THE RIGHT THING FOR THE WRONG REASON

ALLISON SCHRAGER | THE MICROPHILANTHROPIST | January 17th 2008

People can give for selfish reasons. Sometimes that matters. Take the college alumnus who gives to ease his son's admission--and so undermines the meritocracy for which the school is prized ...

Special to MORE INTELLIGENT LIFE

Some of the reasons why people give to charity may be consideed selfish. People give to increase their social standing, gain publicity, attend a fun party, receive a tax advantage, feel smug to their friends--or just because it makes them feel good about themselves. Does a selfish intention undermine the value of the gift? Unless the motivation is truly lascivious, and so long as a worthwhile cause gets the support it needs, I am not too bothered by the motivation of the giver. That said, however, a gift given out of less than pure intentions may have costs.

Two economists, Jonathan Meer and Harvey Rosen, have looked at donations from alumni of a large US research university. They found donations increased when alumni's children reached their early teens, if those children were planning to apply for admission to their parents' university. Giving fell dramatically after admissions decision had been made--the more so with a negative outcome.

Meer and Rosen made no claims as to whether donations did increase the likelihood of admission--but the perception remains that alumni donations facilitate "legacy" admissions of alumni's children. If so, this may mean that universities are granting admission to students who are less inellectually deserving, and so undermining their supposed meritocracy. Does this mean that the donor degrades the object of his gift, and thus, perhaps, does more harm then good?

Not necessarily so. The lavish endowments that American universities accrue from their alumni allow them to attract and retain star professors, form top research institutes, and provide scholarships to needier students. Those phenomena make the university unambiguously better. You may be giving in the hope of ensuring your child's (non-meritocratic) admission, but you are probably giving a generous sum that the university can put to good general use, yielding positive benefits that more than outweigh the (no doubt mild) negative costs of your own legacy admission.

In a sense, no gift is truly selfless. Two economists and a psychologist--Bill Harbaugh, Dan Burghart, and Ulrich Mayr--have found that giving to charity creates an exhilarating rush of endorphins in the giver. The endorphin rush can occur when people are forced to give through taxation, but is greater when they give voluntarily. Some people are more inclined to give, because they experience greater pleasure from being charitable. It seems people enjoy acting in selfless manner; does this enjoyment undermine the selfless intention? Is endorphin-seeking any nobler a motive than a desire to attend a swanky benefit?

I feel uncomfortable judging the intentions of others--let us stick with the final outcome. The endorphin seekers, predisposed to being generous, give at a smaller cost. The alumni admission seekers provide a great gift, but at the cost of admission spots. The party goers may give generously, but only if they can attend an expensive event. However, a personal incentive may induce much larger gifts from people who otherwise might not give. Perhaps a party goer will experience an unexpected joy from donating, and in the future do so without a costly incentive. Many people enjoy giving, but require an extra incentive to give more or to a particular cause.

Giving for publicity or to attend a well known event also increases awareness of the cause. I once heard of a successful Wall Street banker who, upon receiving invites for any benefit, sent $100, with the following conditions:

1 he would not attend
2 he did not want to have his name listed in any way

The banker is more of an endorphin giver, but the existence of the benefit compelled him to give when he otherwise would not.

So long as causes get the support they need, the intention of the giver is less important. Clearly those who give out of the "purest" of intentions are the most efficient, but much good can also come from exploiting other, perhaps more selfish, intentions.