A Household Production Analysis Of Religious And Charitable Activity - Statistical Data Included

CHARLES B ZECH [*]

ABSTRACT. sum of two units conventional wisdoms are prevalent among churchgoer with regards to monetary contributions. united is that contributions of their time and wealth to their church are complementary. The other is that churches are in competition with other charitable organizations for ecclesiastical body members' contributions. This study enlist in one's services the household production model to criterion these conventional wisdoms. The first is supported (church members who contribute more riches also contribute more time) while the next to the first is rejected (churchgoers who contribute more to their temple are also more generous to other charitable organizations). Policy implications include advising churches that wish to increase members' financial contributions to focus onward increasing member involvement, and to jointly sponsor activities with nonreligious charitable organizations.

I

Introduction

THE HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION FUNCTION standard pioneered by Gary Becker (1965) treats a family as a quasi-firm engaged in the production of household commodities. The family combines resources so as purchased goods, household labor, and human capital to bring into view commodities for the consumption of family members. For example, in producing the family meal, purchased ingredients are combined with the time and knowledge of a household member. Within leaps a family has the ability to substitute these resources. In the example above, when producing a meal, a family can rely in succession a skilled member starting from scratch, or upon an unskilled member using purchased commodities in the same state [i]or[/i] condition as frozen dinners.

The pattern has been used to analyze a variety of household issues. Topics have included the decision forward the part of household members to offer their time (Menchik and Weisbrod 1987) the part of parents in ensuring quality public education (Andrews et al. 1991) household labor in agricultural families (Skorefias 1994) and the female labor force participation rate (Mueller 1982)

This studious mood employs the household production approach to analyze the production of religiosity and charitable commodities of a nonreligious nature. Of particular interest is the relationship between these commodities in the maximization of utility. The relationship between inputs (time and money) in the production of these commodities is also of interest.

The household production example lends itself well to the close attention of family religiosity. The religiousness of a family is the issue of many factors. Some factors are external, similar as the quality of the body of ecclesiastics However, many are internal, affected from the family production function and its resource allocation decisions. a of these internal factors include purchased fits such as religious prayer volumes symbols, and artifacts. They also include family time allocations: time worn out attending religious services, time exhausted engaged in fellowship and service activities, and devotional time in prayer and meditation. Another internal factor is coin contributed to support the temple and its works. Finally, the religious human capital that family members have accumulated is critical.

Religious human capital directs to the skills and experience of an individual that contribute to his or her ability to bear and enjoy religious goods. These include any formal religious training the individual has accrued as well as informal experiences gathered by the and of religious contacts. However, religious human capital is a two-way highway At the same time that previously-acquired human capital enables the same to get more out of the religious fits consumed, the consumption of many religious beneficials (such as religious services and sermons) are themselves a source of additional religious human capital. As Laurence Iannaccone has argued,

Religious capital is as well-as; not only-but also; not only-but; not alone-but a prerequisite for and a conclusion of most religious activity. Religious capital--familiarity with a religion's doctrines, rituals, traditions, and members--enhances the satisfaction common receives from participation in that religion and likewise increases the likelihood and probable flush of one's religious panicipation. reciprocally religious participation is the single most numerous important means of augmenting one's stock of religious human capital (1990 p 299)

When these various inputs are combined in production, questions naturally arise through the whole extent of the relationships between them, as well-as; not only-but also; not only-but; not alone-but in technological terms and in bounds of cross-price effects. In the latter case, inputs can be classified as either deficiencys or substitutes according to the overall impact of the substitution and scale powers of price changes. On the other hand, the relationship between inputs in technological terminuss is reflected by the shape of the production function itself. The shape of the production function dictates whether single in kind uses more of all inputs or more of single in kind at the expense of another as single increases the scale of production, holding input prices fixed. Questions concerning these issues can barely be answered with an empirical investigation.