The Oxford dictionary (2009 second edition) defines a donation as a voluntary gift or a contribution for a specific cause. It also defines a donor as one who gives a donation and a recipient as one who receives such a gift. This essay therefore discusses the following; the benefits a donor gets fro donation which are grouped into three categories. These are; psychological benefits, social benefits and economic benefits. After this discussion a conclusion we be drawn.
The Oxford dictionary defines psychology as the study of human mind, the mental, emotional, and behavioral characteristics pertaining to a specified person, group or an activity. Lalin, Lara.B Aknin, Norton, and Elizabeth W. Dunn(2009) argued that helping others takes countless forms, from contributing money to charity to helping a stranger dig his car out of snow and springs from countless motivations, from from deep-rooted empathy to a more calculated desire for public recognition. Indeed social scientists have identified a host of ways in which charitable behavior may lead to benefits to the giver psychologically via experiencing well-being from helping.
Andreoni, (1989 ,1990) showed that there is a possibility that happier people are more willing to help. A similar study conducted by lsen, and Levin, (1972) showed that after experiencing positive event such as receiving cookies participants were more willing to help others. To take a similar example a drink of coca-cola and a packet of biscuits offered to those who donate blood, though meant to serve a different purpose may lure many into the event. Moreover, during a charitable child walk, awards may be provided. This may be in form of T-shirts or even capes bearing the name of that event. This prepares participants psychologically and are more willing to participate the future. Those who did not participate may be worried to miss out next time.
Research has also shown that the mood of the donor motivates him or her to help. Konow, and Earley, (2008) argued that happier people give more because they are field by their positive emotions. Baston, (1987,1990) suggests that mood, be it positive or negative could induce donations. For instance watching someone suffer a mild electric shock could make somebody sympathetic. It would really inhuman to see someone suffer blood loss from a road accident yet you cannot help.This could be, and perhaps is the reason why charitable organizations looking for donations will provide pictures of the victims in order to induce charitable behaviour.
To begin with the case of blood donations is a good example to demonstrate the social benefits a donor may get from donations. Lyle, Smith, and Sullivan, (2009) States that although blood donations appears to be examples of pure altruism, donors may receive personal benefits. Consequently, blood donations provide an ideal means to repeatedly demonstrate generosity.
Hawkes, and Bliece, (2002) States that signal has no meaning if it lacks audience. This statement,it is clear that donations are highly valued in the society and thus each donor would want to be noticed each time they donate.
Lyle et. al (2009) continues to add that blood donors are perceived as heathy and disease-free.Therefore this is why those who have high blood pressure, have weight below a certain point, are under medication or are even suspected to have risky sexual behaviour are exempted from donating.
The desire to signal one's wealth in the society may also lead them to developing charitable behaviour. Politicians and other dignitaries have always been invited in 'harambees' and fundraising occasions. Many take advantage of such opportunities to show off their wealth for personal gains rather than the desire to help.
Romantic gifts given during courtships may only be meant to benefit the donor only when promises made (marriage) eventuates. On a different case, sometimes someone may continue to shower another with gifts expecting that they might change their mind on a marriage proposal. It is not surprising that the donor may revoke such gifts incase it does not suit their personal social desires.
Bandyopadhyay, and Hermann, (2013) States that the motives behind donor nations providing foreign aid has evolved over time. For instance prior to world war I, the united States government, sponsored foreign aid was nonexistent. It was not until after world war II that the U.S government started offering foreign aid abroad. This. aid focused on increasing market for the united States by reducing poverty and increasing production in developing countries.
In one of their seminal papers, Dudley, and Montmarquette, (1976) identified three donor mostives behind provision of foreign aid. First, the donor expects the recipient to show gratitude by supporting the donor, perhaps in their sphere of international politics. Secondly, the recipient may trade with the donor furthering their economic interests. Finally, the donor may see to it that the recipient residents uplift their living standards. Just to add on this research, it can be seen that as poor nations strived to uplift their economic standards after independence, developed nations tried to facilitate this.
Their motives could not be hidden since as far as they might have helped, their strategic desires remained at the top. Aimed at developing future market for their products, and to create partnerships with this countries which open up for private sector investment, they have undoubtedly achieved a lot. When a country like Kenya buys donor goods using the foreign aid provided for example, that could be termed as a trade promotion rather than support.
Foreign aid has recently been used to suppress terrorism in the world today. This may be provided in form of firearms, soldiers, sharing intelligence service among others. However, this could be nuisance especially when provided under strict conditions such that the recipients feel like they are being paid to fight the donor's war.
While giving donations should be guided by a strong devotion in the affairs of others, supported by natural and moral aspects (altruism) sometimes the donor benefits more than the recipient. This is quite evident especially when the donor wants to feel good about giving, gain public recognition and seeks to benefit economically at the expense of the recipient. However, more benefits could be realized for the recipient if only the donor is purely altruistic and wishes to see the donee benefit.
References.
The Oxford English dictionary, (2009 second edition) Oxford university press.
Lalin Anik, Lara B. Aknin, Michael L.Norton, and Elizabeth W. Dunn, (2009) Feeling Good about giving: The benefits (and costs) of self-interested charitable behaviour.
Andreoni J. (1989,1990) Giving with impure altruism: application to charity and ricardin equivalence. The journal of political economy.
Isen A.M and Levin, P.F. (1972) The effect of feeling good about giving. Cookies and kindness.
Konow, J. and Earley J. (2008) The hedonistic paradox: is homoeconomics happier? Journal of public economics.
Lyle, E.A Smith, R.J Sullivan (2009) blood donations as costly signals of of donor quality. Retrieved from: doi:10,1556/JEP.7.2009.4.1
Hawkes K. and Bliece Bird, (2002) showing off, handicap signaling and the evolution of men's work. Evolutionary anthropology.
Bandyopadhyay, Subhayu and Wall. Howard J. The determinants of aid in the post cold-war Era.
Dudley, Leonard M. and Montmarquette, Claud (1976) "A mode of supply of bilateral foreign aid" American economic review.
Comments
Post a Comment