JOURNAL OF ECONOMICSAND FINANCE 9 Volume 31 o Number 3 9 Fall 2007 403

DOES GIVING MAKE US PROSPEROUS?

By Arthur C. Brooks*

Abstract
Nonprofit economists have always assumed that income is a precursor to giving. In contrast,
many philosophical and religious teachings have asserted that it is giving that leads to prosperity.
This article seeks to test the non-economic hypothesis, using data from the 2000 Social Capital
Community Benchmark Survey. It identifies strong evidence that money giving does, in fact,
influence income. This is consistent with extant psychology research which clearly shows that
volunteering leads to positive mental and physical health outcomes. The implication of these
findings for researchers and managers is that the value of charity is not limited to those who
receive the services that giving makes possible. On the contrary, charity unleashes substantial
benefits to the givers themselves.

Introduction

A large majority of Americans give of their money and time. Most estimates place the
percentage of U.S. households that make charitable contributions each year at about 75 percent,
and the percentage that volunteer at about 55 percent. In 2003, American households contributed
an average of $1,100 to charity in 2003, and volunteered about 45 hours. Taking out households
that gave nothing, the average contribution level was $1,825; among only households that
volunteered a positive amount, the average annual number of hours was 202. About six percent of
households contributed money to arts and culture organizations. Among these givers, the average
amount donated was about $198 (COPPS, 2003).1
Private giving in the United States added up to more than $260 billion in 2005, about $14
billion of which went to arts and culture organizations. The largest part of all private charity--
about $199 billion---came from individual givers; the rest from foundations, corporations, and
bequests. About 66 percent of individual gifts went to religious organizations: not only to houses
of worship, but also to faith-based providers of social services and education (AAFRC, 2006;
COPPS, 2001). Charitable contributions in the United States have fluctuated between 1.5 and 2.2
percent of GDP over the past 50 years or so (AAFRC, 2003). In 1997, money donations made up
20 percent of all the funds to America's nonprofit sector, including 16 percent to educational
organizations like private universities, 20 percent to social welfare nonprofits such as homeless
shelters and soup kitchens, 84 percent to religious organizations, and 44 percent to arts
organizations. It is unmistakable that, without private charitable gifts--not to mention the informal
charity that is never summed up in official statistics--many important public services--including
the nonprofit arts--simply would not exist.
Nonprofit scholars in economics and public administration have often probed exceptional
American giving behavior, looking in particular at the role of socioeconomic characteristics in the
decision by individuals and communities to act charitably. Perhaps the most obvious variable
influencing giving--and the one that has received the most attention in the literature--is income.
Not surprisingly, income and charity are positively correlated. For example, Table 1 shows how
average charitable behavior varied with income class in 2000. As household income rose, so did
the dollars given and the likelihood of giving to both religious and secular causes. 2

* Maxwell Schoolof Citizenship& PublicAffairs,SyracuseUniversity,Syracuse,NY, acbrooks@maxwell.syr.edu.

The range of estimates of charitable giving is fairlywide, with some sourcesfindinggiving in as few as 60 percent
of households,and others findingit in morethan 80 percent.
z Manyauthors havenoted that the relationshipis less clear when we compareincomewith the percentageof income
given, however.See Clotfelterand Steuerle(1981).
404 JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE 9 Volume 31 9 3 9 Fall 2007

Table 1: Measures of Charitable Giving, by Income Class, 2000

Percentage
Average value Percentage Percentage giving money
of annual giving money to giving money to to nonreligious
Annual household charitable charity each religious causes causes each
income gifts year each year year
0-$20,000 $458 64% 52% 44%
$20,001-$30,000 $710 75% 60% 56%
$30,001-$50,000 $1,093 84% 67% 69%
$50,001-$75,000 $1,530 89% 72% 78%
$75,001-$100,000 $2,059 92% 73% 83%
$ I00,001 and above $3,089 94% 74% 89%
Source:2000 SocialCapitalCommunityBenchmarkSurvey(Roper2000).N=26,062

Table 2 shows that arts giving in 2003 followed a slightly different pattern than overall
giving, in that it initially falls slightly with income before rising again. However, by far the largest
gifts and highest likelihood of giving occurred at high income levels, as we would expect.

Table 2: Measures of Giving to Arts and Culture Organizations, by Income Class, 2003

Annual household Average value of Percentage giving

income annual gifts money each year
0-$20,000 $11.37 5.0%
$20,001-$30,000 $2.64 2. 1%
$30,001 -$50,000 $4.84 4.9%
$50,001-$75,000 $9.87 6.7%
$75,001 -$100,000 $8.98 6.9%
$100,001 and above $55.31 19.3%
Source:Centeron PhilanthropyPanelStudy(COPPS2003). N=7,808

The most straightforward economic explanation for the patterns in Table 1 (and for the most
part, Table 2 as well) is that people with higher incomes can afford more charitable gifts than
people with lower incomes. In the words of British former-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, "No
one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions--he had money, too."
But this explanation may be too simple. In fact, many religious and philosophical traditions have
long argued that it is charity that stimulates prosperity, not just prosperity which stimulates
charity.
This article presents empirical evidence suggesting that, in fact, both arguments are correct:
charity and prosperity are mutually reinforcing. This is of obvious importance for nonprofit
research and management: It gives much greater importance to the role of fundraising in the
nonprofit economy, suggesting that it is far more than a simple means to an end--it may be an
engine of benefit in and of itself.

Charity and Prosperity

Most religious texts contain the assertion that charity lies behind prosperity. For example, this
idea is summarized in the Old Testament (Proverbs 11:24): "One man gives freely, yet gains even
 JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE 9 Volume 31 9 3 9 Fall 2007 405

more; another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty." In the New Testament (Luke 6:38), Jesus
says, "Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and
running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to
you." And lest we assume that these passages refer only to rewards in Heaven, 17th-century
English theologian and Biblical commentarist Matthew Henry (2000) interprets these passages to
mean, "[God] blesses the giving hand, and so makes it a getting hand. ''3
Other religions--not just Judaism and Christianity--teach that giving behavior is an
antecedent to prosperity as well. For example, zakat, the third pillar of Islam, refers to a faithful
Muslim's obligation to give charitably of his resources. The word means both "purification" and
"growth," and Muslims are taught that zakat purifies one's possessions. The metaphor sometimes
employed is that of pruning a plant to keep it healthy--just as the act of cutting back a plant makes
it grow to be larger and stronger, so also the act of giving away stimulates abundance for the giver.
Traditional Hindu teaching links virtue in the current life and prosperity in future lives with
karma, or the moral debt or dividend for actions--good or bad--in which one has engaged in life.
An earthly virtuous life--in which one accumulates good karma--includes charity. Through
reincarnation, a person enjoying the blessings of good karma may be "born into a family of
righteous people, or into a family of rich aristocracy," according to the Bhagavad Gita. 4 As such,
charity stimulates prosperity.
These religious assertions are consistent with some secular theories as well. For
psychologists, charity may affect self-efficacy, or "people's beliefs about their capabilities to
produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their
lives" (Bandura, 1994, p. 71). Many psychologists believe that charitable behavior can provide a
productive focus in people's lives, which enhances their confidence and self-esteem--and
consequently their likelihood of prospering.
Theories consistent with the idea that giving might stimulate prosperity have also occasionally
come from scholars in other fields, such as management and political science. For example, some
writers on the subject of social entrepreneurship have defined the concept of "social return on
investment" (SROI), which is basically the nonpecuniary return on social enterprises--the "good"
done in a community from a nonprofit venture, for example. 5 SROI is believed by some to help
create social and economic conditions congenial to economic growth. If this is true, it is easy to
see how charitable giving--which provides the resources for many SROI-rich nonprofit
activities--would be associated with prosperity.
Many political scientists effectively define SROI in terms of "social capital," the trust and
social cohesion in a community that comes from the civic acts that are related to voluntary charity.
A well-known proponent of social capital is Robert Putnam (1995, 2000), who describes in great
detail the benefits of social capital in terms of economic and non-economic prosperity. Charitable
acts, such as giving and volunteering activities, tend to strengthen social networks between people.
These networks are a key factor in economic success, Putnam believes. In service of this claim, he
cites dozens of studies showing how networks provide employment possibilities, business
opportunities, and access to capital. Evidence of the link between social capital and noneconomic
prosperity is even more convincing. Putnam cites many clinical studies showing, among other
things, that social networks are as important for physical health as diet, exercise, and not smoking;

3The full passageis, "It is possiblea man may grow rich by prudently spending what he has, may scatter in works of
piety, charity, and generosity, and yet may increase; nay, by that means may increase, as the corn is increased by being
sown. By cheerfully using what we have our spirits are exhilarated, and so fitted for the business we have to do, by
minding which closely what we have is increased; it gains a reputation which contributes to the increase. But it is
especiallyto be ascribed to God; he blesses the givinghand, and so makes it a getting hand." (ChapterXI, verse24)
4 BhagavadGita, chapter 8, text 28; chapter6, text 41.
5 See, for example,Gair (2005).
406 JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE 9 Volume 31 9 Number 3 9 Fall 2007

that socially-disconnected people have shorter lives than demographically-similar people who
have social connections; and that people are happier the more they socialize with others. 6

E x p a n d i n g the E c o n o m i c M o d e l

Economists understand charitable giving in the context of utility maximization subject to a

budget constraint, in which donations are one expenditure choice among any number. A simple
traditional model starts by assuming that a consumer has income y, which she can split between
donations D and spending on all other goods and services, c. That is, y=c+D. The consumer seeks
to maximize her utility U(c,D) subject to this constraint. Assuming that the utility function is
strictly concave in each kind of expenditure, Uc>0, Up>0, Ucc<0, and Uoo<O. Substituting the
constraint into the objective function and differentiating with respect to D, the consumer's first-
order condition is -Uc+ Uo=O. According to the Implicit Function Theorem,

OD - Ucc
- >0 (1)
Oy U ~ + U oo

In other words, higher income pushes up charitable giving. There is no obvious mechanism in
this model for charity to push up income.
The prediction in equation (1) has been the focus of dozens of academic articles, which
generally seek to measure the income elasticity of giving. Several surveys of this topic (e.g.
Clotfelter, 1985; Steinberg, 1990; Steinberg, 1997; Brooks, 2002) have concluded that the
elasticity is between 0.60 and 1.2.
The typical empirical specification to test equation (1) is

D=a+~y+yX +s, (2)

where X is a vector of appropriate control variables, and 6" is a random disturbance. To estimate
elasticity, D and y are usually measured in logs.
However, any mutual causation between y and D means that the relationship captured by the
coefficient /~ from equation (3) will be biased and inconsistent. It will conflate the effect of y on
D with that of D on y. To solve this problem requires a suitable instrumental variable for D--one
that is correlated directly with D but not y. With such an instrument V, we can isolate the impact of
D on y by estimating

y = tz+fl t v D + 7 7 r + s , (3)

where ]),v : (ZZ)-'Z~v, Z = [ D , X ] , a n d Z : I v , x ] .

^

Then, the coefficient fltv is interpreted as average marginal "return" to income from a dollar

given charitably. If/~tv > 1, it means that this "investment" is sound, from a financial standpoint.
(Of course, it may be an excellent social investment even if/~tv < 1 .)
One appropriate instrument for money gifts is volunteering, which uses a resource (time) of
which people have an equal endowment. In theory, volunteering could be dependent on income

6 Putnam distinguishescharitable acts from other kinds of civic engagement (such as engaging in community
activities)becausethe latterare "doingwith,"whilethe formerare "doingfor."Nonetheless,he notestheirsimilarity.
 JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE 9 Volume 31 9 Number 3 9 Fall 2007 407
because wages affect the opportunity cost of time. However, a number of studies have shown little
or no direct relationship between income and volunteering (e.g. Brooks, 2004). The theoretical and
empirical links between volunteering and money giving, however, are very strong in every study
that has examined it (e.g. Hodgkinson and Weitzman, 1996). The intuition here is that both kinds
of charity flow from the same giving impulse. As such, a value of giving predicted by
volunteering levels can be used to predict income, without feedback from income's impact on
giving. The next section also tests the validity of this instrument, and finds it more than suitable.

Data and Results

Data to fit equation (3) come from the Social Capital and Community Benchmark Survey
(SCCBS) (Roper, 2000). The SCCBS was undertaken from July 2000 to February 2001 by
researchers at various American universities in collaboration with the Roper Center for Public
Opinion Research and the Saguaro Seminar at Harvard University's Kennedy School of
Government. The intent of the survey was to expose various hypotheses about civil society and
charitable behavior to empirical scrutiny. The SCCBS contained three types of questions. First,
attitudes of individuals about their communities were probed. Second, respondents were asked
about their "civic behavior," including their participation in voluntary community activities--
including, specifically, whether they gave and volunteered for religious and nonreligious charities,
and if so, how much. Finally, the survey collected a full battery of sociodemographic measures for
each respondent. The data consist of nearly 30,000 observations drawn from 41 communities
across 29 states, as well as a nationwide sample.
Table 3 summarizes the SCCBS data.

Table 3: Summary Statistics for the 2000 SCCBS Data

Standard
Variable Definition Mean deviation
Gifts Value of annual household charitable contributions 1,347 1,958
Number of annual occasions volunteered by
Voltimes household 8.81 15.08
Income Household annual income 49,666 28,674
Household head attends worship services almost
Religious every week or more often 0.33
Household head has no religion or attends worship
Secular services less than once per year 0.26
Male Household head is male 0.41
Married Household head is married 0.52
HHsize Household size 2.76 1.62
Age Household head's age 44.76 16.70
HS ~ Household head graduated from high school 0.59
College t Household head graduated from college 0.20
Grad I Household head attended graduate school 0.13
White 2 Household head is white 0.73
Black 2 Household head is black 0.12
Conservative 3 Household head is politically conservative 0.43
Liberal 3 Household head is politically liberal 0.29

Note: 1. Controlgroup is less than HS. 2. Controlgroupis non-blackminority. 3. Controlgroupis politicallycentrist.

408 JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE 9 Volume 31 9 Number 3 9 Fall 2007

Table 4 presents the results of the instrumental variables regression in equation (7), using the
data in Table 3. In addition, an "instrumental regression" of Gifts on Voltimes (and the other
regressors) is included. The suitability of Voltimes as an instrument for Gifts, is tested in two
ways. First, both variables are included in a regression with Income on the left-hand side, with the
result that Gifts is highly-significant while Voltimes is insignificant. This supports the contention
that Gifts is the variable with the direct relationship to Income. Second, following the method of
Bound, et al. (1995) to evaluate the power of an instrument, Voltimes is found to be significantly
different from zero in the instrumental regression, using a restricted F-test. The conventional
wisdom is that an instrument has adequate predictive power if the resulting F-statistic exceeds 10;
in this it case it is 813.

Table 4: Two-stage Least Squares Estimates of Charity's Effect on Income

Instrumental variables Instrumental regression

regression (OLS)
Independent variable Dependent variable: Income Dependent variable: Gifts
Coefficient T-statistic Coefficient T-statistic
Intercept -640 -0.39 -1,622" 15.90
Gifts 3.70* -7.60
Voltimes 21.61" -28.51
Religious -5,206* 8.55 886* -32.81
Secular 507 -1.13 -414" 14.79
Male 4,306* -12.27 363* -15.78
Married 11,031" -27.37 391" -15.64
HHsize 1,629" -13.81 56.4* -6.96
Age 786* -14.29 33.79* -8.99
Age squared -9.7* 19.40 -0.259* 6.82
HS 15,436" -21.62 512" -11.13
College 27,640* -29.40 1,118" -21.92
Grad 32,728* -28.78 1,569" -29.06
White 4,760* -9.15 401" -12.15
Black -718 1.11 435* -9.89
Conservative -2,061" 5.22 224* -8.30
Liberal 248 -0.60 80* -2.67

R2 0.35 0.24
N 22,925 24,265

Note: * Coefficientis significantat the .05-levelor above.

The most important coefficient in Table 4 is that on Gifts, which is significant and positive,
indicating that a $1 increase in charitable contributions leads to a marginal increase of $3.75 in
household income, on average. This is the first empirical evidence that, as theologians have long
asserted, charity provokes a net increase in material prosperity. Furthermore, the return is quite
high, by any reasonable investment standard.
Several other coefficients are significant as well. Religious people earn less than non-religious
people, but give far more to charity. Men and married people earn and donate more than women
and singles, as do people in larger families. Income and giving rise with age, but at a decreasing
rate. Additional levels of education push up both income and donations. Whites earn more than
blacks, but both groups give more to charity than non-white minorities. Political conservatives
earn significantly less than liberals, but give slightly more.
 J O U R N A L O F E C O N O M I C S A N D FINANCE 9 Volume 31 9 Number 3 9 Fall 2007 409

Giving, Happiness, and Health

Prosperity is not simply financial. Indeed, most people would undoubtedly agree that one's
happiness and health are more important than money in a truly a "prosperous" life. What do we
know about the connection between charity, happiness, and health?
One's intuition here might be mixed. On the one hand, it is well-known that people providing
intensive care for others---especially sick family members---can suffer both physical and mental
health effects. For example, Covinsky, et al. (2003) found that fully a third of primary caregivers
for demented family members suffer from clinical depression. On the other hand, less intensive
forms of charitable behavior are clearly positively correlated with both happiness and good health.
According to the SCCBS data used in the last section, people who gave money charitably were 43
percent more likely to say they were "very happy" than nongivers, while nongivers were three and
one-half times more likely than givers to say they were "not happy at all." Similarly, volunteers
were 42 percent more likely than nonvolunteers to say they were very happy, while nonvolunteers
were four times more likely than volunteers to say they were not happy at all. These differences
persist even if we correct for the demographics in Table 3, using the appropriate regression
techniques.
In terms of health effects, givers in 2000 were 25 percent more likely than nongivers to say
their health was excellent or very good, while nongivers were about twice as likely as givers to say
their health was poor or fair. Volunteers were 29 percent more likely than nonvolunteers to report
excellent or very good health; nonvolunteers were 71 percent more likely than volunteers to say
their health was fair or poor.
Still, the evidence presented here only tells us that charity, happiness, and good health are
a s s o c i a t e d with each other. To establish that giving c a u s e s happiness and good health, we would
need to conduct experiments in which different groups were asked to behave differently, and the
results were observed. A number of studies have done just this, and have reached the clear
conclusion that giving makes people both happier and healthier. For example, Schwartz, et al.
(1999) conducted experiments in which a group of multiple sclerosis patients was assigned to
provide "compassionate, unconditional positive regard" for another group with the same chronic
disease--that is, they were asked to provide a sympathetic ear. They found that the "listeners"
reported greater improvement than those they supported in terms of confidence, self-awareness,
and depression. In a similar study using a sample of American Presbyterians, Schwartz, et al.
(2003) found that helping others was related to many positive mental health outcomes, and that
givers were significantly more likely to benefit than the receivers of help. Luks and Payne (1991)
summarize the results of many earlier experiments, showing in particular that volunteers
experienced emotional and physical improvement after donating their time. The health benefits
found in experiments from volunteering include relief from depression, weight control, immune
system improvements, chronic pain reduction, lower blood pressure, and reduced symptoms of
indigestion, asthma, and arthritis.
In sum, the available evidence on happiness, health, and income exhibit a virtuous cycle with
giving behavior: happy, healthy, successful people are most likely to give and volunteer. At the
same time, charitable people are more likely to be happy, healthy, and financially prosperous.
Associations between giving behavior and bad outcomes--such as those experienced by family
caregivers of the chronically ill--appear to be extreme cases that deviate from the normal pattern
of charity and non-material prosperity.

Conclusion
Nonprofit economists have always assumed that income is a precursor to giving, including
giving to the arts. In contrast, many philosophical and religious teachings have asserted that it is
charity that leads to prosperity. This article has sought to test the direction of this relationship, and
410 JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE 9 Volume 31 9 Number 3 9 Fall 2007
has found strong evidence that money giving does, in fact, influence income. This is consistent
with extant psychology research which clearly shows that volunteering leads to positive mental
and physical health outcomes. The implication of these findings for researchers and managers is
that the value of charity is not limited to those who receive the services that giving makes
possible. On the contrary, charity unleashes enormous benefits to the givers themselves.
To be sure, many nonprofit organizations understand the points made here already. For
example, an executive from the Latter-day Saint Foundation (an organization dedicated to
providing Mormons with opportunities to give charitably) stated the foundation's mission thus:
"We exist only for two purposes: to help donors change or save lives" (Moore, 2003). Firms
dedicated to nonprofit marketing and fundraising are also increasingly aware that giving creates
huge value for donors--particularly younger donors, who give to "make a difference"--and
advocate donor treatment that reflects this. The Domain Group, a prominent nonprofit marketing
firm in Seattle, tells its nonprofit clients that the younger donor wants to "know and feel that her
giving makes a difference" (J. Brooks, 2004). Providing donors what they need and want is good
for society, of course, but for an individual nonprofit, the main objective is an increase in
donations--which we can expect in any situation in which someone is offered a higher-valued
product. In the company's words, "[The donor] puts more demands on the organization she
supports--she wants more information and involvement. When she gets what she wants from a
nonprofit, she also offers more rewards: larger gifts, better retention, and more upgrade potential."
This article looks at the general impact of giving on income; it is possible, of course, that
different giving types affect income in different ways. Future work can probe this idea, including
the question most salient in the context of this symposium--whether arts giving stimulates income
more or less than other types of charity.
The bottom line is that a major source of value--and one frequently overlooked and
neglected by nonprofit researchers and managers--resides in the connection of givers with worthy
causes as well as the connection of donors of similar circumstances and interests to one another in
mutually beneficial networks. Nonprofit managers know that donors provide funds to do good
works. But a bigger story emerges when considering the data on giving and volunteering, which
tell us that charity is a key factor in the prosperity, health, and happiness of givers themselves, not
just the recipients of their gifts. As such, helping people to give their resources effectively by
managing good causes and making compelling fundraising appeals, in the arts and elsewhere, can
be an important engine of social value and economic growth.

References
American Association of Fundraising Council (AAFRC). Various years, Giving USA. Glenview,
IL: AAFRC.
Bandura, A. 1994. Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Behavior
(Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.
Bound, J., D.A. Jaeger, and R.M. Baker. 1995. "Problems with Instrumental Variables Estimation
When the Correlation between the Instruments and the Endogenous Explanatory Variables Is
Weak." Journal of the American Statistical Association 90: 443-50.
Brooks, A.C. 2005. "Does Social Capital Make You Generous?" Social Science Quarterly 86: 1-
15.
Brooks, A.C. 2004a. "Faith, Secularism, and Charity." Faith and Economics 43: 1-8.
Brooks, A.C. 2004b. "The Effects of Public Policy on Private Charity." Administration & Society
36:166-185
Brooks, A.C. 2002. "Welfare Receipt and Private Charity." Public Budgeting and Finance 22:
100-113.
Brooks, J. 2004. "Donor Power: How to Meet the New Generation of Donors." Loyalty.
Newsletter of the Domain Group.
Center on Philanthropy Panel Study. (COPPS). 2001. In the Panel Study of Income Dynamics
 JOURNAL OF ECONOMICSAND FINANCE 9 Volume 31 9 Number 3 9 Fall 2007 411
Wave XXXII Computer File. Ann Arbor, MI: ICPSR. http://simba.isr.umich.edu)
Center on Philanthropy Panel Study. (COPPS). 2003. In the Panel Study of Income Dynamics
Wave XXXIII Computer File. Ann Arbor, MI: ICPSR. http://simba.isr.umich.edu)
Clotfelter, C.T. 1985. Federal Tax Policy and Charitable Giving. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago
Press.
Clotfelter, C.T., and E. Steuerle. 1981. "Charitable Contributions." In How Taxes Affect Economic
Behavior, Aaron, Henry, and Joseph Pechman eds. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution,
403-437.
Covinsky, K.E, R. Newcomer, P. Fox, J. Wood, L. Sands, K. Dane, and K. Yaffe. 2003. "Patient
and Caregiver Characteristics Associated With Depression in Caregivers of Patients With
Dementia." Journal of General Internal Medicine 18:1006-14.
Gair, C. 2005. "A Report From the Good Ship SROI." REDF report, http://www.redf.org)
Granger, C.W.J. 1969. "Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-
Spectral Methods." Econometrica 37: 424-438.
Henry, M. 2000 [1706-1721]. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian
Classics Ethereal Library
Hodgkinson, V.A., and Weitzman, M.S. 1996. Giving and Volunteering in the United States:
Findings from a National Survey. Washington, D.C.: Independent Sector.
Luks, A., and E. Payne. 1991. The Healing Power of Doing Good: The Health and Spiritual
Benefits of Helping Others. New York: Fawcett Columbine
Moore, C.A. May 3, 2003. "Wealth & Faith: The More Philanthropists Give, the More They Enjoy
Giving." Deseret News.
Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Putnam, R.D. 1995. "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital." Journal of Democracy
6: 65-78.
Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. 2000. Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey.
<www.roper.com>
Schwartz, C.E., and Rabbi M. Sendor. 1999. "Helping Others Helps Oneself: Response Shift
Effects in Peer Support." Social Science and Medicine 48: 1563-1575.
Schwartz, C., J.B. Meisenhelder, Y. Ma, and G. Reed. 2003. "Altruistic Social Interest Behaviors
Are Associated With Better Mental Health." Psychosomatic Medicine 65:778-785.
Steinberg, R. 1990. "Taxes and Giving: New Findings." Voluntas 1: 61-79.
Steinberg, R. 1993. "Does Government Spending Crowd Out Donations? Interpreting the
Evidence." In Ben-Ner, A. & Gui, B. Eds. The Nonprofit Sector in the Mixed Economy. Ann
Arbor, MI: The Univ. of Michigan Press, 99-125.
Steinberg, R. 1997. "Overall Evaluation of Economic Theories." Voluntas 8: 179-204.