Corps de l’article

Voluntary activity is conventionally thought of as an altruistic activity designed to assist the plight of the disadvantaged and to bring a “warm glow” to those volunteering. This aspect is important, but volunteer activity also has a valuable productive component that can enhance the performance of various groups in the employment relationship.[1]

For youths, volunteering can be part of résumé building and productive networking that may facilitate job search, the school-to-work transition and effective long-run placement. For older persons, voluntary activity may bridge the transition into retirement. For women re-entering the labour market, volunteer activity may be a viable mechanism to compensate for lost experience (Mueller 1975). For employers, volunteering may be regarded as a productive activity akin to experience and human capital formation, especially if it is viewed as an indicator of otherwise unobservable individual abilities (Day and Devlin 1998: 1180). The U.S. Civil Service Commission and many federal agencies accept volunteer activity as the equivalent of experience in paid employment (Dicken and Blomberg 1988). Delta Airlines has instituted volunteer activity as a form of “transitional duty” as part of the return-to-work strategy for injured workers who are well enough to do volunteer work but are not yet ready to return to their regular job.[2] Public sector employers are increasingly regarding voluntary activity as an alternative source of labour supply for care-giving that was formerly provided in government supported institutions, whose budgets have now been cut under restraint programs. For civil society in general, volunteer activity is regarded as an important component of building and sustaining social infrastructure, social cohesion and in developing social capital (OECD 1997; Putnam 1995). The potential importance of volunteer activity is being recognized as evidenced by its being a key ingredient in what has been labelled the Third America or the Third Sector (O’Neill 1989). Its importance is further highlighted by the fact that the first year of the new millennium—2001—was declared the “International Year of Volunteers” by the United Nations.

In spite of this potential significance, we know remarkably little about what determines the degree of volunteer activity within families.[3] What are the determinants of such activity and how is it likely to vary by the characteristics of work and of the family—especially important given the recent transformations within the family structure, family roles and work itself?[4] Is volunteering likely to be greater on the part of wealthier families because they can afford to volunteer, or from poor families because they can identify with the need for such activity? Can volunteer activity be explained by the conventional model of family labour supply with its emphasis on family wealth and the opportunity cost of time of different family members as well as inter-temporal substitution over the life-cycle? Are dual-earner families that are already likely suffering from the “time crunch” associated with the changing nature of work and family responsibilities less likely to volunteer? What effect is the changing nature of work and of working time having on the ability of employees to volunteer? Do the factors that influence the probability that people will volunteer have a similar effect on the amount of time they volunteer?

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the determinants of volunteer activity through the theoretical perspective of a household production function that encompasses both the “warm glow” and the productive aspects of volunteering for various groups in the employment relationship. In the empirical work, emphasis is placed on how volunteering varies by characteristics of work and family. Especially important will be our estimate of the effect of working time and the balancing of familial obligations on the likelihood of volunteering. Comparisons will be made with the existing Canadian literature on the topic.[5]

Volunteering and the Household Production Framework

Given the emphasis on the relationship between work and family, the empirical results will be interpreted through the lens of the theoretical framework of the household production function where households value goods, leisure and charitable activity as a collective good. Charitable activity is “produced” via household inputs of money and volunteer time. This highlights the importance of substituting money for time within the household and over different periods in the lifecycle, and it highlights that households may economize on scarce household time both by “consuming” fewer charitable activities that involve time (substitution in consumption), and by substituting money for time in “producing” charitable activity (substitution in production).

The household production function perspective incorporates the fact that the decision to engage in charitable activity can be based on altruistic reasons—to help a cause—with different people having different amounts of altruism as well as different causes. Or it can be more of an investment decision with the expectation of some private return in terms of such factors as reputation, resume building, networking, experience or a reciprocal favour. The household production function approach also emphasizes that volunteering is a family decision affected by family income as well as by the opportunity cost of time of different family members and the extent to which different family members allocate their time to labour market versus household activity. Families that require more of their time at home (e.g., for the care of very young children) are less likely to have time for outside charitable activities, especially in the form of unpaid volunteer time. On the other hand, some unpaid work may be associated with the activities of other family members, such as school or club or team activities of children as they grow older.

The household production function perspective also reminds us that variables such as a person’s wage rate can have opposing effects on volunteering. Other things being equal, high wage persons may be less likely to volunteer because of the high opportunity cost of their time. However, the “production function” aspect of the theory highlights that their high wage also means that they may be more “productive” in certain types of volunteer activity and hence may volunteer more, or be pressed into volunteer service where their skills are important (Freeman 1996).

In essence, the household production function perspective provides a theoretical framework that is useful for interpreting the empirical relationships between volunteering and characteristics of work and family. Rather than using it in advance to set out the expected relationships between volunteering and each of the explanatory variables, it will be used to interpret the empirical relationships that emerge and that will be discussed subsequently.

Data and Econometric Procedures

The econometric analysis is based on Cycle 9 of the Canadian General Social Survey (GSS) of 1994. That data is ideally suited for analyzing the relationship between volunteering and work and family since Cycle 9 provides information on whether people volunteered and if so, for how many hours. It also has information on a wide range of work and working time characteristics (including union status and attitudes towards work) as well as family characteristics that can influence volunteer activity. It has measures that can capture economic concepts such as the opportunity cost of time as well as non-labour income or wealth. As well, it has measures that can reflect whether individuals have “fixed-effect” unobserved preferences that simply make them more prone to volunteer. The GSS also has a wide range of personal and demographic characteristics that can be important control variables, and that yield interesting information in their own right.

Information with respect to voluntary activity from the GSS is based on the survey question:

During the past 7 days, how many hours did you spend doing volunteer activities for a non-profit organisation, a religious organisation, a charity or a community group? (Some examples include organising a special event, advocating for a cause, canvassing or fundraising, coaching or teaching, serving on a committee or board of directors).

The measure of activity refers to formal activity and does not include, for example, informal activity not provided through an organization including family member care.[6]

In the GSS data set, the hours of volunteer activity were provided only in categories. They were converted here into continuous numbers by using the midpoint of each of the nonzero categories. That is, 1 to 4 hours was assigned 2.5 hours; 5 to 9 hours was assigned 7 hours; and 10 hours or more was assigned 15 hours. This category had the smallest number of respondents, which should make the assignment of hours in that group less consequential. Respondents in the categories “did not know” and “not stated” were omitted from the analysis.

Because of the very crude measure of the hours of volunteer activity, our empirical work focuses on estimating the probability of engaging in any volunteer activity; that is, on a binary coded dependent variable coded 1 if the person engaged in any volunteer activity, and zero if they did not. Tabulations (Appendix table 1 available on request from the authors) of the average hours of volunteer activity by the different explanatory variables yielded remarkably little variation in hours of volunteering across the different characteristics of the respondents. There was little deviation from the average hours of volunteering of 5.8 hours (e.g., 4.2 hours for employees whose spouse was ill or on maternity leave, to 6.4 hours for employees in public administration). For these reasons, our empirical analysis focuses on estimates of the probability of volunteering.

As is appropriate given the binary nature of the dependent variable, logistic regression is employed. Since the logit coefficients by themselves do not directly give the change in the probability of volunteering associated with a unit change in the explanatory variable, such marginal effects are calculated, evaluated at the mean probability of volunteering.[7]

In most cases, the coding of the variables is straightforward and readily corresponds to the variable name as used in the tables. In some cases, however, the definition is less obvious, and sometimes imputed values had to be calculated.[8]

The Determinants of Volunteer Activity

Our discussion of the empirical results will focus on the effect of the different explanatory variables on the probability of volunteering as given in column 3 of Table 1. The magnitude of these effects should be interpreted relative to the average probability of volunteering as given by the mean value of the dependent variable of .212—that is, 21.2 percent of the respondents volunteered in the week prior to the survey week.

Table 1

Determinants of Probability of Employed Persons Volunteering(Mean probability = .212; N = 6212 respondents)

Determinants of Probability of Employed Persons Volunteering(Mean probability = .212; N = 6212 respondents)

Table 1 (suite)

Determinants of Probability of Employed Persons Volunteering(Mean probability = .212; N = 6212 respondents)

Pseudo R-squared = .173. ** denotes significance at the .05 level, and * at the .10 level.

Note: a Mean values for the categorical variables give the proportion of observations in each category. They may sum to slightly less than 1 if there were missing observations in that category. Typically, this occurred in less than 1% of the cases.

-> Voir la liste des tableaux

The Effect of Earnings and Wealth Measures

The earnings and wealth measures have the expected effects based on the household production function perspective. That is, wealthier people volunteer more as indicated by the positive coefficient on each of the measures of wealth—household income (less the respondent’s own employment earnings); being in receipt of interest income; and being a home owner (although the later is statistically insignificant). The effect of being in receipt of interest income (and hence of having investments) is especially large, with such persons being about .05 more likely to volunteer—a large amount relative to the average probability of .21. In essence, volunteering appears to be a “normal good”—something we do more of if we can afford to do so. The same result also emerges in the only other comparable Canadian econometric study to include an income measure (Vaillancourt 1994).

Higher wages have no significant impact on the probability of volunteering. This likely reflects the net effect of income and substitution effects working in opposite directions. That is, higher wages increase volunteer activity by enabling people to afford to volunteer (income or wealth effect) but they also reduce volunteer activity by raising the opportunity cost of time spent volunteering (substitution effect). The coefficient on our wage measure is a gross wage effect, capturing both the income and substitution effects. The small negative magnitude of the net impact suggests that these income and substitution effects roughly offset each other. This highlights, however, that the pure substitution component is negative—that is, the higher opportunity cost of time leads to reduced volunteer activity.[9]

The Effect of Workplace and Working-time Characteristics

Working time arrangements can have substantial impacts on facilitating or inhibiting volunteer activity—especially important given the changing nature of work-time arrangements often associated with dual earner families. Relative to the regular day shift, a split shift increases the probability of volunteering by .08, a substantial amount relative to the average probability of .21. Split shifts tend to be “split” between early morning and the end of the day, leaving much of the day free for volunteering. In contrast, the uncertainty associated with rotating shifts reduces the probability of volunteering. Somewhat surprisingly, flextime does not seem to facilitate volunteering, perhaps because slight variations in start and end times do not substantially free up time for volunteering.

The flexibility of carrying out your work at home does have a large impact, increasing the probability of volunteering by .10, almost half of the average probability of .21. The extra day off per week typically created by compressed workweeks (e.g., four 10-hour days) also facilitates volunteering, albeit the effect is significant only at the 0.22 level.

Somewhat surprisingly, given their collective orientation and emphasis on “voice,” union members are no more likely to volunteer than are non-union members. Perhaps the most unexpected effect is that persons who find their work or work hours too demanding are actually more likely to volunteer their time in spite of their work pressures. It is possible that volunteering serves as a safety valve for the pressures of work, or that there is reverse causality in that their time spent in volunteering is putting pressure on their work and worktime.

Perceiving oneself as overqualified for the job does not have a significant effect on volunteering as a way to better utilize one’s qualifications. If paid employment does not fully utilize one’s qualifications, it is possible that unpaid work is even more likely to be frustrating in this dimension. The threat of a job loss also does not have a significant effect on volunteering. This is likely the net effect of opposing forces: potential job losers may volunteer to establish networks; but they may also be focussing on sustaining their job.

Working long hours at one’s existing job does not significantly affect the probability of volunteering. Long hours can leave little time for volunteering, but busy people tend to be busy at everything, with these effects possibly offsetting each other.

Persons in high-status occupations tend to be less likely to volunteer even after controlling for the opportunity cost of their time. Their focus seems to be on paid employment. Persons in the “caring and nurturing” sectors of health and education tend to be much more likely to volunteer, suggesting that there are “fixed effects” or unobserved traits in individuals that induce them to enter such jobs as well as to volunteer.

The Effect of Family Characteristics

There is not substantial variation in the probability of volunteering across the different marital status categories. However, persons with children living at home are substantially more likely to volunteer. This highlights that volunteering and childraising are complementary in spite of the time pressures of childraising. Obviously, many volunteer activities are associated with the raising of children in the broader community.

The probability of an employed person volunteering did not vary substantially depending upon the labour market and other activities of that person’s spouse. An employed person whose spouse was also working, or actively seeking work, or at school, did not decrease their volunteer activity. This suggests that the time crunch of the dual earner family is not an impediment to volunteering. The reciprocal or collective benefits that may come from volunteering may offset some of the domestic time pressures.

The Effect of Personal and Demographic Characteristics

Somewhat surprisingly, the probability of volunteering is 0.05 greater for employed males than for females. This likely reflects the fact that wages (and hence the opportunity cost of time) are controlled for in this econometric analysis.[10] Furthermore, the volunteering here is formal volunteering for an organization, and females are more likely to do informal volunteering associated with childraising activities.

Volunteering is much higher in the youngest age group of 15–19 than in all other age groups,[11] reflecting the importance of resume building and productive networking in facilitating the school-to-work transition for that group. Volunteering is much lower for immigrants than for non-immigrants, in spite of the importance of networking and social capital development for immigrants.[12] They may engage in more informal volunteering in their own immigrant community, including remittances and activities in their home country, and they may be inhibited from formal volunteering for organizations because of language and cultural barriers.

There is an extremely strong positive relationship between volunteering and religious activity,[13] with the probability of volunteering increasing substantially for each category of greater religious activity. This suggests that there are strong “fixed effects” or traits within individuals that encourage them to engage in more socially oriented activities such as volunteering, religion or, as indicated previously, “caring” jobs such as in health and education. As well, most religions stress the importance of giving and caring for the disadvantaged.

Consistent with the household production function perspective, individuals are more likely to volunteer if they are in good or excellent health. Volunteering also increases with higher levels of education even after controlling for the effect of earnings and non-labour income that is likely also higher for persons of higher education.[14] Educated persons are likely more “productive” at volunteering, especially formal volunteering for organizations, and their education may have exposed them to social issues and causes that are dealt with through the social capital formation associated with volunteering.

The probability of volunteering is substantially lower in Quebec than in other provinces.[15] Traditionally, that province has relied heavily on state regulation to deal with social issues, and this may be a substitute for private volunteering (Vaillancourt 1994; White 2001). It may also be the case that informal volunteer activity is more prominent in Quebec—the data in this study being restricted to formal activity through an organization. As well, the Catholic church exerts a strong influence in that province. Since that effect cannot be controlled for in our statistical analysis, much of the Quebec effect may be capturing the effect of Catholicism compared to Protestantism, and the much greater tradition of volunteering in Protestant societies.[16] The latter likely reflects the fact that most Protestant religions were founded as volunteer organizations, they tend to be local and non-hierarchical, and they rely on social norms (Woolley 2001, 2003).

Summary and Concluding Observations

Volunteer activity has an important productive component that can enhance the performance of various groups in the employment relationship—employees, employers and governments and organizations that are increasingly relying on volunteers. This importance is likely to grow in the future as both the demand and supply of volunteer labour is likely to increase. The demand for volunteer labour is likely to increase to fill any void created by retrenchment in government activities, such as de-institutionalization, and community-based care especially associated with an aging population with longer life expectancy, as well as the legacy of growing income inequality and reduced transfer payments. The supply of volunteer labour is likely to increase to the extent that there is greater phasing in school-to-work and work-to-retirement transitions as well as larger numbers in those groups.

In such circumstances, it is important to understand the factors that influence the decision to volunteer, and especially those factors related to work and family, given the importance of volunteer activity to work and family. Our empirical analysis highlights that the household production function perspective, which emphasizes the importance of the household as both a producing and investing unit and as a consuming unit, can shed considerable light on understanding the decision to volunteer.

People are more likely to volunteer if they can “afford” to do so, and they are less likely to volunteer if the opportunity cost of their time is high. They are also more likely to volunteer if the work and worktime characteristics of their workplace facilitate volunteering and do not pose barriers to volunteering. The fact that family members are more likely to volunteer if they have children at home, in spite of the time crunch associated with childraising, highlights the complementary nature of volunteering and the social nature of many family activities such as the raising of children. This is further supported by the fact that volunteering is not reduced by the time crunch associated with working long hours or with one’s spouse also being in the labour market or in school. Busy families seem to do more of everything, including volunteering. What did have a negative effect was unpredictable working hours. Rotating shift workers were much less likely to volunteer than workers with comparable characteristics.

The productive nature of volunteering is also highlighted by its prominence among employed young people who are at a stage in their career when networking and résumé building are important in facilitating the school-to-work transition.

While volunteering does seem responsive to the costs and benefits associated with the work and family environment, different individuals also seem to posses specific traits that encourage them to engage in social activities such as religion, working in “caring occupations” and simply working intensively at all tasks including volunteering. Work and family matter, but so do these more innate individual traits that foster their engaging in a wide range of socially oriented activities.