Donors concerned with rents going to the wrong party would thus decrease their aid; donors wishing to foster cooperation with the rent-seekers or key decision-makers, especially if the conflict exists in an area of strategic importance to the donor, would increase their aid. 6 Finally, donors face uncertainty regarding the conflict’s resolution.
3.3: Economic Motives: Apart from political and military motivations, there are also some commercial motives for giving aid as they procure economic benefits as a result of their aid programmes. This is apparent as donors are increasingly tending towards providing loans instead of …
Relative generosity is usually calculated by dividing ODA by GNI, GNP, and GDP, which provide almost identical figures Donor Motivations Simply to help the less fortunate abroad Primary justification is that just as social programs assistance to poor people at home, ODA should focus on helping people in other countries have access to food, housing, healthcare, education, and …
Another motivation is a perplexing fluctuation concerning the status and relative priority accorded to aid to HE and research, within the broader framework of evolving policy and practice in international development assistance, both over time and across different donor organisations (bilateral and multilateral). * shedding light on whether ...
Organizations often consider donors as a generic group or make assumptions about targeted segments. Research studies often reveal compelling donor personas, but those personas are rarely connected to individuals.
In an ideal world, you would ask each contributor to describe his or her motivations in a personal interview. You would then tailor each communication to focus on the interests of each individual donor. You may be thinking that you can’t do that for anyone outside of the major gifts category. However, you can with smart surveys and analytics.
Research is only valuable if it measurably improves fundraising outcomes. Invest the time to develop an effective case for each identified motivation. Drive outcomes by assigning that targeted case to individuals based on their personal motivation.
In the summer of 2014, dumping a bucket of ice water on your head while being filmed was all the rage. My Facebook newsfeed was filled with videos of friends voluntarily drenching themselves for all to see.
Comments are moderated. Please review our Comment Policy before posting.
Another type of donor is the supporter who has a personal connection with your organization. These types of donors also have a strong belief in your nonprofit’s cause. Why? Because they have been personally touched by your organization or the situation your nonprofit is working on addressing in the community.
Donors who have a personal connection to your nonprofit’s mission are important but so are donors who are acting on impulse. Impulse donors present a nonprofit with a unique opportunity to grow a new relationship and reach a prospects network.
All donors should be recognized for the financial contributions they are providing a nonprofit. Some donors expect this recognition and decide to give to an organization based on it.
Identifying and leveraging donor motivations is one of the most important steps your nonprofit can take to produce more successful fundraising campaigns. Your fundraising campaigns should appeal to the types of prospects your organization and campaigns plan to attract.
The third model is based on the recipient country’s governance level, where donors favor countries that can use development aid most effectively . If the aid goes to a country that has a low capacity or commitment to aid implementation, the aid will not achieve the best possible outcome. This model is based on the cost-effectiveness perspective. Given the recent demand for accountability by taxpayers in their countries, donor governments prefer to give aid to countries in which the expected outcome is more likely to be realized than to countries that do not know whether they can achieve the expected outcome. The intensive aid program of the Education for All Fast-Track Initiative (EFA-FTI) 7 which was launched in 2002, is one example in which the good governance of the recipient country was an important criterion for providing aid. To become a recipient for aid from this program, the recipient country is required to demonstrate a serious commitment and ability to achieve universal primary school education by presenting good policies and coordination plans.
In the fourth model, donors direct their support to the countries that are more affected by conflict and weak political institutions , which are generally called fragile states. In recent discussions on educational aid, this rationale is new but seems to have a certain support. For example, one of the leading multilateral aid programs, the Global Partnership for Education, has shown a strong commitment to support fragile states. The Global Partnership for Education introduced a flexible aid program in 2002 and since then, has increased the amount of aid to fragile states from one country to 28 countries in 2016 ( Global Partnership for Education, 2016 ). It has been argued that there are mixed motivations for aiding fragile states because fragile states are very likely to have a high level of unsatisfied needs; however, by ensuring a post-conflict reconstruction that sustains peace, new markets can be developed for future trade, which can also be considered a geopolitical priority for a donor country that can be regarded as acting in its self-interest ( Addison et al., 2016 ). It is difficult to separate these hidden motivations; therefore, the rationale for the priority to fragile states must be examined separately from the three above-mentioned rationales. There is no solid definition of a fragile state, but it is generally characterized as a low-income country with weak state capacity and/or weak state legitimacy that leaves citizens vulnerable to a range of shocks. As discussed above, the study by Turrent and Oketch (2009) uses the CPIA index to group the 52 low-income countries into fragile and non-fragile states and shows that donors provide less educational aid to fragile states than non-fragile states. Table 1 shows a summary of the four models’ concepts and indicators that have been used in the previous literature.
The first model is based on equity allocation, a more specific term for the need principle that supposes that donors provide more aid to the places that are most in need. The definition of the equity varies depending on the context; in some cases, equity means that the resources are allocated based on the efforts that one exerts or that the same amount of resources is allocated without considering any conditions. In the context of international educational aid, equity is generally considered in terms of the need principle. Many i nternational laws, 3 confirm that education is a human right and that the international community has a responsibility to support the provision of quality education to all children in the world with as much aid as is necessary, despite a country’s efforts. This model is related to a humanitarian motive in which donors are expected to be ethical in their decisions and to provide aid to countries with the most expansive needs for educational development.
The rational choice theory is a theory to understand social and economic phenomena by focusing on individual agents who make choices. This theory is based on the premise that individual agents have preferences or rationales among the available choice alternatives and make their choices to maximize their happiness or utility ( Edgeworth, 1881 ), which is therefore called rational choice. In the context of educational aid, it is assumed that a donor country has a certain rationale concerning which countries it likes to provide aid to, and it chooses countries to maximize its rationale. This rationale is particularly severe in the context of development aid, because this aid comprises not eternal but very limited resources, and donor countries attempt to exploit the most resources to pursue their rationale. Some rationales depend on the context, for instance, happiness, utility, and efficiency. In this study, I examine four models of rationales that are informed by previous studies and that are described as relevant in general aid discussions. These four models are recipient’s needs, donor’s self-interest, good governance, and fragile states. Fig. 1 shows a diagram of the rational choice model of educational aid allocation that I created for this study.