Volunteering, freedom and subbotnik

A new global volunteering league table

Last week CAF published its world giving index, a pretty impressive document exploring a whole range of behaviours across the globe. Amongst other things it set out a league table of volunteering rates – ranking countries from 1st position to 135th. I’ve mentioned before the challenge of making such comparisons between countries in a recent blog and for me, CAF’s latest figures – as thought-provoking as they are – demonstrate why we should be cautious in our bid to come up with such lists.

The volunteering league table is published on page 22 of the report and the top ten have been reproduced below. This table reports on whether people volunteered during one month prior to being interviewed, and includes those countries surveyed in 2013.

Country Ranking People volunteering (%)
Turkmenistan 1 53
Myanmar 2 51
Sri Lanka 3 50
Uzbekistan 4 46
Canada 5 44
New Zealand 44
Tajikistan 44
USA 44
Bhutan 9 43
Ireland 10 41
Malaysia 41
Nigeria 41

Do we risk comparing chalk and cheese?

My view on this is basically the same as that of my former colleague Daniel Stevens, who wrote an excellent critique of why we shouldn’t necessarily base too much policy on these findings. His short paper, published in 2011, was written in response to the previous set of results from CAF – which broadly showed the same thing as they do now: that a large proportion of the countries in the top ten are considered to be ‘not free’ and that we may not all understand volunteering in the same way.

So can we assume that Turkmenistan, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Uzbekistan are merely here because their citizens have been ‘told’ to volunteer under an authoritarian system? Perhaps. Lack of political freedom doesn’t necessarily equate to lack of freewill regarding volunteering, but it can do. The report highlights the culture of ‘subbotnik’ in post-Soviet countries (three of which appear in the top ten) which describes the giving up of a Saturday to participate in ‘volunteering’ or unpaid labour, acknowledging that this could have potentially inflated some of the figures. But Rwanda also has a similar culture (Umuganda day) and they come in comparatively lowly at 76th position.

Cultural understandings of volunteering vary

While I think mandated forms of activity cannot be classed as volunteering, this does potentially raise the question of whether we are at risk of imposing a westernised view of what volunteering is on countries and cultures that are very different to ours. Many countries, particularly in parts of Asia and Africa don’t have a word for volunteering, simply understanding it as just something that’s done as being part of the community (see, for example, some useful research papers by Handy et al and Cnaan et al). We should, however, also be careful not to conflate cultural differences with a lack of freedom for a country’s citizens.

A valuable topic of research – but there’s better evidence out there

One of Daniel’s criticisms of the previous survey was the extent to which it had been used by policy-makers, particularly because the UK had then come in at a lowly 29th position (we’ve slipped to 33rd this time). I’m glad to see that this does not appear to be the case this time and I would again urge caution in using these figures for such purposes. No international comparison is ever going to be perfect but I think there are more useful and accurate examples of surveys out there, not least current work being undertaken by John Hopkins University. And while I think this latest data from CAF is problematic, I nonetheless think that it’s a hugely valuable topic to explore and look forward to future research examining international differences in volunteering.

This entry was posted in Research and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Like this? Read more

Nick Ockenden Nick Ockenden is an NCVO research associate and former head of the research team. As part of this role he led the work of the Institute for Volunteering Research, where he worked from 2005.

2 Responses to Volunteering, freedom and subbotnik

  1. Hi Nick. Adam from CAF here. Thanks for the blog about our World Giving Index. You might like to note that I wrote a blog looking at the very issue that you raise here called “What is volunteering? Subbotniks, free will and benevolence” which you can find at http://futureworldgiving.org/2014/02/25/what-is-volunteering-subbotniks-free-will-and-benevolence/

    The World Giving Index, like all indexes, has to make a lot of assumptions in order to allow international comparison. Essentially, it has to presume that everyone has a shared understanding of charitable giving and volunteering even though we know there are cultural differences. As well as the effect of mandatory volunteering days or “Subbotnik’s”, particularly in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Belarus on our volunteering data, there are cultural norms in other countries that impact dramatically on charitable giving. In Burma (Myanmar) for example, the giving of money to support the monastic lifestyle of 5% of the population under Theravada Buddhism is so culturally ingrained that 91% of Burmese people said that they had given to charity in the last month when surveyed for the World Giving Index in 2013. I wrote a blog on this last week http://futureworldgiving.org/2014/11/19/burma-leads-the-world-in-people-giving-money-to-charity/

    As far as CAF is concerned, we think that exposing these “outliers” in the data is incredibly interesting. As such, we devote a lot of the World Giving Index report to exploring them. As well as discussing the themes above, we also looked at the effect that natural disasters and humanitarian crises have on giving in affected and neighbouring countries. Exposing and examining the differences in giving cultures is interesting and allows reflection and learning about our own culture of generosity. Rather than try and use a weighting system to remove outliers – which would be difficult and subject to Western bias – we think it more interesting to lay the raw data out and participate in the resulting conversation.

    Finally, unlike the UK where we have reliable data on charitable giving from the Charity Commission, for many countries the World Giving Index is their only source of domestic data. Regardless of comparativeness, the report has been influential in providing year-on-year trends in countries and has led to national debate and even changes in policy. Any attempt to massage the data to improve comparativeness would undermine its local usefulness.

  2. Nick Ockenden Nick Ockenden says:

    Thanks, Adam, really interesting blogs. I think the cultural differences are fascinating, as well as how rates of giving time and money can respond to external events such as disasters. I agree that looking at this challenges some of our own assumptions, such as the freewill element, which are not always as clear cut as they might seem. We explored some of this in a report a couple of years back, albeit in the context of the UK – http://www.ivr.org.uk/images/stories/Institute-of-Volunteering-Research/Migrated-Resources/Documents/R/a-rose-by-any-other-name-what-exactly-is-volunteering.pdf.