Suchergebnisse

I compute the share of U.S. household giving accounted for by the American tax units donating the largest amounts over the 1960–2012 period from repeated cross-sectional samples of federal income tax returns. The share of donations accounted for by a minority of top donors rose sharply over this period. Donor concentration has risen both because the largest gifts have grown larger and because more households give little or nothing in any given year.

Is charitable giving U-shaped in income? That is, do low- and high-income households donate a higher fraction of their income to charity than the middle class? Decades of correlational studies have found that the share of income given to charity follows a U-shape pattern in the United States, but scholars continue to debate whether the apparent U-shape is a statistical mirage, or accurately characterizes giving across the income distribution. We partnered with a real charity to conduct a charitable-giving experiment where relative endowments are revealed to participants. We experimentally verify that random placement in an income distribution causes a U-shaped giving-income curve. The U-shape observed in real-world data therefore is plausibly not spurious, but a real effect of relative economic status on giving decisions. JEL Classifications: C91, D31, D64, D91, H23

Inconsistent measurement of ship tonnage, the denominator in the usual measures of crowded conditions on slave vessels, may confound estimated associations between crowding and slave mortality on the Middle Passage. The tonnages reported inLloyd's Registersare shown to be consistent over time and are used to demonstrate that both the unstandardized and standardized tonnages in the Transatlantic Slave Trade Database are deeply flawed. Using corrected tonnages, we find that crowding increased mortality only on British slave ships and only before the passage of Dolben's Act in 1788.

This article presents a quantitative analysis of the geographic distribution of spending through the 1964 Economic Opportunity Act (EOA). Using newly assembled state- and county-level data, the results show that the Johnson administration directed funding in ways consistent with the War on Poverty's rhetoric of fighting poverty and racial discrimination: poorer areas and those with a greater share of nonwhite residents received systematically more funding. In contrast to New Deal spending, political variables explain very little of the variation in EOA funding. The smaller role of politics may help explain the strong backlash against the War on Poverty's programs.