Next Article in Journal
Mining λ-Maximal Cliques from a Fuzzy Graph
Previous Article in Journal
The Resilience of a Sustainability Entrepreneur in the Swedish Food System
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 8
Issue 6
10.3390/su8060541
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Philanthropic Fundraising of Higher Education Institutions: A Review of the Malaysian and Australian Perspectives

by
Mohd Isa Rohayati
1,*,
Youhanna Najdi
2 and
John C. Williamson
3
1
Office of the Bursar, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Penang, Malaysia
2
Willy Brandt School of Public Policy, Erfurt University, P.O. Box 90 02 21, 99105 Erfurt, Germany
3
Faculty of Education, University of Tasmania, Hobart 7005, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2016, 8(6), 541; https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060541
Submission received: 11 April 2016 / Revised: 27 May 2016 / Accepted: 31 May 2016 / Published: 13 June 2016
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Currently, higher education institutions are facing rapidly rising costs and limitations in governmental funding. Accordingly, higher education institutions need sustainable forms of funding to operate effectively and remain competitive. In their attempts to identify causes and initiatives, world universities have paid more attention to philanthropic support. In their effort to raise funds, many institutions have grappled with questions of why donors give and what motivates donors to give. To address these questions, scholars must consider the influence of demographic and socio-economic characteristics, as well as internal and external motivational parameters on successful giving behaviour. However, much more attention has been paid to universities in Western countries and the United States. This study aims to review the factors influencing organizational philanthropic fundraising success and to gain an understanding of factors affecting donors’ giving decisions and perceptions of giving. This work focuses on donors’ giving to Malaysian and Australian public universities.

1. Introduction

Public higher education institutions are increasingly challenged by cost pressures that are high and rapidly rising. In the longer term, these pressures have resulted in costs outrunning available revenues [1]. Indeed, contemporary universities are facing unprecedented challenges [2], particularly in terms of matching revenue to escalating costs and accommodating increasing demands for growth and higher quality to remain globally and nationally competitive. As a result, most of the state universities in the world are searching for ways to cut costs, enhance productivity and develop alternate revenue sources [3]. This situation calls for diversification in public higher education institutions’ funding mix.
As government funding is limited [4] and may reach the politically-acceptable maximum at some point in the near future, revenue enhancement is normally achieved by shifting a greater portion of costs to non-taxpayer sources [5]. To remain competitive, universities can no longer maintain the status quo; rather, they need to share the cost burden of higher education more broadly. Therefore, an increasingly important and largely underdeveloped financial stream for public higher education institutions is philanthropy [6,7,8], that is donations from the general public to the universities for either specific or non-tagged purposes. Philanthropy is associated with the action of “expressing love to mankind” [9] and is often focused towards improving humanity rather than solely serving the needs of the poor. In the context of defining the action of giving to higher education, Cascione [10] stated:
Giving to higher education institutions is best understood as philanthropic, since it is most often indirect and programmatic and the institution is expected to deliver the means for instruction or other benefits of education.
(p. 5)
Cascione suggested that “philanthropy is often earmarked towards institutions that provide the infrastructure to uplift individuals”.
(p. 5)
The growing importance of philanthropy for higher education across the world can be found in the literature, as institutions have embraced philanthropy to satisfy their funding needs [11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. In addition, the literature has extensively discussed factors that influence giving behaviours [18,19,20,21,22,23,24], strategies for successful higher education philanthropy [12,25,26,27,28,29,30] and institutional advancement [31,32,33,34,35,36]. In order to craft a successful philanthropy “model”, it is important to compare and contrast the experiences of a more matured model of philanthropic success for higher education institutions. Most of the relevant investigations were conducted in higher education institutions in Western countries, particularly in the United States. To date, no study has investigated factors that influence individuals’ giving to Malaysian universities. Similarly, in Australia, despite the growing research on philanthropy [37,38,39,40], only a few studies have investigated some public higher education institutions. However, these studies have not been comprehensive or extensive. Therefore, the giving to United States universities literature was focused on in this review despite the countries’ differences, i.e., demographic, socio-economic background, giving culture, as compared to Malaysia and Australia.
Hence, this review seeks to explore the knowledge base of institutional advancement and to identify the gaps in the knowledge about: (i) the importance of philanthropic support for universities; (ii) the elements of a successful institutional fundraising program; and (iii) the factors that influence giving and donor’s perceptions of their philanthropy in a successful higher education fundraising effort. The review aims to compare and contrast private philanthropic support as a potential revenue stream for higher education institutions between a developing country, Malaysia, and a developed Western society, Australia, and to understand “what” the university can do to succeed.
Australia has the following characteristics: a young higher education system relative to that of many developed Western countries and a culturally diverse society. These characteristics constitute the rationale for comparing Australia and Malaysia, a multi-racial society with a higher education system that must tap into philanthropic giving.

2. The Importance of Philanthropy for Higher Education

The acceptance of the need to diversify universities’ funding streams, particularly by exploring new funding opportunities to keep universities competitive, is growing. In this situation, the importance of fundraising for the higher education sector has increased worldwide [41]. Higher education requires sustainable forms of funding to operate effectively. Currently, sources of income for public higher education institutions are mainly the government, tuition fees, research grants received from public or private bodies and the institution itself. Philanthropy is a very productive type of financial support and a possible significant source of external revenue for higher education institutions [8].
Nearly all national and state governments are tightening their budgets and providing fewer funds to the education sector [42], while concurrently imposing more public scrutiny on how an institution uses its resources. Budget allocations within one of the researcher’s own university were reduced from year to year, but the government’s expectation of “excellence” increased. However, with the regulations limiting tuition fee increases, many institutions are unable to establish their own pricing level, and this restricts their ability to deliver on their mandates [42].
To maintain competitive advantage and to ensure long-term survival and growth, public higher education institutions (PHEIs) must access an increasing amount of external resources [13]. According to Chung-Hoon et al. (2005) [13], significant resources are available in external networks, and universities must create strategic network alliances and relationships to access these resources. A university must consider how to best balance the need to separate the functions of governance and philanthropy while maintaining and improving the viability and robustness of both functions [2]. The growing importance of philanthropy for higher education across the world can be found in the literature, as institutions have embraced philanthropy to satisfy their funding needs [12,14,15,16].

3. Factors Affecting Successful Organizational Fundraising

While some institutions have achieved success in attracting philanthropic support, many are still struggling to succeed. This raises the following question: “what is the formula for a successful higher education institution philanthropic approach?” How should these institutions organize, structure, function and strategize to draw public attention? To answer these questions, we must “unpack” the elements of a fundraising program found in the literature and examine their contributions to fundraising success. Figure 1 shows the framework conceptualizing a university’s philanthropy action. The framework was derived from the combination of two sources: first, research on open systems theory for fundraising and the factors influencing organizational fundraising success (Tempel, 2010, [43]); and second, research on social exchange theory for fundraising. Research on open systems theory suggests that to achieve successful fundraising, the organization needs to become connected with its external environment and to operate in a management structure by understanding its mission (Tempel, 2010, [43]). This approach allows us to examine institutional readiness and efforts towards successful fundraising through the institutional advancement structure. Subsequently, according to the concept of reciprocity within social exchange theory regarding fundraising, the university must understand donors’ behaviours. The success in raising funds is determined by the ability to maintain and nurture social relationships. Reciprocity is a significant element in the fundraising activities that help us explore the social exchange activities between the universities’ sharing of its needs and the donor’s and prospective donors’ response to the request.

3.1. Setting Appropriate University Fundraising Fundamentals

The first step towards successful higher education philanthropic fundraising is setting appropriate fundamentals. According to Tempel (2010) [43], “effective fundraising is built on organizational strengths and that organizational weaknesses and vulnerabilities can undermine fundraising efforts” (p. 334). The author suggested that for their fundraising initiatives to succeed, universities need to capitalize on the strength of an open systems orientation and move away from an “ivory tower” approach.
In addition, installing effective fundraising governance is a key element for success. Allen Consulting Group (2007) [44] and Expert Group (2007) [14] recommended the creation of a university foundation to handle and manage donations and trust arrangements, particularly when greater university autonomy is not possible. To shed more light on the effect of a university’s foundation on fundraising success, Thomas (2006) [45] analysed data from a survey involving 979 public U.S. community colleges. He finally reported a strong relationship between the age of an institution’s foundation and the monetary value of the foundation’s assets, regardless of whether the foundation had a full-time director.
For the fundraising plan to be carried out effectively, a well-defined and enforced policy on gifting must be put in place [44]. This includes clear policies and procedures that will enhance donors’ confidence in the university’s management of philanthropic funds. Allen Consulting Group (2007) [44] emphasized the creation of a development professional position as a senior position in the university hierarchy and a dedicated development office to champion the fundraising arm of the university. Indeed, they proposed that a senior development professional should report to the Vice-Chancellor as a best practice. In addition to highlighting a well-defined policy on gifting and a sound governance process for the management of donations, Expert Group (2007) stressed the importance of transparent governance, such as the investment of philanthropic funds [14]. This finding signals that to build donors’ trust and confidence, the university must demonstrate sound management of philanthropic giving and make such management visible to the public [46].
Other important elements for fundraising success are accountability and ethics in fundraising. Of note, a well-defined policy demonstrates accountability and integrity in fundraising [44]. Openness and accountability in the university accounting system are also important [14]. Two important elements of ethics in fundraising are relationships and trust [46]. Among the ethical issues in higher education fundraising, the appropriateness of the donors and their gifts, such as donations from a tobacco company, is important [31].

3.2. Establishing the Appropriate University Environment

3.2.1. The Internal Environment

Most scholars have reported that the organization’s senior leadership, governing body and board members’ participation in the planning and fundraising activities are essential for fundraising success [43,47,48,49]. In this regard, the importance of the active participation and full support of the Vice-Chancellor and other senior university leaders in promoting the university to solicit support from prospective donors were emphasized by Allen Consulting Group (2007) [44] and Expert Group (2007) [14].
Successful fundraising also depends on the effectiveness of the organization’s human resources. On this point, conducting fundraising based on limited resources guarantees only diminishing results [50]. A strong governing board, professional development, a good CEO and staff are assets to the fundraising process [14,43]. In addition, an important aspect of good fundraising management is recognizing the effort exerted by internal staff in facilitating gifts [31] and encouraging volunteerism [50], because as personal donors’ involvement in the cause increases, the relationship becomes stronger [51]. In a study on fundraising success at public community colleges, Thomas (2006) [45] revealed a positive relationship between the size of an institution’s endowment and the number of staff assigned to work for the foundation, especially when the foundation had a full-time Director.
Alumni are one of the major financial supports for their alma mater [52]. Helping alumni stay connected to the institution and including alumni in the life of the institution are remarkable ways to obtain future support [53]. Allen Consulting Group (2007) [44] stated that soliciting alumni at a later stage without earlier efforts taken to build relationships would be a daunting process. Furthermore, Expert Group (2007) [14] reported that understanding alumni’s attitudes and other factors that influence their support are essential for relationship building for future support.

3.2.2. The External Environment

To be successful in fundraising, the organization must connect with its external environment and accommodate the changing trends of that environment [43]. The number of volunteers engaged and philanthropic dollars raised are reflections of organizational success in understanding the university’s external environment. This factor suggests that donations and future support depend on donors’ and prospective donors’ perceptions of the organization’s efforts to build a relationship with them and the organization’s adaptation to change to meet social needs.
Government decisions on rules regarding tax exemptions for donations to higher education institutions and the provision of matching grants to complement the university’s philanthropic efforts are found to stimulate the culture of giving [14,44]. Government participation in promoting the culture of giving to higher education is another essential element for success in fundraising. As Allen Consulting Group (2007) [44] and Expert Group (2007) [14] reported, a broad stakeholder call for public support of higher education would assist the university in its fundraising.

4. Higher Education Philanthropy in Malaysia and Australia: Similarities and Differences

The research on philanthropy in Australia is growing, as reflected in published studies on, e.g., giving in Australia [37,54], corporate philanthropic giving [55], affluent donors [38,40,56], the role of fundraisers [57], indigenous philanthropy [39], religion and giving [58,59], giving and volunteering [60] and bequests [61]. However, research on higher education philanthropy remains very limited. Research has found that in regard to philanthropy, most Australian universities focus on setting up the basics of an office, etc. [62], and most of the universities are still struggling for support [63].
The small corpus of literature related to philanthropic studies in the Malaysian context includes a preliminary study of the state of philanthropy in Malaysia conducted by the Philanthropy Initiative of Malaysia (PHILIMA) [64], a study on private philanthropy in multi-ethnic Malaysia [65] and research on corporate philanthropy in Malaysian corporations [66,67,68]. Despite the growing interest in philanthropy, to date, no literature is available on the topic of private support given to Malaysian higher education institutions or elements of successful higher education philanthropic fundraising programs. To date, the evidence shows that Australian universities have performed rather poorly in attracting philanthropic funds, and donations and bequests represent less than 1.5 percent of universities’ revenue [44]. However, the lack of comprehensive public reporting on giving to the Malaysian higher education sector has resulted in difficulties evaluating the performance of Malaysian universities in attracting philanthropic funds.
In both countries, a widely-held view is that public universities are the responsibility of the government and that the government should provide funds for universities [69] and for the country’s social needs, such as education [70,71]. As such, people question why they should give to universities. Existing literature confirms the low level of support for Australian universities [44] because of the lack of a philanthropic culture to support higher education and because the community does not greatly consider higher education as an ideal [72]. Malaysian universities and their context can be said to display the same set of characteristics.
A nationwide survey of giving in Australia [54] found that 60.2 percent of adult Australians prefer to donate to charitable organizations that provide community services and that only 16.2 percent donate to education. Research has suggested that success in raising funds from voluntary supporters depends heavily on the institution attracting donors to give [44]. A study conducted on individual giving in one state in Malaysia indicated that individuals prefer to contribute to religious purposes (71.8 percent) and that only 23.9 percent of the sample prefers to donate to education [73].
Philanthropy in higher education is presently under-developed in Malaysia. A philanthropic culture is relatively more prevalent in Australian universities, although it is very modest and not as advanced as that in the other developed countries, such as the United States and Europe. Thus far, few detailed studies have been conducted on philanthropic contributions to Malaysian universities and the critical factors affecting the extent of philanthropic contribution, either alumni-related or otherwise, to the funding needs of public universities in Malaysia. Understanding of “benevolence” in the society and exploring the similarity and differences of “giving behaviours” and the reasons for giving between countries with the contemporary cross-cultural context will provide a better understanding of the soliciting strategy. It is important for the universities to craft a philanthropy “model” that will have the most impact on their prospective donors, rather than to implement an approach from “outside” their milieu.

5. State of Philanthropy in the Malaysian Public Higher Education System (PHEI)

Malaysia’s education policy has been shaped by the nation’s broader economic and political policies since the country’s independence in 1957. The policy was developed and implemented to develop a national identity that is acceptable and capable of uniting all of the ethnic groups: Malay, Chinese, Indian and other ethnic groups [1]. The Malaysian tertiary education sector consists of two major providers, the public (government-funded) higher education institutions (PHEIs) and the private (privately-funded) higher educational institutions. A comparison of the average annual growth rate of public and private universities for different levels of education in Malaysia for the period of 2000 to 2010 is shown in Figure 2 [74]. Between 2006 and 2010, most of the certificate and diploma students enrolled in private institutions, whereas the majority of post-graduate and undergraduate students enrolled in public institutions [74].
Malaysia’s PHEIs, similar to institutions in other parts of the world, are experiencing reductions in their operating and development budgets. In this context, the government has reiterated the need for PHEIs to seek new ways to diversify their funding sources and to take measures to implement income-generating activities. The alternative sources of income that the government has suggested include endowments and alumni and philanthropic contributions [75]. However, philanthropy in Asia has not reached Western institutionalization levels [71], and limited reliable information has been gathered on the size and scope of philanthropic activities in Southeast Asian countries [76]. However, regional governments’ efforts to promote philanthropy in education through measures, such as the formulation of tax laws and tax reforms to encourage giving, are evident.
In Malaysia, philanthropy is not a new or modern phenomenon, but it is deeply rooted in the diverse cultural and religious traditions of its people [71]. Malaysia is a multi-racial society comprised of Malays, Chinese, Indian and other ethnic groups. Religions and traditional beliefs (Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other beliefs) play an important role in influencing the practice of philanthropy in the society; in short, religion provides a strong foundation for the tradition of giving in the society [76].
Muslims practice giving in the form of sadaqa (anything given away in charity to please Allah) as part of their everyday life. In addition to sadaqa, Muslims are obligated to pay a yearly purification tax called zakat (signifies the alms-tax that might purify and sanctify wealth) (Al-Quran 9:130) [77]. Besides sadaqa and zakat, another practice is Waqf. Waqf is the donation of an asset by its owner for Allah to forever utilize for philanthropy purposes for a community or the public. Once a Waqf is made, it cannot be cancelled, and the property cannot be inherited or sold (Harun et al., 2014) (endowment; a dedicated property which is to be used for some charitable ends for the duration of the property’s existence) [78]. All of these practices are part of the way of life of Muslims. Similarly, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity and other religions also teach the need to give and share, and these religions have strongly influenced the life, culture and practice of philanthropy of the Chinese, Indian and other races in the country.
Malaysian donors now appear to be more willing to give across racial groups. This development may be due to the efforts taken by the government through the “1 Malaysia” concept, a government program initiated to cultivate a dominant Malaysian culture.
In recent times, some of the Malaysian universities have begun to establish an advancement portfolio, especially Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) in 2014 founded Yayasan USM for fund raising activities. Universiti of Malaya Institutional Advancement Centre [79] also formed foundations to govern the direction of philanthropic funds, e.g., The Pak Rashid Foundation formed by the Universiti Putra Malaysia in 2000 [80] and the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Chancellor’s Foundation [81]. Figure 3 compares the percentage of various activities employed to generate income for public universities in Malaysia [82]. As indicated in this figure, approximately 84% of public universities’ income comes from consultancy, followed by increasing post-graduate tuition fees (73%), short-term professional development (68.4%) and continuing studies programs (63.2%). However, endowment and philanthropic activities comprised only 52.6% of public universities’ income.
Thus, the lack of tradition and giving to PHEIs and the lack of public reporting of giving lead to difficulties in determining the level of public interest in giving donations and, hence, opportunities to increase funding from this source.

6. State of Philanthropy in the Australian Public Higher Education System

Australia’s higher education system is young relative to that of many developed Western countries. Universities, as defined by the Australian Government’s Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), are self-accrediting institutions, have their own establishment legislation (generally state and territory legislation) and receive the vast majority of their public funding from the Australian Government. A study reported that Australian federal government support was sharply reduced from 60% in the mid-1990s to 43% in 2011 [83]. In addition, donations and bequests attracted by Australian universities were found to amount to $365.7 million and $171 million in 2011 and 2005, respectively [83]. The Australian higher education system comprises 39 universities, of which 37 are public institutions and two are private; one Australian branch of an overseas university; three other self-accrediting higher education institutions; and more than 150 non-self-accrediting higher education providers accredited by state and territory authorities.
Australia is a culturally diverse society [54] comprised of people from a variety of cultural, ethnic, linguistic and religious backgrounds. However, according to Liffman (2009) [84], director of the Asia–Pacific Centre for Social Philanthropy and Social Investment, giving is not a conspicuous aspect of Australian civic culture, and voluntary giving by private philanthropists has played a relatively small role in Australian society. As Liffman (2009) [84] emphasized, this reflects Australia’s conflictual past, expectation of government funding and “suspicion” of those with private wealth [44]. Notwithstanding this cultural dimension, research has estimated that in the early part of the 21st century, individuals and businesses donated a total of $11 billion (including goods and services) to non-profit organizations annually [54].
Australian higher education institutions are also under the pressure of rapidly rising costs with limited extra resources. To date, evidence has shown that Australian universities have performed rather poorly in attracting philanthropic funds, with donations and bequests representing less than 1.5 percent of the universities’ revenue [44]. While some older “sandstone” universities, such as The University of Sydney and The University of Melbourne, received large donations and bequests [44], other “younger” (e.g., less than 50 years of age) Australian universities are struggling to keep pace [63]. An investigation conducted by Business, Industry and Higher Education Collaboration Council in Australia in 2007 proposed that to change philanthropic attitudes towards universities, the government should introduce a matched funding program and that universities must develop their own internal fundraising capacity [83].
Although higher education contributes nearly two percent of Australia’s GDP [85] and ranks eighth in the world among higher education systems [86], evidence suggests that Australian universities have performed rather poorly in attracting philanthropic funds [44].

7. Factors Hindering Donors’ Giving of Philanthropic Support

Voluntary action for the public good appears in every society, although it appears differently in different cultures, and nations have their own philanthropic traditions [87]. Mixer (1993) [51] argued that to achieve fundraising success, university fundraisers need to understand the reasons why people give. This is because understanding the psychological and social concepts of human behaviour within a cultural and temporal context helps shape the institution’s fundraising strategies [88,89]. As Van Slyke and Brook (2005) [23] proposed, empirical research illuminating which fundraising specific strategies work for which people is lacking. Most empirical and theoretical studies on philanthropic fundraising have focused on two main areas: (i) factors that determine giving, e.g., individual demographic and socio-economic characteristics; and (ii) donor’s motivational factors, e.g., attitudinal characteristics and external factors, such as organizational characteristics and macroeconomic factors. Van Slyke and Brooks (2005) [23] categorized the determinants of giving into demographic variables and motivational factors (internal and external). Figure 4 presents the factors that trigger the average donor to contribute to public universities based on Van Slyke and Brooks’ (2006) [23] model. Higher education institutions must understand the factors influencing donors’ giving decisions to formulate their fundraising strategy for philanthropic giving.

7.1. Demographic Characteristics

Many studies have reported that donors’ demographic factors are central to giving. Drezner and Huehls (2014) [90] proposed that the LGBTQ population and communities of colour (not just white people) as new donor populations should also be taken into account. The selected demographic characteristics typically include age, gender, marital status, number of children, race and ethnicity, religion and education. The relationships between these demographic characteristics and giving, as found in the literature, are summarized in Table 1.

7.1.1. Age

Numerous studies have reported that the relationship between age and giving is positive (Table 1). Some data have also suggested that age correlates with other background characteristics, such as income, gender and marital status [98]. While many studies found the existence of a direct relationship between age and giving, some studies reported that the relationship decreased as the donors aged [54,59,96,97]. Therefore, the exact age when giving decreases varies across countries because of the size, age group of the samples, context and giving culture of the society.
In Australia, the Giving Australia Report [54], a national study on patterns of giving, reasons for giving and types of giving involving over 6200 adults in a telephone survey, and The ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) Research [97], a national study of voluntary work based on the General Social Survey (GSS), were conducted. These studies reported that individual giving declines slightly when individuals retire (65 years) and then rises again. The study also reported that giving increased slightly as donor age (18 years) increased until middle age (45 to 55 years), and this broad pattern existed for both males and females. These findings support the notion that giving declines after the age of 65 and suggest that Australians reduced their giving upon reaching the retirement age of 65 years [110]. Based on the large sample of different age groups and the statistical analysis methods applied, these findings imply that Australians would consider donating even after retirement.
In Malaysia, a study was conducted on individual giving in Penang, a state in Malaysia. The sample included 368 individuals from 13 residential areas within Penang and comprised balanced ethnic groups and various levels of income and education. This study reported that a large portion of the respondents who engaged in giving were aged between 26 and 50 years. Based on the large Indonesian [99] and Korean [100] samples and focused group giving behaviour in Malaysia [73], we suggest that age is not a significant indicator of giving among people of a heterogeneous society.

7.1.2. Gender

Another demographic characteristic that is strongly related to giving is gender (see Table 1). The U.S. Federal Reserve Board’s 1995 Survey of Consumer Finances found that women tend to be more altruistic than men [101]. By contrast, studies on the characteristics of alumni donors and alumni non-donors of two U.S. universities found no significant relationship between donor status and gender, but suggested that male alumni are more likely to give larger gifts than their female counterparts [102,103].
The Giving Australia Report [54] and The ABS Research [97] stated that women give more than men. However, on average, men give more than women. In a study conducted in Malaysia, Bustamy et al. (2002) [73] reported that more respondents are male than female. The differences in the effects of gender on giving between these studies are due to differences in sample size and respondents’ gender. However, these findings may suggest that members of both genders, regardless of their culture of giving, would give if they held economic power.

7.1.3. Marital Status

The evidence on the influence of marital status on giving (Table 1) is mixed. Some studies have identified marital status as positively related to giving, while some have claimed otherwise. Using household survey data commissioned by the Independent Sector, United States, Andreoni et al. (2003) [105] conducted a study of 4180 households and reported on charitable giving by married couples. They found that marriage was positively related to giving. Similarly, Van Slyke and Brooks [23] (2005) proposed that married people give more than single people.
In Australia, [54] examined the relationship between household type, e.g., a person living alone or a couple with no children living at home, and giving and reported that a couple with no children living at home donated slightly more than other household types. In the Malaysian context, Bustamy et al. (2002) [73] found that 65.2 percent of the respondents who reported giving were married. These studies indicate that individuals’ marital status may influence giving, regardless of the individuals’ cultural and societal background.

7.1.4. Number of Children

Studies have reported mixed results on the relationship between the number of children and giving (see Table 1). The Giving Australia Report demonstrated that the type of household in which a person lives has little effect on giving among Australians [54]. The mixed findings from various studies on the relationship between number of children and giving may indicate that a specific number of children is not a significant predictor of giving; rather, the broad categories of “with-or-without” children is more likely related to giving.

7.1.5. Level of Education

Another demographic variable that relates to giving is an individual’s education level. Some studies have found a significant relationship between giving and highest degree of education earned [23,103]. However, a study on charitable giving in Taiwan that utilized data from a national survey on family income and expenditures reported that although donations are made for education purposes, education does not relate to giving [96].
In the Malaysian context, Bustamy et al. (2002) [73] reported that individuals are more inclined to give towards welfare-related organizations than towards education. The Giving Australia Report proposed a relationship between giving and education level among Australians [54]. This report indicated that donors donated, and donated more, as their education level increased. These different findings may relate to the context of the studies, as the underlying perceptions of attaining education are not an important factor among Asians compared to people from more developed societies.

7.1.6. Race and Ethnicity

Other significant predictors of giving are race and ethnicity (see Table 1). Okten and Osili (2004) [99] demonstrated that ethnic diversity influenced contributions through “diversity of preferences; transaction costs, and inter-household considerations in the form of altruism towards one’s ethnic group” (p. 603).
Findings of the philanthropy study that Bustamy et al. (2002) [73] conducted in Malaysia suggested that the various ethnic groups in Malaysia have their own pattern of giving, demonstrating their cultural patterns. In addition, Fernandez (2002) [111] proposed that the ethnic diaspora influences philanthropy in Malaysia because of the large migrant population. These findings support the notion that race and ethnicity influence giving.

7.1.7. Religion

Many studies have shown a positive relationship between religion and giving behaviour (Table 1). A positive, but nuanced relationship between religion and giving in the Australian context was reported by Lyons and Nivision-Smith (2006) [59]. However, Eckel and Grossman (2004) [109] found no relationship between “religious identity” and giving to non-religious causes.
In the Malaysian context, respondents prefer to give for religious purposes, with a preference to contribute to “religious institutions”, such as mosques, churches and temples, rather than to a “religious-based organization”, for example organizations that provide medical and welfare assistance [73]. Cogswell (2002) [65] discussed the importance of “halal” money among Muslims. “Halal”, as used by Arabs and Muslims, refers to anything that is considered permissible and lawful under religion, while “haram” refers to what is forbidden and punishable according to Islamic law [112], such as receiving interest from investments not under the Islamic Banking practices. This finding highlighted the unique features that are part of the Malaysian philanthropy culture and may not appear in other societies.

7.2. Socio-Economic Characteristics

The individual socio-economic characteristics related to giving include income, tax, occupation and study support mode. The relationships between these socio-economic characteristics and giving are presented in Table 2.

7.2.1. Income

Income is a socio-economic factor that strongly and directly relates to giving (see Table 2). Income plays an important role in indicating who is likely to give and the size of the gift [51]. A study on alumni giving reported that alumni’s financial resources, e.g., income, determines their giving capacity [113], because as their capacity increases, they grow older and their families mature, they are more likely to increase their support to their alma mater [113,118]. Income was also reported to predict the size of the gift [19,115].
The Giving Australia Report showed that individuals with higher income are more likely to give and to give larger gifts [54]. However, declaring income was found to be a sensitive issue for some people because Australians are typically reluctant to talk about their wealth [63]. Bustamy et al. (2002) [73] also reported a relationship between giving and income in Malaysia.

7.2.2. Occupation

Many studies have also found that occupation is related to giving [21,103] (Table 2). For example, Oglesby (1991) [103] reported a relationship between individuals’ occupation and status (donor or non-donor). Giving is not only associated with occupation, but also increases with age and income [21,116]. Haddad (1986) [102] found no relationship between occupation and donor status (donor or non-donor).
The Giving Australia Report demonstrated that employment status has a relationship with giving; employed individuals and those who have retired are more likely to give than the unemployed, students or those not in the workforce [54]. Differences in income also influence giving, with those employed on a full-time basis giving more than those employed on a part-time basis. In the Malaysian context, Bustamy et al. (2002) [73] reported that 79.3 percent of the respondents received wages or salary.

7.2.3. Alumni Study Support

Some studies have also suggested that giving is associated with the alumni study support mode (see Table 2). In a study on Vanderbilt University’s graduates, Dugan et al. (2000) [117] reported that loan recipients give less to the institution, while academic scholarship holders tend to increase their giving. A study of alumni giving across 28 highly selective U.S. institutions of higher education also demonstrated that recipients of financial aid are more likely to make donations to their alma mater [116]. The author also suggested that alumni donors with loan debt give smaller gifts to their alma mater.

7.3. Internal Motivational Factors

Donors’ motives for giving are complex and personal; the purposes and causes of giving are varied [119]. Table 3 shows numerous studies on donors’ personal motivational factors for giving.
Many studies have reported that how alumni perceive their university experiences is an important predictor of giving [125,127] and that those who are emotionally attached to their alma mater are more likely to donate [119,128]. Scholars have suggested that donors make significant gifts to causes that are consistent with their own values and philanthropic goals, such as education, research and service programs [49,129]. Donors give for positive reasons, for example intrinsic joy and satisfaction [121,122,123].
The Giving Australia Report found that Australians give the most to support causes out of sympathy and a sense of reciprocation for services provided [54]. The report also argued that people with high awareness of others’ needs and feelings are more likely to donate. In the case of Malaysia, a study found that feelings of compassion for people in need are the most important reason for giving, followed by social responsibility, a sense of duty as a citizen and religious beliefs [73]. The authors stated that Malaysians give readily to people who they know, but do not like to feel pressured to give. Similarly, Cogswell (2002) [65] reported that philanthropy in Malaysia aims at meeting social objectives that impact all ethnic groups and to promote unity among diverse groups, for example healthcare and hospitals, education and care for the needy and elderly. A study on corporate giving involving 25 philanthropy institutions in Malaysia demonstrated that these institutions typically give to build human capital, to give back to the nation that helped create their wealth, to help the needy, to satisfy a religious obligation and to preserve a minority culture [130]. The authors argued that these reasons reflect culture and religious-based activities.
In addition, individual memories and positive disposition [119,128], such as emotional connection, sense of loyalty, experience or relationships [102], sense of gratitude [125] and showing appreciation to institutions for the education received, for instance, also have positive influences on most donors’ giving to the PHEIs in both countries. These personal motivational factors are common indicators of giving across the wider society. These patterns of giving indicate that concern for others, sympathy, social responsibility, sense of loyalty and gratitude to the institution are common factors that motivate people to give across different cultures and societies, such as Malaysia and Australia.

7.4. External Motivational Factors

Another parameter that affects donors’ giving behaviour is external motivational factors, including the institution’s reputation and mission [129]. Table 4 shows the external factors influencing donors’ giving decisions.
Using alumni giving data from 161 U.S. institutions to investigate the effect of institutional characteristics on giving, Liu (2007) [27] reported that institutional prestige is related to alumni giving. They also found that factors of institutional size, namely full-time equivalent (FTE) students, endowment growth per FTE and declining state appropriations are positively related to giving. Moreover, 15 years of data on alumni donations to a private liberal arts college showed that institutional prestige influences recent alumni more than older graduates [133]. This finding suggested that alumni giving is determined by the alumni’s perception of the alma mater’s reputation. However, in the Malaysian context, Bustamy et al. (2002) [73] reported that respondents prefer to donate to religious purposes rather than to education.
Another external motivational factor is the influence of other people, events or conditions in the environment [51]. In a study on U.S. philanthropy, Brown and Ferris (2007) [124] reported that education and giving are related through generalized social trust. The results of The Giving Australia Report [54] suggested that gaining people’s respect and trust helps organizations to draw support and that donors’ direct affiliation with the organization is related to giving. This suggested that the influence of others or peer pressure stimulated giving decisions.
Government policy on philanthropy and participation to encourage giving is another external factor that influences giving. Brook and Lewis (2001) [70] examined the relationship between trust in government and civic participation by employing data from the 1996 U.S. General Social Survey and reported a positive relationship between the level of trust in government and giving. Mixer (1993) [51] argued that the government’s obligation to meet the public needs can result in negative reactions to giving, because some people use the argument that they pay taxes as an excuse to not support other institutions. Regarding the government policy on philanthropy, a study of “philanthropy and the media” in Malaysia that was conducted over a six-month period and that monitored the government’s giving in the local mainstream media reported that the government gave an average of two contributions per month in the form of cash and kind to religious, charitable, health and welfare-related institutions. The study suggested that “the Malaysian government is not featured prominently in the newspaper report on philanthropic activities” [111] (p. 297).
Psychological rewards, which are motivated initially by material incentives, are found to increase contributions to the public good [24], such as tax advantages [54,114,135]. Similarly, those with higher incomes are more likely to claim gift deductions, as stated by Lyons et al. (2006) [60]. Focusing on more economic variables, The Giving Australia Report reported a relationship between giving and tax incentives and indicated that those who are aware of the new taxation incentives give significantly more than those who are not [54]. However, The Allen Report proposed that tax incentives are not the greatest factor that influences giving to higher education [44]. In the Malaysian context, Bustamy et al. (2002) [73] found that tax exemption was the second least favoured reason for giving among the respondents. Cogswell (2002) [65] claimed that tax provisions for donations provide fewer incentives to Malaysian donors compared to U.S. donors. He also proposed that matching incentives “have not reached Malaysia” (p. 109), even though this factor has stimulated giving in many countries, such as the U.S. These findings support the notion that incentives or rewards are associated with giving decisions across countries and cultural boundaries.

8. Conclusions

This review provided a brief overview of the challenges that contemporary public higher education institutions in most parts of the world face as a result of general reductions in government funding. The study is unique as it considered the institutional philanthropy in the context of public universities in Australia and Malaysia. The literature highlighted the importance of linking the findings from empirical research and practices in the field with theoretical models to understand organizational fundraising operations, elements of fundraising success and donors’ motivational factors for giving to higher education institutions. A potential third revenue stream, philanthropic support to Malaysian and Australian public universities, was elaborated. A brief overview of the current state of philanthropy in the studied countries was presented.
The review explored the significant insights into how the public universities can enhance their fundraising from philanthropy. We reported that setting the appropriate university fundraising fundamentals and establishing the appropriate university internal and external environments are two important organizational fundraising features of successful public higher education institutions’ philanthropic fundraising. Changing the institutional philanthropic culture and getting the involvement of the internal and external constituencies were both needed to stimulate a sustainable growth of philanthropic giving to the public higher education institutions.
We discussed that demographic characteristics and socio-economic characteristics influence donors’ giving. Moreover, donors’ internal and external motivational factors were studied. It is important to note that different cultures and different nations have their own philanthropic traditions which form the foundation of benevolence in the society, and these must be respected and utilised. In a heterogeneous society, race, religion, custom and tradition played a major role in influencing an individual’s giving behaviours in Malaysia, and these formed a fundamental platform that governed the fundraising framework of a successful institutional fundraising, as compared to a more homogenous context, as in Australia.

Author Contributions

Mohd Isa Rohayati conceived the idea of this review and wrote the manuscript. John C. Williamson critically reviewed the manuscript and gave valuable inputs. Youhanna Najdi helped in formatting and literature survey.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sato, M. Education, Ethnicity and Economics: Higher Education Reforms in Malaysia 1957–2003. Nagoya Univ. Commer. Bus. Adm. 2005, 1, 73–88. [Google Scholar]
  2. Orlikoff, J.E.; Totten, M.K. Philanthropy and governance. It’s déjà vu all over again. Healthc. Exec. 2006, 22, 54–57. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bloland, H.G. No longer emerging, fundraising is a profession. CASE Int. J. Educ. Adv. 2002, 3, 7–19. [Google Scholar]
  4. Sirat, M.; Kaur, S. Financing Higher Education: Mapping Public Funding Options. Updates Global High. Educ. 2007, 12, 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  5. Altbach, P.; Johnstone, D. The Funding of Higher Education. International Perspectives. Garland Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 1. Garland Reference Library of Social Science, Vol. 919. Available online: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED367234 (accessed on 6 June 2016).
  6. Cutlip, S.M. Fundraising in the United States, Its Role in America’s Philanthropy; Transaction Publishers: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  7. Hall, P. Inventing the Nonprofit Sector.andquot; and Other Essays on Philanthropy, Voluntarism, and Nonprofit Organizations; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  8. Prince, R.A.; File, K.M. The Seven Faces of Philanthropy: A New Approach to Cultivating Major Donors; Jossey-Bass, Inc.: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bekkers, R. Traditional and Health-Related Philanthropy: The Role of Resources and Personality. Soc. Psychol. Q. 2006, 69, 349–366. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
  10. Cascione, G. Philanthropists in Higher Education: Institutional, Biographical, and Religious Motivations for Giving; Routledge Falmer: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  11. Barr, N.A. Alternative funding resources for Higher Education. Econ. J. 1993, 103, 718–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Johnstone, D.B. University revenue diversification through philanthropy: International perspectives. Available online: http://www.intconfhighered.org/BruceJohnstone.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2016).
  13. Chung-Hoon, T.L.; Hite, J.M.; Hite, S.J. Searching for enduring donor relationships: Evidence for factors and strategies in a Donor/Organization integration model for fund raising. Int. J. Educ. Adv. 2005, 6, 34–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Expert Group. Engaging philanthropy for University Research. 2007. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/rapport2007_final.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2016).
  15. Fransen, F.J. Leveraging philanthropy in Higher Education. Acad. Quest. 2007, 20, 150–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jacobs, L. The kindness of strangers: Philanthropy and Higher Education. Int. J. Educ. Adv. 2007, 7, 65–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. White, F.L. Creating effective Board-CEO relationships and fundraising to achieve successful student outcomes. New Dir. Community Coll. 2011, 156, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Brittingham, B.; Pezzullo, T. The Campus Green: Fund Raising in Higher Education; ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 1; ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports; The George Washington University: Washington, DC, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  19. Schervish, P.G. Critical Issues in Fundraising; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  20. Clotfelter, C.T. Who are the Alumni donors? Giving by two generations of Alumni from selective colleges. Nonprofit Manag. Leadersh. 2001, 12, 119–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Clotfelter, C.T. Alumni giving to elite private colleges and universities. Econ. Educ. Rev. 2003, 22, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Quigley, C.J.; Bingham, F.G.J.; Murray, K.B. An analysis of the impact of acknowledgement programs on Alumni giving. J. Mark. 2002, 10, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Van Slyke, D.; Brooks, A. Why do people give? New evidence and strategies for nonprofit managers. Am. Rev. Public 2005, 35, 199–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bekkers, R. Who gives what and when? A scenario study of intentions to give time and money. Soc. Sci. Res. 2010, 39, 369–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chung-Hoon, T.; Hite, J. Organizational integration strategies for promoting enduring donor relations in Higher Education: The value of building inner circle network relationships. Int. J. 2007, 7, 2–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Leahy, P.F. To the Next Level: How Drexel University Improved Its Fundraising Performance from 1997 to 2007; University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  27. Liu, Y. Institutional Characteristics and Environmental Factors that Influence Private Giving to Public Colleges and Universities: A Longitudinal Analysis; Vanderbilt University: Nashville, TN, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  28. Seligman, J. Institutional Strategy and Communications as Catalysts for Philanthropic Support of Private Research Universities in the United States; University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  29. Merchant, A.; Ford, J.; Sargeant, A. Charitable organizations’ storytelling influence on donors’ emotions and intentions. J. Bus. Res. 2010, 63, 754–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. BAKİOĞLU, A.; KIRIKÇI, S. An investigation on University Administrators’ and Faculty’s approach to their Alumni. J. Theory Pract. Educ. 2011, 7, 26–41. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kozobarich, J. Institutional Advancement. New Dir. High. Educ. 2000, 111, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Akin, S. Institutional Advancement and Community Colleges: A review of the literature. Int. J. Educ. Adv. 2005, 6, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bakewell, T. Integrating practice and theory for Advancement. Int. J. Educ. Adv. 2005, 5, 192–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. McAlexander, J.; Koenig, H.; Schouten, J.W. Building Relationships of Brand Community in Higher Education: A Strategic Framework for University Advancement. Int. J. Educ. Adv. 2006, 6, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Langseth, M.; McVeety, C. Engagement as a core University leadership position and Advancement strategy: Perspectives from an engaged Institution. Int. J. Educ. Adv. 2007, 7, 117–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chance, S. Proposal for using a studio format to enhance Institutional Advancement. Int. J. Educ. Adv. 2008, 8, 111–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Madden, K. Growing national philanthropy: Australia steps forward. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. 2006, 11, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Madden, K.; Scaife, W. The challenge of encouraging more affluent Australians to give. In Social Change in the 21st Century; QUT Carseldine: Brisbane, Australia, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  39. Scaife, W. Challenges in indigenous philanthropy: Reporting Australian grantmakers’ perspectives. Aust. J. Soc. Issues 2006, 41, 437–452. [Google Scholar]
  40. Scaife, W.; McDonald, K.; Smyllie, S. A Transformational Role: Donor and Charity Perspectives on Major Giving in Australia; The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Queensland University of Technology: Brisbane, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hsien, H.J.L. Why Taiwanese Companies and Foundations Donate to Public Colleges and Universities in Taiwan: An Investigation of Donation Incentives, Strategies, and Decision-Making Processes; Kent State University College: Kent, OH, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  42. Deloitte. Making the Grade 2011: A Study of the Top 10 Issues Facing Higher Education Institutions. 2011. Available online: http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Canada/Local%20Assets/Documents/ca_en_ps_making-the-grade-2011_041811.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2016).
  43. Tempel, E.R.; Seiler, T.L.; Aldrich, E.E. Organizational strengths and vulnerabilities. In Achieving Excellence in Fundraising; Tempel, E.R., Ed.; John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; pp. 30–40. [Google Scholar]
  44. Allen Consulting Group. Philanthopy in the Higher Education System. 2007. Available online: http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/25427894 (accessed on 1 June 2016). [Google Scholar]
  45. Thomas, R.C., Jr. Factors Related to External Fundraising by Community Colleges; University of Florida: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  46. Maehara, P.V. Let ethics be your fundraising guide. Assoc. Manag. 2002, 54, 30–38. [Google Scholar]
  47. Coll, E.G. Handbook of Institutional Advancement. In Handbook of Institutional Advancement, 3rd ed.; Buchanan, P.M., Ed.; Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE): Washington, DC, USA, 2000; pp. 515–520. [Google Scholar]
  48. MacArthur, K.K. Advancement in community colleges. In Handbook of Institutional Advancement, 3rd ed.; Buchanan, P.M., Ed.; Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE): Washington, DC, USA, 2000; pp. 487–490. [Google Scholar]
  49. Worth, M.J. Positioning the institution for successful fund raising. In Handbook of Institutional Advancement, 3rd ed.; Buchanan, P.M., Ed.; Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE): Washington, DC, USA, 2000; pp. 299–302. [Google Scholar]
  50. Carter, J.B. Securing financial resources: Membership, fund raising, fees, self-generated income. In Handbook of Institutional Advancement, 3rd ed.; Buchanan, P.M., Ed.; Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE): Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  51. Mixer, J.R. Principles of Professional Fundraising: Useful Foundations for Successful Practice, 1st ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  52. Johnson, J.W.; Eckel, P.D. Preparing seniors for roles as active alumni. In The Senior Year Experience: Facilitating Integration, Reflection, Closure, and Transition; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1997; pp. 227–242. [Google Scholar]
  53. Brittingham, M.W. Campus and constituent Alumni. In Handbook of Institutional Advancement, 3rd ed.; Buchanan, P.M., Ed.; Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE): Washington, DC, USA, 2000; pp. 251–254. [Google Scholar]
  54. Department of Families Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (DFCSIA). Giving Australia: Research on philanthropy in Australia. 2005. Available online: http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents /05_2012/ga_qualitative_report.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2016). [Google Scholar]
  55. Madden, K.; Scaife, W. Corporate philanthropy: Who gives and why? In The Routledge Companion to Nonprofit Marketing; Sargeant, A., Wymer, W., Eds.; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  56. Madden, K.; Scaife, W. Good Times and Philanthropy: Giving by Australia’s Affluent; Queensland University of Technology: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  57. Scaife, W.; Madden, K. Change agents or counting the change: Insights to the role of fundraisers in Australian society and issues facing their professionalisation. Available online: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/5986/1/5986.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2016).
  58. Lyons, M.; McGregor-Lowndes, M.; O’Donoghue, P. Researching giving and volunteering in Australia. Aust. J. Soc. Issues 2006, 41, 385–397. [Google Scholar]
  59. Lyons, M.; Nivison-Smith, I. Religion and giving in Australia. Aust. J. Soc. Issues 2006, 41, 419. [Google Scholar]
  60. Lyons, M.; McGregor-Lowndes, M. Researching giving and volunteering in Australia. J. Soc. Issues 2006, 41, 385–397. [Google Scholar]
  61. Routley, C.; Sargeant, A.; Scaife, W. Bequests to educational Institutions: Who gives and why? Int. J. Educ. Adv. 2007, 7, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Wheeler, D. Philanthropy and Higher Education, The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available online: https://chronicle.com/blogs/worldwise/philanthropy-and-higher-education-in-australia/28220 (accessed on 17 May 2011).
  63. Narushima, Y. Universities look for benefactors to close funding gap, The Age. Available online: http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/universities-look-for-benefactors-to-close-funding-gap-20110620-1gbz4.html (accessed on 21 June 2011).
  64. Fernandez, J.M.; Ibrahim, A.R. Profiles in Institutional philanthropy. In A Giving Society? The State of Philanthropy in Malaysia; Universiti Sains Malaysia: Penang, Malaysia, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  65. Cogswell, E. Private philanthropy in multiethnic Malaysia. Macalester Int. 2002, 12, 105–121. [Google Scholar]
  66. Amran, A.; Lim, L.L.; Sofri, Y. A study of corporate philanthropic traits among major Malaysian Corporations. Soc. Responsib. J. 2007, 3, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Prathaban, V.; Abdul Rahim, N. Big earners, small givers? Malays. Bus. 2005, 1, 13–19. [Google Scholar]
  68. Zulkifli, N.; Amran, A. Realising Corporate Social Responsibility in Malaysia: A view from the accounting profession. J. Corp. Citizsh. 2006, 24, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Matchett, S. They won’t give unless you ask. The Australian. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/they-wont-give-unless-you-ask/story-e6frgcjx-1225791901905 (acessed on 28 Octuber 2009).
  70. Brooks, A.C.; Lewis, G.B. Giving, volunteering, and mistrusting Government. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 2001, 20, 765–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Fernandez, J.M. Introduction. In A Giving Society? The State of Philanthropy in Malaysia; Fernandez, J.M., Ibrahim, A.R., Eds.; Universiti Sains Malaysia: Penang, Malaysia, 2002; p. 19. [Google Scholar]
  72. Probyn, E. Tell Donors Why We Matter. The Australian. Available online: http://utas.summon.serialssolutions.com/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2BQMEhKTky0TEk2MjcEEgaJacBGcZqJpUGyublxonmyGco-GKTS3E2UQdbNNcTZQxdWKsan5OTEA6s4YBFqDsyUYgwswD5xKgCN0xfa (accessed on 29 October 2003).
  73. Bustamy, R.; Fernandez, J.M.; Ibrahim, A.R.; Cheah, A.S.M.; Nadarajah, M. Practices of individual giving in Penang. In A Giving Society? The State of Philanthropy in Malaysia; Fernandez, J.M., Ibrahim, A.R., Eds.; Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia: Penang, Malaysia, 2002; pp. 237–276. [Google Scholar]
  74. Marimuthu, T. The role of the private sector in higher education in Malaysia. In Teaching: Professionalization, Development and Leadership; Springer: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 271–282. [Google Scholar]
  75. Johari, M. Higher Education in the twenty first century. In World Conference on Higher Education: Higher Education in the Twenty-first Century, Paris, France, 9 October 1998.
  76. Domingo, M. Philanthropy in South East Asia. In International Encyclopedia of Civil Society, Part 16; Springer US: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 1222–1226. [Google Scholar]
  77. Hasan, S. Wakfs (Waqfs). In International Encyclopedia of Civil Society, Part 23; Springer US: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 1630–1633. [Google Scholar]
  78. Hasan, S. Zakat. In International Encyclopedia of Civil Society, Part 25; Springer US: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 1673–1676. [Google Scholar]
  79. University of Malaya. Alumni Advancement: Institutional Advancement Centre. 2012. Available online: http://www.um.edu.my/alumni/ (accessed on 1 June 2016).
  80. Universiti Putra Malaysia. Pak Rashid Foundation. 2008. Available online: http://www.alumni.upm.edu.my/alm0400000.php (accessed on 1 June 2016).
  81. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Chancellor’s Foundation. 2011. Available online: http://www.ukm.my/yc/?lang=en (accessed on 1 June 2016).
  82. Ahmad, A.; Soon, N.; Ting, N. Income Generation Activities among Academic Staffs at Malaysian Public Universities. Int. Educ. Stud. 2015, 8, 194–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Universities Australia. An Agenda for Australian Higher Education 2013–2016: A Smarter Australia; Universities Australia: Deakin, Australia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  84. Liffman, M. The Cultural and Social History of Philanthropy in Australia. Available online: http://philanthropywiki.org.au/index.php/Australian_Philanthropy_-_Issue_67:_Looking_Back,_Looking_Forward:_Celebrating_30_Years_of_Philanthropy_Australia (accessed on 1 June 2016).
  85. Norton, A. Mapping Australian Higher Education. 2012. Available online: http://grattan.edu.au/static/files/assets/4d439e14/184_2013_mapping_higher_education.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2016).
  86. Rowbotham, J. Ranking: Australia’s Higher Education System world-class. The Australian, 11 May 2012. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/ranking-australias-system-world-class/story-e6frgcjx-1226351749255 (accessed on 1 June 2016).
  87. Robert, L.P.; Michael, P.M. Understanding Philanthropy: Its Meaning and Mission; Indiana University Press: Bloomington, IN, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  88. Haggberg, M. Why donors give. Fund Rais. Manag. 1992, 23, 39–40. [Google Scholar]
  89. Leslie, L.; Ramey, G. Donor behavior and voluntary support for Higher Education Institutions. J. Higher Educ. 1988, 59, 115–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Drezner, D.N.; Huehls, H. Fundraising and Institutional Advancement: Theory, Practice, and New Paradigms; Routledge: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  91. Midlarsky, E.; Hannah, M. The generous elderly: Naturalistic studies of donations across the life span. Psychol. Aging 1989, 4, 346–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Auten, G.; Cilke, J.; Randolph, W. The effects of tax reform on charitable contributions. Natl. Tax J. 1992, 45, 267–290. [Google Scholar]
  93. Brown, E.; Lankford, H. Gifts of money and gifts of time estimating the effects of tax prices and available time. J. Public Econ. 1992, 47, 321–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Okunade, A.A.; Wunnava, P.V.; Walsh, R.J. Charitable giving of Alumni: Micro-Data evidence from a large Public University. Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 1994, 53, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Schlegelmilch, B.; Diamantopoulos, A.; Love, A. Characteristics affecting charitable donations: Empirical evidence from Britain. J. Mark. Pract. Appl. Mark. Sci. 1997, 3, 14–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Wu, S.; Huang, J.; Kao, A. An analysis of the peer effects in charitable giving: The case of Taiwan. Early Child. Educ. J. 2004, 25, 483–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Voluntary work Australia. 2006. Available online: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4441.0Explanatory%20Notes12006?OpenDocument (accessed on 1 June 2016). [Google Scholar]
  98. Schiff, J. Charitable Giving and Government Policy: An Economic Analysis; Greenwood Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  99. Okten, C.; Osili, U. Contributions in heterogeneous communities: Evidence from Indonesia. J. Popul. Econ. 2004, 17, 603–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Park, T.; Park, S. An Economic Study on Charitable Giving of Individuals in Korea: Some New Findings from 2002 Survey Data. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the International Society for Third-Sector Research, Toronto, ON, Canada, 11–14 July 2004; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  101. Wolff, E. The economy and philanthropy. In Philanthropy and the Nonprofit Sector in a Changing America; Clotfelter, C.T., Ehrlich, T., Eds.; Indiana University Press: Bloomington, IN, USA, 1999; pp. 73–98. [Google Scholar]
  102. Haddad, F.D.J. An Analysis of the Characteristics of Alumni Donors and Non-Donors at Butler University. Ph.D Thesis, West Virginia University, West Virginia, WV, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  103. Oglesby, R.A. Age, Student Involvement, and Other Characteristics of Alumni Donors and Alumni Non-Donors of Southwest Baptist University. Ph.D Thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  104. Randolph, W. Dynamic income, progressive taxes, and the timing of charitable contributions. J. Polit. Econ. 1995, 103, 709–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Andreoni, J.; Brown, E.; Rischall, I. Charitable giving by married couples: Who decides and why does it matter? J. Hum. Resour. 2003, 38, 111–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Korvas, R.J. The Relationship of Selected Alumni Characteristics and Attitudes to Alumni Financial Support at a Private College. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Missouri, Kansas City, MO, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  107. Schuyt, T.; Smit, J.; Bekkers, R. Constructing a philanthropy-scale: Social responsibility and philanthropy. Soc. Sci. Res. Netw. 2013, 8, 121–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Bailey, R.; Young, M. The value and vulnerability of perceived religious involvement. J. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 126, 693–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Eckel, C.; Grossman, P. Giving to secular causes by the religious and nonreligious: An experimental test of the responsiveness of giving to subsidies. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2004, 33, 271–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Department of Human Services. Age Pension. 2013. Available online: http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/age-pension (accessed on 1 June 2016). [Google Scholar]
  111. Fernandez, J.M. Philanthropy and the media. In A Giving Society? The State of Philanthropy in Malaysia; Fernandez, J.M., Ibrahim, A.R., Eds.; Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia: Penang, Malaysia, 2002; pp. 277–304. [Google Scholar]
  112. Al-Jallad, N. The concepts of al-halal and al-haram in the Arab-Muslim culture: A translational and lexicographical study. J. Theor. Exp. Liguistics. 2008, 10, 77–86. [Google Scholar]
  113. Connolly, M.S.; Blanchette, R. Understanding and predicting Alumni giving behavior. New Dir. Inst. Res. 1986, 13, 69–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Chua, V.C.H.; Wong, C.M. Tax incentives, individual characteristics and charitable giving in Singapore. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 1999, 26, 1492–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Van Horn, D.L. Satisfaction with the Undergraduate Experience as Motivation for Smaller Dollar Alumni Donations. Master’s Thesis, University of South Carolina, Carolina, NC, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  116. Monks, J. Patterns of giving to one’s Alma Mater among young graduates from selective institutions. Econ. Educ. Rev. 2003, 22, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Dugan, K.; Mullin, C.H.; Siegfried, J.J.; Williams Coll, W.M.A. Undergraduate Financial Aid and Subsequent Giving Behavior. Available online: http://www.nyu.edu/classes/jepsen/williamsstudy1100.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2016).
  118. Hueston, F.R. Predicting Alumni giving: A donor analysis test. Fund Rais. Manag. 1992, 23, 18–22. [Google Scholar]
  119. Frumkin, P. Strategic Giving: The Art and Science of Giving; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  120. Shadoian, H.L. A Study of Predictors of Alumni Philanthropy in Public Colleges. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Connecticut, Mansfield, CT, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  121. Ritzenhein, D.N. One more time: How do you motivate donors? New Dir. Philanthr. Fundrais. 2000, 29, 51–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Panas, J. Mega Gifts: Who Gives Them, Who Gets Them? Emerson and Church Publishers: Medfield, MA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  123. Schervish, P.G. Major donors, major motives: The people and purposes behind major gifts. New Dir. Philanthr. Fundrais. 2005, 47, 59–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Brown, E.; Ferris, J.M. Social capital and philanthropy: An analysis of the impact of social capital on individual giving and volunteering. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2007, 36, 85–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Wastyn, L.M. Why Alumni don’t Give: A Qualitative Study of What Motives Non-Donors to Higher Education. Ph.D. Thesis, Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  126. Gaier, S. Alumni satisfaction with their undergraduate academic experience and the impact on Alumni giving and participation. Int. J. Educ. Adv. 2005, 5, 279–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Tsao, J.C.; Coll, G. To give or not to give: Factors determining Alumni intent to make donations as a PR outcome. J. Mass Commun. Educ. 2005, 59, 381–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Beeler, K.J. A Study of Predictors of Alumni Philanthropy in Private Universities. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Connecticut, Mansfield, CT, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  129. Lindahl, W.E. Principles of Fundraising Theory and Practice, 3rd ed.; Jones and Bartett Publishers: Sudbury, MA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  130. Fernandez, J.M. Profiles in Institutional philanthropy. In A Giving Society? The State of Philanthropy in Malaysia; Fernandez, J.M., Ibrahim, A.R., Eds.; Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia: Penang, Malaysia, 2002; pp. 75–236. [Google Scholar]
  131. Ostrower, F. Why the Wealthy Give: The Culture of Elite Philanthropy; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  132. Liu, Y. Determinants of private giving to Public Colleges and Universities. Int. J. Educ. Adv. 2006, 6, 119–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Holmes, J. Prestige, charitable deductions and other determinants of Alumni giving: Evidence from a highly selective liberal Arts College. Econ. Educ. Rev. 2009, 28, 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Steinberg, R. Taxes and giving: New findings. Volunt. Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 1990, 1, 61–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. McGregor-Lowndes, M.; Newton, C.J.; Marsden, S.J. Did tax incentives play any part in increased giving? Aust. J. Soc. Issues 2006, 41, 493–509. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 08 00541 g001 1024
Figure 1. Conceptualization framework of universities’ philanthropy action.
Figure 1. Conceptualization framework of universities’ philanthropy action.
Sustainability 08 00541 g001
Sustainability 08 00541 g002 1024
Figure 2. Average annual growth rate of enrolment in public and private institutions in Malaysia between 2000 and 2010 (adapted and modified from Marimuthu, 2008 [74]).
Figure 2. Average annual growth rate of enrolment in public and private institutions in Malaysia between 2000 and 2010 (adapted and modified from Marimuthu, 2008 [74]).
Sustainability 08 00541 g002
Sustainability 08 00541 g003 1024
Figure 3. A comparison between different activities performed in Malaysian public universities to generate income (adapted and modified from Ahmad et al., 2015 [82]).
Figure 3. A comparison between different activities performed in Malaysian public universities to generate income (adapted and modified from Ahmad et al., 2015 [82]).
Sustainability 08 00541 g003
Sustainability 08 00541 g004 1024
Figure 4. Conceptual model of the decision to be charitable to public higher education institutions (adapted and modified from Van Slyke and Brooks, 2005 [23]).
Figure 4. Conceptual model of the decision to be charitable to public higher education institutions (adapted and modified from Van Slyke and Brooks, 2005 [23]).
Sustainability 08 00541 g004
Table
Table 1. Relationship between the demographic variables and giving behaviour.
Table 1. Relationship between the demographic variables and giving behaviour.
VariablePositive RelationshipNegative Relationship
AgeMidlarsky and Hannah (1989) [91]; Auten et al. (1992) [92]; Brown and Lankford (1992) [93]; Okunade et al. (1994) [94]; Schlegelmilch, Diamantopoulos, and Love (1997) [95]; Wu et al., (2004) [96]; DFCSIA (Department of Families Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) (2005) [54]; ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2006) [97]; Lyons and Nivison-Smith (2006) [59].Schiff (1990) [98]; Okten and Osili (2004) [99]; Park and Park (2004) [100].
GenderWolff (1999) [101]; DFCSIA (2005) [54]; ABS (2006) [97].Haddad (1986) [102]; Oglesby (1991) [103].
Marital statusRandolph (1995) [104]; Andreoni, Brown and Rischall (2003) [105]; Van Slyke and Brooks (2005) [23].DFCSIA (2005) [54].
Number of childrenHaddad (1986) [102]; Oglesby (1991) [103].Korvas (1984) [106]; Oglesby (1991) [103]; DFCSIA (2005) [54].
Education levelHaddad (1986) [102]; Oglesby (1991) [103]; Bustamy et al. (2002) [73]; Schuyt et al. (2013) [107]; DFCSIA (2005) [54]; Van Slyke and Brooks (2005) [23].Wu et al. (2004) [96]; Park and Park (2004) [100]
Race and ethnicityCogswell (2002) [65].Okten and Osili (2004) [99].
ReligionBailey and Young (1986) [108]; Bustamy et al. (2002) [73]; Cogswell (2002) [65]; Lyons and Nivison-Smith (2006) [59].Eckel and Grossman (2004) [109]
Table
Table 2. Relationship between the socio-economic variables and giving behaviour.
Table 2. Relationship between the socio-economic variables and giving behaviour.
VariablePositive RelationshipNegative Relationship
IncomeConnolly and Blanchette (1986) [113]; Clotfelter (2001) [20]; Chua and Wong (1999) [114]; DFCSIA (2005) [54]; Bustamy et al. (2002) [73].Schervish (1997) [19]; Van Horn (2002) [115].
OccupationOglesby (1991) [103]; Clotfelter (2003) [21]; Monks (2003) [116]; DFCSIA (2005) [54].Haddad (1986) [102].
Study support mode (e.g., loan, scholarships)Dugan et al. (2000) [117]; Monks (2003) [116].
Table
Table 3. Donor’s internal motivational factors and giving.
Table 3. Donor’s internal motivational factors and giving.
Personal FactorsStudies
Joy and satisfactionsShadoian (1989) [120]; Oglesby (1991) [103]; Schervish (1997) [19]; Ritzenhein (2000) [121]; Van Horn (2002) [115]; Panas (2005) [122]; Schervish (2005) [123].
To support charitable causesBustamy et al. (2002) [73]; DFCSIA (2005) [54].
Social responsibilityBustamy et al. (2002) [73]; Zulkifli and Amran (2006) [68]; Cogswell (2002) [65].
Respect, trust, positive feelings toward the organization/Alma Mater/other peopleBustamy et al. (2002) [73]; DFCSIA (2005) [54]; Brown and Ferris (2007) [124].
Do not believe that the university needs financial supportWastyn (2008) [125].
Involvement in the institutionClotfelter (2001) [20]; Gaier (2005) [126].
Table
Table 4. Donor’s external motivational factors and giving.
Table 4. Donor’s external motivational factors and giving.
External FactorsStudies
Institutional reputation (e.g., prestige, ranking, mission)Ostrower (1997) [131]; Liu (2006) [132]; Holmes (2009) [133]; Lindahl (2010) [129].
Government policy on philanthropy (e.g., tax, matching grants)Steinberg (1990) [134]; Haggberg (1992) [88]; Chua and Wong (1999) [114]; Brooks and Lewis (2001) [70]; Bustamy et al. (2002) [73]; DFCSIA (2005) [54]; McGregor-Lowndes (2006) [135]; Allen Consulting Group (2007) [44]; Bekkers (2010) [24].
Institutional size (e.g., fulltime-equivalent (FTE) students, endowment growth per FTE and drops in state appropriations)Liu (2006) [132].

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rohayati, M.I.; Najdi, Y.; Williamson, J.C. Philanthropic Fundraising of Higher Education Institutions: A Review of the Malaysian and Australian Perspectives. Sustainability 2016, 8, 541. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060541

AMA Style

Rohayati MI, Najdi Y, Williamson JC. Philanthropic Fundraising of Higher Education Institutions: A Review of the Malaysian and Australian Perspectives. Sustainability. 2016; 8(6):541. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060541

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rohayati, Mohd Isa, Youhanna Najdi, and John C. Williamson. 2016. "Philanthropic Fundraising of Higher Education Institutions: A Review of the Malaysian and Australian Perspectives" Sustainability 8, no. 6: 541. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060541

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop