A Household Production Analysis Of Religious

CHARLES B. ZECH [*] ABSTRACT. Two conventional wisdoms are prevalent among churchgoers with regards to monetary contributions. One is that contributions of their time and money to their church are complementary. The other is that churches are in competition with other charitable organizations for church members' contributions. This study employs the household production model to test these conventional wisdoms. The first is supported (church members who contribute more money also contribute more time) while the second is rejected (churchgoers who contribute more to their church are also more generous to other charitable organizations). Policy implications include advising churches that wish to increase members' financial contributions to focus on increasing member involvement, and to jointly sponsor activities with nonreligious charitable organizations. I Introduction THE HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION FUNCTION MODEL, pioneered by Gary Becker (1965), treats a family as a quasi-firm engaged in the production of household commodities. The family combines resources such as purchased goods, household labor, and human capital to produce 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 bounds, a family has the ability to substitute these resources. In the example above, when producing a meal, a family can rely on a skilled member starting from scratch, or on an unskilled member using purchased commodities such as frozen dinners. The model has been used to analyze a variety of household issues. Topics have included the decision on the part of household members to volunteer their time (Menchik and Weisbrod 1987), the role 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 study 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 model lends itself well to the study of family religiosity. The religiousness of a family is the outcome of many factors. Some factors are external, such as the quality of the clergy. However, many are internal, affected by the family production function and its resource allocation decisions. Some of these internal factors include purchased goods such as religious prayer books, symbols, and artifacts. They also include family time allocations: time spent attending religious services, time spent engaged in fellowship and service activities, and devotional time in prayer and meditation. Another internal factor is money contributed to support the church and its works. Finally, the religious human capital that family members have accumulated is critical. Religious human capital refers to the skills and experience of an individual that contribute to his or her ability to produce and enjoy religious goods. These include any formal religious training the individual has accrued as well as informal experiences gathered through religious contacts. However, religious human capital is a two-way street. At the same time that previously-acquired human capital enables one to get more out of the religious goods consumed, the consumption of many religious goods (such as religious services and sermons) are themselves a source of additional religious human capital. As Laurence Iannaccone has argued, Religious capital is both a prerequisite for and a consequence of most religious activity. Religious capital--familiarity with a religion's doctrines, rituals, traditions, and members--enhances the satisfaction one receives from participation in that religion and so increases the likelihood and probable level of one's religious panicipation. …