SOSYAL DESTEK ALAN HANELERİN GÖNÜLLÜLÜĞE KATILIM DÜZEYLERİNİN BELİRLEYİCİLERİ

Abstract

Toplumsal dayanışma devletin refah harcamasıyla yakından ilgilidir. Bu noktadan hareketle bu çalışmanın temel amacı devlet desteği alan hanelerin gönüllü eylemlere katılım kararlarını incelemektir. Söz konusu amaç doğrultusunda TÜİK Aile ve Yaşam Koşulları Araştırması mikro veri seti kullanılmıştır. Clog-log modeli sonuçlarına göre sosyal desteklerin gönüllükle bir ilişkisi bulunamamışken yaş, eğitim, çalışma saati ve gelirin önemli belirleyiciler olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

• Gönüllülük
• Refah Devleti
• Cloglog Modeli

DETERMINANTS OF VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION LEVELS IN HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVING SOCIAL SUPPORT

Abstract

Social solidarity is closely related to government welfare spending. Based on this point, the main objective of this study is to examine the decisions of households receiving government support to participate in voluntary activities. The microdata set from the Turkish Statistical Institute's Family and Living Conditions Survey was used for this purpose. According to the results of the complementary log-log model, no relationship was found between social support and volunteering, while age, education, working hours, and income were identified as significant determinants.

Keywords

• Volunteering
• Welfare State
• Cloglog Model

References

1. Ackermann, K., Erhardt, J., & Freitag, M. (2023). “Crafting social integration? Welfare state and volunteering across social groups and policy areas in 23 European countries”, KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 75(Suppl 1), 283-304.
2. Brooks, A. C. (2002). “Welfare receipt and private charity”, Public Budgeting & Finance, 22(3), 101-114.
3. Brooks, A. C. (2004). “The effects of public policy on private charity”, Administration & Society, 36(2), 166-185.
4. Cappellari, L., & Turati, G. (2004). “Volunteer labour supply: The role of workers’ motivations”, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 75(4), 619–643.
5. Carlin, P. S. (2001). “Evidence on the volunteer labor supply of married women”, Southern Economic Journal, 67(4), 801–824.
6. Dahlberg, L. (2005). “Interaction between Voluntary and Statutory Social Service Provision in Sweden: A Matter of Welfare Pluralism, Substitution or Complementarity?”, Social Policy and Administration, 39 (7), 740–63.
7. Day, K. M. & Devlin, R. A. (1996). “Volunteerism and Crowding Out: Canadian Econometric Evidence”, The Canadian Journal of Economics, 29 (1), 37–53.
8. Duncan, B. (1999). “Modeling charitable contributions of time and Money”, Journal of Public Economics, 72(2), 213–242.

9. Guo, C., & Peck, L. R. (2009) “Giving and getting: Charitable activity and public assistance”, Administration & Society, 41(5), 600-627
10. Güriş, S., Çağlayan, E., & Ün, T. (2011). “Estimating of probability of homeownership in rural and urban areas: Logit, probit and gompit model”, European Journal of Social Sciences, 21(3), 405-411.
11. Hayashi, A., & Hopkins, J. J. (2023). The Charitable Tax Deduction and Civic Engagement. U. Ill. L. Rev., 1179.
12. Heim, B., & Montenovo, L. (2022). Are Charitable Donations and Volunteering Substitutes or Complements? New Evidence from Recent Tax Changes. SSRN.
13. Hwang, M., Grabb, E., & Curtis, J. (2005). “Why get involved? Reasons for voluntary-association activity among Americans and Canadians”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(3), 387–403.
14. Kalenkoski, C. M. (2014). “Does generosity beget generosity? The relationships between transfer receipt and formal and informal volunteering”, Review of Economics of the Household, 12, 547-563.
15. Kömüryakan, F., & Çağlayan, E. (2022). “Türkiye’de Çocuk İşçiliğinin Simetrik ve Asimetrik Modeller ile Analizi: Logit, Probit, Log-log ve Clog-log”, Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(4), 776-798.
16. LeeY. K., & Chang, C. T. (2007). “Who gives what to charity? Characteristics affecting donation behavior”, Social Behavior and Personality: An İnternational Journal, 35(9), 1173-1180.
17. Liu, H., & Yang, Y. (2023). “Does welfare receipt matter for charitable giving and volunteering? Similarities and differences of the role of public assistance and social ınsurance”, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 34(4), 677-692.
18. Mathur, A. (1996). “Older adults' motivations for gift giving to charitable organizations: An exchange theory perspective”, Psychology & Marketing, 13(1), 107-123.
19. Menchik, P. L., & Weisbrod, B. A. (1987). “Volunteer labor supply”, Journal of Public Economics, 32(2), 159–183.
20. Moody, M. (2008). “Serial reciprocity: A preliminary statement”, Sociological theory, 26(2), 130-151.
21. Nicolaysen, B. B. (2001). Voluntary service provision in a strong welfare state.
22. Parboteeah, K. P., Cullen, J. B., & Lim, L. (2004). “Formal volunteering: A cross-national test”, Journal of World Business, 39(4), 431-441.
23. Peck, L. R., & Guo, C. (2015). "How does public assistance use affect charitable activity? A tale of two methods”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(4), 665-685
24. Rothstein, B. (2001). “Social capital in the social democratic welfare state”, Politics and Society, 29: 207–41. doi: 10.1177/0032329201029002003
25. Stadelmann-Steffen, I. (2011). “Social volunteering in welfare states: Where crowding out should occur”, Political Studies, 59(1), 135-155.
26. Suzuki, Kohei. 2017. “Government expenditure cuts and voluntary activities of citizens: the experience of Japanese municipalities”, Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration 39:258–275.
27. Swartz, T. T., Blackstone, A., Uggen, C., & McLaughlin, H. (2009). “Welfare and citizenship: The effects of government assistance on young adults' civic participation”, The Sociological Quarterly, 50(4), 633-665.
28. Toran, K. (2014). “Tax policy and volunteer labor”, The Urban Institute. Retrieved April, 7, 2021.
29. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, (2022). Türkiye Aile Yapısı Araştırması Mikro Veri Seti, 2021. Ankara.
30. Van Oorschot, W. J. H. & Arts, W. (2005). “The social capital of European welfare states: The crowding out hypothesis revisited”, Journal of European Social Policy, 15: 5-26. doi: 10.1177/0958928705049159
31. Visser, M., Gesthuizen, M., & Scheepers, P. (2018). “The crowding in hypothesis revisited: new insights into the impact of social protection expenditure on informal social capital”, European Societies, 20(2), 257-280.
32. Wang, L., & Li, P. (2022). “Government assistance, religiosity and charitable giving: Comparing Muslim and non-Muslim families in China”, Voluntary Sector Review, 13(3), 417-435.
33. Yang, Y., Zhang, J., & Liu, P. (2021). “The impact of public assistance use on charitable giving: Evidence from the USA and China”, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32, 401-413.