Brits are becoming less generous – at least according to the World Giving Index, described as the “world’s leading study on global generosity”. The UK has typically ranked in the top 10, but in the latest index it’s in 22nd place, its (joint) lowest spot yet. 

This is not a new worry. In 2021, analysts warned that British generosity may be “fading”, with the proportion of those in the UK giving to charity falling. Meanwhile the wealthiest are, to put it bluntly, getting richer but meaner.

Across the pond, some warn of a “generosity crisis”. The authors of a recent book on this subject think declining giving in the US could even “herald the end of the modern nonprofit”. That’s because, even though the total amount given to charity has been rising, the proportion of Americans who donate to or volunteer with nonprofits is dropping – the so-called “dollars up, donors down” phenomenon. That matters, because it makes philanthropy less democratic. In other words, if only richer people give, only the causes that richer people care about will get funded. 

Only the noble?

But is the idea of a “crisis” overblown? Data that only captures giving to or volunteering with registered charities overlooks the many other ways people do good – donating to crowdfunders, joining a mutual aid group, helping a community organisation, buying from ethical businesses, political activism, and so on. Are the people who previously donated to charity now simply giving elsewhere? It’s unclear – more data is needed, experts say. It’s worth noting that the World Giving Index measures ‘giving’ in three ways: donating money, volunteering with an organisation or helping a stranger. Even so, as a measure of generosity it’s likely to miss some nuances. People give for a whole range of reasons, some more obvious than others. 

There’s another interesting paradox. The Science of Generosity project, at the University of Notre Dame, defines generosity as “the virtue of giving good things to others freely and abundantly”. Those good things can be money, possessions, time, attention, aid, encouragement, emotional availability, and more. But the origins of the English word derive from the Latin term meaning “of noble birth”, and historical associations can linger. As researchers say, generosity “has not long been viewed as a normal trait of ordinary, or of all people, but rather one expected to be practised by those of higher quality or greater goodness”. That could be a positive thing, encouraging us all to strive for a higher moral standard. Or it might make us feel that “ordinary” people are excused from being generous. 

No benchmark

There’s also no clear benchmark for what level of giving counts as generous or appropriate. Religion has long provided one perspective: Christians were traditionally expected to pay a tithe of 10% of their agricultural produce or of their income to the church; in Islam, zakat specifies what portion of wealth Muslims should give to the poor. (Religion is one of the strongest predictors of giving and volunteering, and the decline in organised/institutionalised religion is seen as one factor behind the decline in overall giving.) For secular guidance, you might look to effective altruism: while some followers of this movement believe we should give away almost everything, others propose a more realistic target – roughly 5% of annual income, or a higher/lower proportion depending on your wealth.

Thinking about percentages makes sense: well-off people, at least in the UK and the US, often underestimate their wealth. And we don’t seem to give more as earnings increase. One study in the Netherlands found evidence of a “giving standard”: people of varying levels of income gave the same amount in specific situations, suggesting income did not influence norms about what would be the “right” amount. 

As the UK’s Beacon Collaborative, which aims to encourage philanthropy, says, “everyone feels their own level of giving is generous”. For wealthy donors, they propose a ‘generosity threshold’ at 0.9%-2% of investable wealth. This, they argue, should be the starting point – the minimum portion at which the donor could be considered generous. That’s still aspirational: as of 2020, half of the UK’s millionaires would have to drastically increase their giving (in some cases by up to 40 times more) to meet that benchmark. Generosity, as much as we try to define or measure or compare it, is still a slippery concept.

Image by Sujit Manna from Pixabay