Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research

Government and charity funding of cancer research: public preferences and choices

Authors: Koonal Kirit Shah, Jon Sussex, Karla Hernandez-Villafuerte

Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

It is unclear how the public would respond to changes in government decisions about how much to spend on medical research in total and specifically on major disease areas such as cancer. Our aim was to elicit the views of the general public in the United Kingdom about how a change in government spending on cancer research might affect their willingness to donate, or to hypothecate a portion of their income tax payments, to cancer research charities.

Methods

A web-based stated preference survey was conducted in 2013. Respondents considered hypothetical scenarios regarding changes in the levels of government funding for medical research. In each scenario, respondents were asked to imagine that they could allocate £100 of the income tax they paid this year to one or more medical research charities. They were asked how they wished to allocate the £100 between cancer research charities and medical research charities concerned with diseases other than cancer. After having been given the opportunity to allocate £100 in this way, respondents were then asked if they would want to reduce or increase any personal out-of-pocket donations that they already make to cancer research and non-cancer medical research charities. Descriptive analyses and random effects modelling were used to examine patterns in the response data.

Results

The general tendency of respondents was to act to offset hypothetical changes in government spending. When asked to imagine that the government had reduced (or increased) its spending on cancer research, the general tendency of respondents was to state that they would give a larger (or smaller) allocation of their income tax to cancer research charities, and to increase (or reduce) their personal out-of-pocket donations to cancer research charities. However, most respondents’ preferred allocation splits and changes in personal donations did not vary much from scenario to scenario. Many of the differences between scenarios were small and non-significant.

Conclusions

The public’s decisions about how much to donate to cancer research or other medical research charities are not greatly affected by (hypothetical) changes to government plans about the amount of public funding of cancer or other medical research.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Health Economics Research Group, Office of Health Economics, and RAND Europe. Medical research: what’s it worth? London: Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Academy of Medical Sciences; 2008. Health Economics Research Group, Office of Health Economics, and RAND Europe. Medical research: what’s it worth? London: Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Academy of Medical Sciences; 2008.
2.
go back to reference Association of Medical Research Charities. Charity funded research. AMRC member research expenditure for 2012. London: AMRC; 2013. Association of Medical Research Charities. Charity funded research. AMRC member research expenditure for 2012. London: AMRC; 2013.
3.
go back to reference UK Clinical Research Collaboration. UK health research analysis 2009/10. London: UKCRC; 2012. UK Clinical Research Collaboration. UK health research analysis 2009/10. London: UKCRC; 2012.
4.
go back to reference Warr PG. Pareto optimal redistribution and private charity giving. J Public Econ. 1982;19:131–8.CrossRef Warr PG. Pareto optimal redistribution and private charity giving. J Public Econ. 1982;19:131–8.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Roberts R. A positive model of private charity and public transfers. J Polit Econ. 1984;92:136–48.CrossRef Roberts R. A positive model of private charity and public transfers. J Polit Econ. 1984;92:136–48.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Bergstrom T, Blume L, Varian H. On the private provision of public goods. J Public Econ. 1986;29:25–49.CrossRef Bergstrom T, Blume L, Varian H. On the private provision of public goods. J Public Econ. 1986;29:25–49.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Andreoni J. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. Econ J. 1990;100:464–77.CrossRef Andreoni J. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. Econ J. 1990;100:464–77.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Andreoni J, Payne A. Do government grants to private charities crowd-out giving or fund-raising? Am Econ Rev. 2003;93:792–812.CrossRef Andreoni J, Payne A. Do government grants to private charities crowd-out giving or fund-raising? Am Econ Rev. 2003;93:792–812.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Rose-Ackerman S. Do government grants to charity reduce private donations? In: Rose-Ackerman S, editor. The economics of non-profit institutions. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986. Rose-Ackerman S. Do government grants to charity reduce private donations? In: Rose-Ackerman S, editor. The economics of non-profit institutions. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986.
10.
go back to reference Payne A. Measuring the effect of federal research funding on private donations at research universities: is federal research funding more than a substitute for private donations? Int Tax Public Financ. 2001;8:731–51.CrossRef Payne A. Measuring the effect of federal research funding on private donations at research universities: is federal research funding more than a substitute for private donations? Int Tax Public Financ. 2001;8:731–51.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Heutel G. Crowding out and crowding in of private donations and government grants. Public Finance Review. 2014;42:143–75.CrossRef Heutel G. Crowding out and crowding in of private donations and government grants. Public Finance Review. 2014;42:143–75.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Bekkers R, Wiepking P. A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q. 2011;40:924–73.CrossRef Bekkers R, Wiepking P. A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q. 2011;40:924–73.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Andreoni J, Payne AA. Is crowding out due entirely to fundraising? Evidence from a panel of charities. J Public Econ. 2011;95:34–343. Andreoni J, Payne AA. Is crowding out due entirely to fundraising? Evidence from a panel of charities. J Public Econ. 2011;95:34–343.
14.
go back to reference Andreoni J, Payne A, Smith S. Do grants to charities crowd out other income? Evidence from the UK. J Public Econ. 2014;114:75–86.CrossRef Andreoni J, Payne A, Smith S. Do grants to charities crowd out other income? Evidence from the UK. J Public Econ. 2014;114:75–86.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Breman A. The economics of altruism, paternalism and self-control, PhD thesis. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics; 2006. Breman A. The economics of altruism, paternalism and self-control, PhD thesis. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics; 2006.
16.
go back to reference Diamond AM. Does federal funding “crowd in” private funding of science? Contemp Econ Policy. 1999;17:423–31.CrossRef Diamond AM. Does federal funding “crowd in” private funding of science? Contemp Econ Policy. 1999;17:423–31.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Herzer D, Nunnenkamp P. Private donations, grants, commercial activities, and fundraising: cointegration and causality for NGOs in international development cooperation. Kiel Working Paper No. 1769. Kiel: Kiel Institute for the World Economy; 2012. Herzer D, Nunnenkamp P. Private donations, grants, commercial activities, and fundraising: cointegration and causality for NGOs in international development cooperation. Kiel Working Paper No. 1769. Kiel: Kiel Institute for the World Economy; 2012.
18.
go back to reference Khanna J, Sander T. Partners in giving: the crowding-in effects of UK Government grants. Eur Econ Rev. 2000;44:1543–56.CrossRef Khanna J, Sander T. Partners in giving: the crowding-in effects of UK Government grants. Eur Econ Rev. 2000;44:1543–56.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Eckel CC, Grossman PJ, Johnston RM. An experimental test of the crowding out hypothesis. J Public Econ. 2005;89:1543–60.CrossRef Eckel CC, Grossman PJ, Johnston RM. An experimental test of the crowding out hypothesis. J Public Econ. 2005;89:1543–60.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Crumpler H, Grossman PJ. An experimental test of warm glow giving. J Public Econ. 2008;92:1011–21.CrossRef Crumpler H, Grossman PJ. An experimental test of warm glow giving. J Public Econ. 2008;92:1011–21.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Li SX, Eckel CC, Grossman PJ, Brown TL. Giving to government: voluntary taxation in the lab. J Public Econ. 2011;95:1190–201.CrossRef Li SX, Eckel CC, Grossman PJ, Brown TL. Giving to government: voluntary taxation in the lab. J Public Econ. 2011;95:1190–201.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Whitty JA, Lancsar E, Rixon K, Golenko X, Ratcliffe J. A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting. Patient. 2014;7:365–86.CrossRefPubMed Whitty JA, Lancsar E, Rixon K, Golenko X, Ratcliffe J. A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting. Patient. 2014;7:365–86.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Scharf K, Smith S. The price elasticity of charitable giving: does the form of tax relief matter? Int Tax Public Financ. 2015;22:330–52.CrossRef Scharf K, Smith S. The price elasticity of charitable giving: does the form of tax relief matter? Int Tax Public Financ. 2015;22:330–52.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference National Cancer Research Institute. Celebrating a decade of progress through partnership in cancer research. London: NCRI; 2011. National Cancer Research Institute. Celebrating a decade of progress through partnership in cancer research. London: NCRI; 2011.
30.
go back to reference Clemence M, Gilby N, Shah J, Swiecicka J, Warren D, Smith P, et al. Wellcome Trust Monitor Wave 2: Tracking public views on science, biomedical research and science education. London: Wellcome Trust; 2013. Clemence M, Gilby N, Shah J, Swiecicka J, Warren D, Smith P, et al. Wellcome Trust Monitor Wave 2: Tracking public views on science, biomedical research and science education. London: Wellcome Trust; 2013.
Metadata
Title
Government and charity funding of cancer research: public preferences and choices
Authors
Koonal Kirit Shah
Jon Sussex
Karla Hernandez-Villafuerte
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1478-4505
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-015-0027-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2015 Go to the issue