A theory of impact philanthropy

By Brian Duncan. 2004

299 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Safety Research, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ec8f1180d4cdc219760f82c028e030aba7f9681e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. René Bekkers
2. Pamala Wiepking
3. Heidi Crumpler
4. A. Gan
5. E. Shaw
6. Arvid Erlandsson
7. Philip J. Grossman

In Safety Research

1. Pamala Wiepking
2. René Bekkers
3. Heidi Crumpler
4. A. Gan
5. F. Björklund
6. Daniel Västfjäll
7. Arvid Erlandsson
8. M. Bäckström

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Pamala Wiepking
2. René Bekkers
3. Heidi Crumpler
4. C. Harvey
5. M. Maclean
6. A. Gan
7. F. Björklund
8. Daniel Västfjäll

Citations in the corpus

• Attitudes and Donation Behavior When Reading Positive and Negative Charity Appeals (2018, background): “Positive appeals are more effective There are also theoretical accounts for why positive appeals should be more efficient (e.g., impact philanthropy theory; Duncan, 2004).”
• The donor is in the details (2013, unknown): “Recent economic theorizing has identified a personal sense of impact as a central motivation for charitable acts (Duncan, 2004).”
• Andrew Carnegie and the foundations of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy (2011, background): “This definition – which describes an accumulative rather than a distributive process – runs counter to the view of entrepreneurs who become philanthropists as altruistic individuals who, having made a lot of money, are now ‘giving back' to society to ‘make a difference’ (Duncan, 2004 , p.”
• A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy (2010, background): “A large number of studies have estimated the effects of tax price on philanthropy (see Abrams & Schmitz, 1978, 1984; Andreoni, 1993; Andreoni & Payne, 2003; Auten, Cilke, & Randolph, 1992; Auten et al., 2002; Barrett, 1991; Barrett, McGuirk, & Steinberg, 1997; Boskin & Feldstein, 1977; Brooks, 2003b”
• The Impact of Public Scrutiny on Corporate Philanthropy (2006, background): “This view is best expressed through the stakeholder theory developed by Freeman (1984). Corporate philanthropy, under this framework, is but one of the many duties that are expected of the upstanding corporate citizen.”
• An experimental test of warm glow giving (2008, background): “Duncan (2004) has named giving designed to ‘make a difference’ impact philanthropy.”
• Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively (2015, background): “It has been suggested that an identified victim might elicit more perceived impact as the prospect of helping an identified victim seem more tangible and therefore more efficient than the prospect of helping statistical victims (Duncan, 2004).”
• Crowdfunding Creative Ideas: The Dynamics of Project Backers in Kickstarter (2015, unknown): “…in the public goods situation care only about the size of their donation and how it makes them feel, there is no role for social information, i.e., the contributions of donors are unrelated in that one person's donation does not affect the utility someone else receives from giving (Duncan 2004).”