly, advocates for the Roma in Europe have used the language of human rights to increase out-group altruism for over two decades (Cortes Reference Cortes2015). For example, UNICEF’s donation webpage emphasizes that “Every child has the right to learn” (UNICEF 2020). Reference Scroggins, Mackie, Allen and Sherman2016, 220). In contrast, other NGOs try to increase out-group generosity by making universalistic appeals to human rights, hoping that these appeals will underscore recipient need and shift cognitive representations of out-group members from “an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ orientation, to the more inclusive ‘we’ orientation” (Scroggins et al. For example, NGOs commonly refer to potential aid recipients by names that signal membership in the dominant ethnicity, race, or religion (Kogut and Ritov Reference Kogut and Ritov2007). Reference Koch, Dreher, Nunnenkamp and Thiele2009). More commonly, NGOs make in-group appeals by emphasizing shared characteristics between donors and recipients, such as religion, ethnicity, language, or community membership (Koch et al. Reference Amirkhanian, Kelley, Benotsch, Somlai, Brown, Fernández and Opgenorth2004) or anti-poverty efforts that leave out the “ultra-poor” in Bangladesh (Matin and Hulme Reference Matin and Hulme2003). In response, some exclude the most stigmatized from their programming, as in the case of HIV prevention programs that exclude persons who contracted the virus through sexual activity (Amirkhanian et al. When they seek donations for narrowly tailored programs, NGOs optimize service delivery to the groups most in need, but the stigma associated with these groups may greatly reduce donations. NGOs thus face a particularly acute trade-off between effective aid programming and sustainable financing (Belcher and DeForge Reference Belcher and DeForge2012 Kogut and Ritov Reference Kogut, Ritov, Oppenheimer and Olivola2011). However, unlike governments, which can compel contributions, NGOs must persuade donors to give. We conclude that NGO fundraising strategies that narrowly emphasize either in-groups or out-groups, or fundamental rights language, may not be as effective as broader appeals, and we discuss implications for public goods provision in an era of growing nationalism.Īs government welfare spending declines across much of the Western world, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) increasingly fund basic social needs (Ball Reference Ball2007 Diller Reference Diller2001 Korpi and Palme Reference Korpi and Palme2003 Linos and West Reference Linos and West2003). Qualitative research in 12 communities complements our experiment. Donations to all groups were lower near Roma communities and declined disproportionately for the Roma appeal. An appeal to fundamental rights, a common advocacy strategy, did not reduce the generosity gap. ![]() Donations did not increase with an appeal to the in-group (Greek child) relative to a control (child), but they were halved with reference to a stigmatized out-group (Roma child). To study other-regarding behavior, we fielded an experiment through a text-to-give campaign in Greece. As government welfare programming contracts and NGOs increasingly assume core aid functions, they must address a long-standing challenge-that people in need often belong to stigmatized groups.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |