Biased Altruism: Islamophobia and Donor Support for Global Humanitarian Organizations

Providing humanitarian assistance to displaced individuals is a critical policy challenge. Many refugee camps are run by charities supported by Western donors. If refugees are predominantly Muslim, might Islamophobia suppress donations to these charities? Using a survey experiment conducted in the United States, the authors examine whether donors' willingness to support a charity is influenced by the dominant religion of the refugees, the regions in which refugee camps are located, and/or the religious affiliation of the charity. The authors find modest support for Islamophobia: while willingness to donate is not affected by the location of camps or the predominance of Muslim refugees, it declines significantly for Islamic charities. Respondents overall tend to be especially willing to donate to a charity that serves Christian refugees in the Middle East. Among self‐identifying Christians, respondents are more willing to donate to a charity serving Christian refugees than one serving Muslim refugees.     

Subsidizing the affluent: the case of medical education.

State and federal funds are important sources of revenue for medical schools, and a strong case can be made for public support for these institutions. Although the federal role is more widely known, the states in fact provide the bulk of direct support for medical training. The nature of aid from the two sources differs in significant ways. Most federal aid supports research or patient care, but much of state aid goes to support unconditional tuition subsidies. The primary beneficiaries of these subsidies are relatively affluent nonminority students who are beginning lucrative careers in the medical field--careers that would be lucrative even if no subsidies were provided. Nor does it appear that general subsidies are needed to attract poor and minority applicants. While targeted loans and scholarships to individuals may be justified, general tuition subsidies are not.     

A tax by any other name: The donor directed automatic percentage contribution bonus,a budget alternative for financing governmental support of charity

Our paper analyzes the merits of four alternatives for providing governmental support to charity—the existing tax write-off, a tax credit, a sliding matching grant, and a percentage contribution bonus. After searching for an appropriate budget mechanism (a five-year fixed-sum authorization and appropriation), we apply a wide-ranging set of criteria—equity, legitimacy, efficiency, reciprocity, controllability, etc.—to each of the four alternatives. In brief, the existing tax write-off is grossly inequitable among donors, poorly controlled by government, and is part of a tax system increasingly viewed as illegitimate by citizens. The advantages of the write-off are that it produces predictable amounts of income at low administrative cost without overtly raising questions of constitutionality. Its disadvantages would be mitigated by a tax credit in proportion to the amounts contributed by taxpayers. But the credit does not reach people who do not file returns and may significantly decrease income to charitable agencies. The sliding matching grant (under which the government pays to charity in proportion as the individual gives of his income) provides a particular form of equity for taxpayers but is deficient in other respects. The contribution bonus—a percentage of each dollar contributed paid to charity by government—is wholly equitable, includes all givers, sustains reciprocity with recipients, is controllable by government, and is legitimate in treating expenditures as expenditures and not as tax dodges. It also raises the possibility of increasing the government's contribution. The defects of the bonus are higher administrative costs and potential doubt about constitutionality. We conclude in favor of a percentage contribution bonus set high enough to provide marginally more income for charity and reduce financial uncertainties during the transition. Appraisal of political feasibility suggests that supporters of charity are likely to be worse off unless they come up with a more defensible approach, such as the contribution bonus. To help resolve doubts, we suggest adding on a small percentage contribution bonus to the present tax write-off for three years so as to test constitutionality and assess more precisely administrative costs. While there is no one proposal that will make everyone better off, the contribution bonus is far superior on most criteria to the alternatives.The paper was written for The Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs. For their criticisms and constructive comments, including those with which we disagreed, we express our appreciation to Professors John McNulty and Lawrence Stone, Law School, and Professors Arnold Meltsner and William Niskanen, Graduate School of Public Policy, all of the University of California (Berkeley).     

Public Attitudes Toward Immigration Policy Across the Legal/Illegal Divide: The Role of Categorical and Attribute-Based Decision-Making

Scholars debate the relative strength of economic and ‘socio-psychological’ sources of anti-immigrant sentiment. However, the literature often fails to distinguish legal from illegal immigration and therefore overlooks a major instance in which this debate is moot. To address this issue, we develop a theory that recognizes two different modes of evaluating immigrants: “attribute-based” judgment, in which respondents weigh immigrants’ desirability based on individual characteristics—human capital, race, language ability, and so on—and “categorical” judgment, which disregards these altogether. Categorical judgments arise when a policy issue triggers blanket considerations of justice or principle that obviate considerations about putative beneficiaries’ individual merits, instead evoking overriding beliefs about the desirability of the policy as a whole or casting the entire category as uniformly deserving or undeserving. We use experimental evidence from two national surveys to show that the principal distinction between attitudes toward legal and illegal immigration is not in the relative weight of immigrants’ attributes but the much greater prevalence of categorical assessments of illegal immigration policy, much of it rooted in rigid moralistic convictions about the importance of strict adherence to rules and laws.     

Do Donors Penalize Nonprofit Organizations with Accumulated Wealth?

Does current accumulated wealth by nonprofit organizations influence contributions from individuals? Existing research demonstrates that financial reserves aid program continuity during economic downturns. Yet donors, charity watchdogs, and policy makers voice concern about accumulated wealth in nonprofits. This empirical analysis examines whether the expected negative relationship occurs when donors perceive accumulated wealth as excessive. The results support the conclusion that future contributions are negatively affected when wealth levels are deemed excessive. Nonprofit managers concerned that accumulated wealth will diminish donations should consider financial strategies that will allow their organizations to build modest—but not excessive—reserves.     

Immigrant influx and generational politics: A comparative case study of Hong Kong and Taiwan

Studies have long shown the existence of an age gap in voting behavior. We argue that the influx of immigrants can influence the size of this gap. Young people can become more apprehensive toward immigrants than older people because of the former's greater exposure to more competition from immigrants in the labor market and susceptibility to anti-immigrant sentiments in society. The age gap in attitudes toward immigrants can carry over to vote choice. We illustrate our argument with a comparative study of Hong Kong and Taiwan. While the two societies share many similarities, Hong Kong has experienced a significantly larger influx of immigrants from mainland China. Based on two election surveys in 2016, we find a distinct generational gap in attitudes toward immigrants in Hong Kong, but not in Taiwan. The age gap in Hong Kong also manifests itself in electoral support of China-resisting political parties.     

Comparing beneficiaries of the Medicare savings programs with eligible nonparticipants

This note focuses on participation in two entitlement programs that help reduce out-of-pocket expenses for low-income Medicare beneficiaries: the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB) program and the Specified Low-Income Medicare Beneficiary (SLMB) program. As of 1999, about 2.75 million eligible, noninstitutionalized individuals were not enrolled in these Medicare savings programs. The eligible nonparticipants differed substantially from the QMB and SLMB participants in that they were less likely to be Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries and more likely to be elderly, nonblack, and in relatively good health. These findings, which could help target future outreach efforts, are based on Survey of Income and Program Participation data matched with administrative records from the Social Security Administration.     

Who is a ‘Deserving’ Immigrant? An Experimental Study of Norwegian Attitudes

Previous research demonstrates that opposition to immigration increases when immigrant groups are seen as economically non‐viable and burdened with distinctive and unassimilable cultural practices. However, no research to date has investigated the parallel relationship between attributes of individuals and willingness to admit these individuals as legal immigrants. This study examines Norwegians’ evaluations of individual immigrants. Using an experimental design, specific attributes of immigrants are manipulated, making them appear more or less likely to make an economic contribution and more or less likely to assimilate into Norwegian culture. It is found that the decision to admit individuals is predominantly influenced by the immigrant's economic background. Norwegians are especially supportive of highly skilled immigrants. The immigrant's race is also relevant, but the effect of racial cues varies between men and women. Immigrants with an Afrocentric appearance are more likely to be rejected by men, but accepted by women. The article recommends that immigration researchers measure public support for immigration at both the policy and individual immigrant levels.     

All spending is not equal: European Union public spending,policy feedback and citizens’ support for the EU

While public support is central to the problem‐solving capacity of the European Union, we know little about when and why the EU can increase its citizens’ support through spending. Extensive research finds that citizens living in countries that are net beneficiaries of the EU budget are more supportive of the EU, assuming that citizens care equally about all forms of spending. It is argued in this article, however, that the amount of spending is only part of the story. Understanding the effects of spending on support requires a consideration of how transfers are spent. Drawing on policy feedback theories in comparative politics, it is shown that support for the EU is a function of the fit between the spending area and economic need in individuals’ immediate living context. Results from a statistical analysis of EU spending on human capital, infrastructure, agriculture, energy and environmental protection in 127 EU regions over the period 2001–2011 corroborate this argument. As the EU and other international organisations become increasingly publicly contested, the organisations themselves may increasingly try to shore up public support through spending, but they will only be successful under specific conditions.     

Donors’ Responses to Profit Incentives in the Social Sector: The Entrepreneurial Orientation Reward and the Profit Penalty

This study uses an online survey experiment to test whether the pairing of profit-seeking with mission-related programs in the social sector attracts or deters donations from individual donors. We test individuals’ response to three types of profit incentives allowed under current U.S. public policy: (1) non-distributed profit to an organization, which is allowed for nonprofit entities; (2) profit to the organization's equity investors and owners, which is allowed under for-profit social enterprise governance charters; and (3) profit to lending investors, which is introduced by social impact bonds, a pay-for-success policy tool. We test trust theory, under which profit incentives deter donors against entrepreneurial orientation (EO) theory, which suggests that donors are attracted to organizations that use innovative, market-driven programs. Findings indicate support for both theories, but the support depends on how the specific profit incentive is structured. Donors support organizations that use profit-generating social enterprise programs—but only when the profits are non-distributable; donors’ support is significantly lower for social enterprises in which owners and equity investors may profit. Importantly however, this negative effect is not found for pay-for-success policy tools where lending investors, rather than equity investors and owners, receive profits.     

Public wage differentials and the treatment of occupational differences

Past research demonstrates that the estimated size of the federal government earnings differential shrinks substantially with the addition of detailed occupational controls. Possible explanations for this reduction are: controlling for the differing sectoral distributions of common occupations, and controlling for detailed occupations unique to each sector. While occupational detail does not eliminate the federal differential, more than two‐thirds of the reduction in the federal differential comes from controlling for unique occupations and, moreover, this is equivalent to excluding all observations in unique occupations. This finding is contrasted with that for the local sector in which the differing distribution of common occupations largely explains the pattern of the differential. © 2004 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.     

Protecting human rights in the era of uncertainty: How not to lose the war against ISIS

As the brutal and violent attacks on civilian populations multiply throughout the world perpetrated by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISIL, or the Islamic State, also known as Daesh), the need for an effective response to terrorism has grown in intensity. The ISIS attacks in Paris have in particular introduced a wave of nationalist, securitized alarm, reinforcing a general concern about the influx of immigrants and asylum seekers while underscoring the shift from a regional to international nature of both threat and risk. These issues of security and terrorism have also illustrated the willingness of great powers to support military actions against ISIS in order to stem the atrocities perpetrated by this group, while placing the overthrow of the Assad regime on the backburner for the time being at least. We argue that the defeat of ISIS need not be accomplished by stigmatizing refugees and subjecting them to religious litmus tests. Closing Europe's porous borders and politicizing the attempt to admit refugees at a time when the growing humanitarian crisis poses mounting human rights challenges to the international community is fundamentally wrongheaded. We argue that these approaches, while temporarily satisfying, strengthen the hand of ISIS and other terrorist groups that tend to portray such policies and practices largely in terms of civilizational clashes. Defeating ISIS requires strategic patience and long-term logical and prudent decision making. While doing so, it is important to avoid the enemy's repressive, atavistic, and unsavory methods. The burden is on the international community to fulfill the commitment to international human rights law and international humanitarian law, which continue to be one of the most effective and legitimate tools in our arsenal to confront terrorism.     

Welfare Nationalism and Popular Support for Raising the Child Allowance: Evidence from a Norwegian Survey Experiment

Refugee and labour immigration have placed the issue of immigrants’ access to welfare benefits high on the political agenda. This article explores how voter preferences for increases in the child benefit change when respondents are reminded about immigrants’ access to benefits. The survey experiment shows that information about newly arrived immigrants’ access to child benefit has only a small impact on support for increasing the child allowance. By contrast, information about labour migrants’ access to benefits for children living in another European Union country has a strong impact, and the observed sensitivity to this cue is not to the same extent confined to respondents who otherwise support welfare dualism.     

Silent citizenship among Asian Americans and Latinos: opting out or left out?

In his classic study, Who Governs?, Robert Dahl interpreted the patterns of political assimilation of ‘white ethnic’ immigrants and their children during the mid-twentieth century as a hopeful sign of the potential of democratic pluralism in the USA. While acknowledging that immigrant groups faced discrimination and structural barriers that might lead them to be silent, Dahl predicted that social mobility and assimilation would eventually erase these deficits in political participation among immigrants. Building from Dahl's analysis, we investigate the extent to which pluralism in the USA can and does work the same way for immigrants who are also racial minorities. We highlight factors that can lead these groups to become silent citizens, including lack of legal status, lower levels of political mobilization by institutions, and discrimination as structural impediments to minority participation. Our findings suggest that both resources as well as structural impediments structure the political behavior of Asian Americans and Latinos, determining whether they are vocal citizens or silent citizens.     

Kenyanization and African capacity ‘shuffling’

Cohen (1992) discusses in detail the problem of 'Kenyanization' of positions filled by expatriate advisors in the Kenyan civil service. He outlines six possible solutions to the problem, four of which involve the funding by donors of higher than civil service level salaries to attract Kenyan staff to the donors' particular projects. While Cohen is critical of these options he does not discuss the most serious danger in their use, the danger that resources will be seriously misallocated. In this article the traditional approach of supplying new resources to Kenya is compared with this new alternative of using donor funds to induce the reallocation of existing Kenyan staff. It suggests that donors must be extremely careful in using their funds to entice workers to their own projects without consideration of where these resources are drawn from. An alternative explanation to those discussed by Cohen for the lack of success with ‘Kenyanization’ is also proposed.     

If Immigrants Could Vote in the UK: A Thought Experiment with Data from the 2015 General Election

The distribution of voting rights in the UK is an artefact of history rather than a product of clear legal or philosophical principles. Consequently, some resident aliens (i.e. immigrants) have the right to vote in all UK elections; others can vote in local elections but are excluded from national elections; still others are excluded from all elections. In England and Wales alone, roughly 2.3 million immigrants are excluded from voting in national elections. This exclusion is inconsistent with the founding principle of democracy and distorts political discourse. What if all immigrants could vote in national elections? We estimate that up to ninety‐five parliamentary seats could have been won by a different party in the 2015 general election. More substantially, enfranchising all immigrants would require re‐drawing UK constituency boundaries. The new electoral map would increase the relative power of urban constituencies and would incentivise some political entrepreneurs and parties to temper anti‐immigration rhetoric.     

Empathy in a Citizen Deliberation Experiment

Despite increased scholarly attention, there is still limited knowledge on how empathy works in democratic deliberation. This article examines the role of empathy in citizen deliberation with the help of a deliberative experiment on immigration. First, a random sample of citizens was surveyed regarding their opinions on immigration. Based on their opinions, they were then divided into a permissive or a non‐permissive enclave, and randomly assigned into like‐minded or mixed‐opinion groups for deliberation. After deliberation, they were surveyed anew. The study analyzes: (a) empathy differences between permissive and non‐permissive participants; (b) changes in outgroup empathy toward immigrants as a result of deliberation; and (c) differences in prosocial behavior (i.e., donating to charity). The results show that the permissive respondents had more empathy, especially toward immigrants, than the non‐permissive respondents. Among participants, outgroup empathy increased during deliberation. Regarding prosocial behavior, the permissive participants donated more often to charity at the end of the experiment.     

Early retirees under Social Security: health status and economic resources

Some proposals to change the Social Security program to ensure long-run solvency would reduce or eliminate benefits for early retirees. This article documents the health and financial resources of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) beneficiaries aged 62-64. It identifies a substantial minority of early retirees who might be economically vulnerable if either the early eligibility age or normal retirement age was raised. Attention is directed at the extent to which poor health limits work in this age group and the extent to which curtailment of early OASI benefits might lead to increases in the Disability Insurance (DI) program rolls. Using a set of comprehensive health measures, we estimate that over 20 percent of OASI beneficiaries aged 62-64 have health problems that substantially impair their ability to work. This finding implies that in this age range, as many severely disabled persons receive OASI benefits as disability benefits. In fact, 12 percent of early beneficiaries would meet a more stringent criterion for being classified "disabled"--SSA's medical standard for disability benefits. The evidence therefore indicates that OASI functions as a substantial, albeit unofficial, disability program for early retirees. Compared with those who have no health problems or are less severely impaired, early OASI beneficiaries who meet the medical criteria for disability benefits are more likely to be living alone and more likely to be poor or "near poor." The great majority of the group--almost 80 percent--are women. Analysis of their earnings histories suggests that most of these beneficiaries do not satisfy the insured-status requirements for Disability Insurance benefits. The article considers the different roles of the OASI program and the DI program for health-impaired individuals aged 62-64. Disability modelers sometimes overlook an important aspect of program administration. Under customary screening procedures implemented in Social Security field offices, applicants for early OASI benefits who appear to be severely impaired simultaneously apply for DI benefits if they are disability insured. If they are found eligible for DI benefits, those applicants become DI beneficiaries. The implication is that raising the earliest entitlement age would have little impact on the DI rolls. Unless there are changes in eligibility criteria, the DI program would not serve as a safety net for many of the most severely disabled early retirees.     

Poor versus rich countries: a gap in public attitudes towards fiscal solidarity in the EU

Abstract

Existing research has primarily focused on the role of utility and identity in shaping individuals’ European Union (EU) preferences. This article argues that macroeconomic context is a crucial predictor of attitudes towards transnational financial assistance, which has been omitted from previous analyses. Using data from the 2014 European Election Studies (EES) Voter Study for 28 EU member states, this article demonstrates that citizens living in poorer EU countries are less willing to support fiscal solidarity than their counterparts in more affluent countries. Country affluence serves as a heuristic, moderating the relationship between individual-level utility and identity considerations and willingness to show solidarity to member states with economic difficulties. When a country does not fare well economically, citizens’ views on providing help to others remain negative, irrespective of individual-level utilitarian and identity considerations. Our findings have implications for understanding the decision-making calculus underlying preference formation.