Americans: the most generous people in the world.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/us-jumps-to-top-of-charity-index/2011/12/20/gIQAzbAe7O_story.html

Americans: the most generous people in the world. In this season of giving, that’s no idle gloat.

According to a new study, the United States tops a massive global charity survey, rising from fifth place in 2010.

The “World Giving Index,” based on 150,000 interviews with citizens of 153 nations, ranks the U.S. highest on a scale that weighed monetary donations, volunteer work, and willingness to help out a stranger.

Ireland placed second, followed by Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Canada, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Laos.

At the bottom of the list: China, Russia and India.

I’m not surprised. To be fair, charity does a lot of things in the US that the welfare state takes care of elsewhere. People in Europe would not dream of building a hospital wing or donating to a college library, because the state will do it.

Hmm. The four Western English-speaking contries on top. Can’t be a coincidence - is it the Brit tradition that’s the factor? I guess it just didn’t catch in India.

The last time I heard of a study comparing charity by nation, America was way down the list; I suspect that the study was tweaked to make America look good.

I’m sure more than one group is studying this. This one isn’t just based on charitable donations (where you would expect wealthier nations to do well). It also includes volunteer work and self-reported helping of strangers. And it’s based on the percentage of people who said they gave money or time, not on how much money or time anyone gave or how often they helped a stranger. It’s also limited to what respondents have done in the last month. So it’s interesting but incomplete, and that’s aside from the fact that you should be skeptical of any claim that one country is more generous than other.

Wait, what am I saying? Go America!!!

Those countries also seem to have ranked low in this group’s survey in 2010. I wonder if it has anything to do with rampant poverty.

Do you have a cite for this? Maybe they changed methodologies? I doubt they did it just to ‘make America look good’.

-XT

Here’s a link to CAFAmerica’s 2011 study. Here’s a story about the 2010 survey (including a spreadsheet with the rankings). In 2010 the U.S. was tied with Switzerland for fith place, behind Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and Canada. It doesn’t look like CAFAmerica changed their methodologies, nevermind the accusation that they did it to make the U.S. look good. I think it’s more likely that Der Trihs is thinking of other surveys done by other groups.

The survey method, or “methodology”, appears to be this:

*Gallup asks people which of the following three charitable acts they have undertaken in the past month:

  • donated money to an organisation?
  • volunteered time to an organisation?
  • helped a stranger, or someone they didn’t know who needed help?

It should be noted that giving money or time to an organisation could include political parties/organisations as well as registered charities, community organisations, and places of worship.*

Doesn’t seem like a particulary meaningful survey, to me.

People in some European Welfare states will claim that their tax-money should count as charity since it goes to what may be charitable caused in other countries. Personally I think it’s an atrocity to think that charity can be outsourced to the state. And strangely enough, when it comes down to it, then even the most ardent big-state supporters, if given a sum to donate will rather donate it to some charitable organization than to the state.

What if state-run programs reduce the need for charitable donations? Is that atrocious?

I don’t think it’s at all surprising that people would prefer to have direct control over where their money is going.

You seem to hear and read a lot of things that can’t be cited. This looks like yet another example of that.

I suspect you’re wrong. This is a Gallup poll, not “Tea Party Polling, Inc”.

Yes. Charity is a personal involvement that no more can be outsourced to a third party than love of your children can. Tax is not a substitute for charity. You can still be in favour of state run institutions for other reasons.

I find it ironic that those who think other that the citizens should be forced to hand over their money to the state, so that the state can redistribute it, would rather handle the redistribution of their own money themselves. Probably they should put their money where their mouth is.

Gallup ran the poll, but they didn’t chose the questions and they certainly didn’t write the report. I agree Der Trihs should find a cite.

I don’t think that answers my question. If there’s a high-quality state run program, isn’t there going to be less need for charity? That wouldn’t address the “helping a stranger” segment of the CAFAmerica survey, but it certainly addresses the money issue.

It’s not ironic. You can believe the state should run certain kinds of programs while still donating your own money as you see fit. Do you think it’s ironic that people who support Head Start meal programs for kids buy food for their own children?

I know a lot of people who donate to charity, or would help someone out, but I don’t know all that many who volunteer. It just doesn’t seem to be that big a thing here, outside of say sports.

I agree.
First, it missed out a major area - giving items to charity.

Second, the US has a much bigger political donation scene than the other countries on the list. That’s not a measure of generosity.

Third, the US by necessity replaces certain “socialist” institutions with charity. One doesn’t need to donate to hospitals, public broadcasting, and schools in some countries because it happens automatically.

I don’t doubt for a second that the people of the US are generous - they come across as such to me. But the survey itself is rubbish.

The point of taxing for charity is not because it’s our preferred solution, but because it’s the only way to get some assholes to help out the less fortunate at all. See the late Steve Jobs who cut all charity funding when Apple was in the hole (understandable) and never put it back when they were on top (not so much).

I’d much rather we not have to force the issue. But that’s as pie in the sky as communism working. As long as there are people who refuse to help out others, there will be other people to force them to help out. No man is an island.

I wonder if a non-poll based estimate of generosity could be made, which would account for things like different societal structures (private vs. public safety nets).

Maybe a modified form of Gini? Maybe consider the percent population of a country with unmet food/shelter/medicine needs, the size of unmet charitable need, and compare that to the country’s overall GDP, the potential for total charity.

I think you’re mixing up public foreign aid and individual donations. The USA has always been amongst the western nations giving the less in foreign aid (in%age of the GDP) but American people amongst the westerners giving the most on an individual basis. Nothing new here, I’ve read similar comparisons years ago, and the results were mostly the same.

A problem with self-reporting: many people in other countries don’t donate time or money to organizations (we’re not as fond of organizations as Americans are), and many who donate to organizations do not think of it as “donating to an organization”. They think of it as “donating in church” or “giving some money to help clean landmines”, rather than “donating to Caritas” or “giving some money to an organization which cleans minefields”. And many will help a neighbor move, or help set up booths at the Fair Trade Market - but the first one does not involve an organization, and the second one, again people don’t think “I’m volunteering with IO”.

Mind you, I’m convinced that designing a poll that “works” has to be one of the hardest tasks out there; this same week I got one where you had to pick what kind of job you had, and neither technical positions, nor the kind of professionals which are usually self-employed, nor anybody in the medical system, were possible options. I’ve had to fill INE’s poll on “the use of IT in Small and Medium Companies in Spain” twice, and neither time did they differentiate between “subsidiaries of large groups”, “medium-sized companies”, “small companies”, “single-person company”, even though the last group even has its own special laws. Yeah sure, I’ve got a system to let my Production Department when I get a Sale and it uses a computer from a pretty old yet very complex model… “hey Nava, I got work” “how nice, Nava, when do I start and where is it?”