I do know it's wrong to think of us either as Babbitts who must be tolerated because we have money to dole out, or as pure altruists who would be content with a mention in the program and a couple of tickets to the performance. Social and behavioral scientists have explored the issues of donor intentions. Their findings help in evaluating the idea that charitable contributions can be increased substantially and redirected to compensate for government cutbacks. Economists have interpreted the parochial bias of contributions as reflecting the self-interest of donors. Involvement in exclusive charity events helps to create and sustain an elite subculture.
Patrons can use support of charitable institutions as vehicles to strengthen class ties.
Places with homegrown elites are able to sustain support for favored types of local institutions. Pride in place and donations to local and community institutions imply a willingness to support efforts that promise to provide direct or even indirect benefit to donors. But if voluntary income transfers were confined to local communities, the needs of the larger society would go unmet. The local resident might be motivated, for example, to eliminate the unaesthetic evidence of poverty or backwardness within his or her environment. The answer must be yes.