Some years ago I was reading a book of interviews by ultra-liberal "journalist" Bill Moyers. One interview was with economist Peter Berger, who has studied the effects of capitalism on different countries around the world (and who is also a sociologist specializing in religion). Berger points out that capitalism tends to maximize the potential for freedom in given countries but will not of itself guarantee a free society. Much of Berger’s work has focused on the development of capitalist societies in Asia.
In the interview, Moyers showed his agenda by trying to get Berger to sign off on the idea that Asians are more spiritual, more generous, than Americans.
Berger would have none of it.
He argued that, by comparison to Americans, Asians on average tend to be more materialistic and less willing to donate to charitable causes. He stated that Americans give far more money (proportionate to our standard of living) than those in Asia, where charities simply cannot raise money the way American charities can.
I’m no expert in Asian economics, so I don’t know whether what Berger said is true (and, as always, I’m cautious about generalizations). Perhaps some of the Asian folks and Americans living in Asia can comment on whether they think Berger’s claim is accurate.
But if Asian charities can’t raise support the way American ones can (proportionate to the local standard of living) then the reasons might be several: For example, most Asians have suffered endless years of oppression by brutal governments,
which would incline anybody look out for their own interests. Also, Asia as a continent has not (yet) been Christianized, and thus the charitable imperative that is present in Christianity may not have taken root there the same way it has here.
The Christian imperative to give may play a role in giving here in America as well.
HERE’S AN ANALYSIS OF WHICH U.S. STATES ARE THE MOST CHARITABLE POPULATIONS.
Each state is given a "Having Rank" based on its average adjusted gross income per person and a "Giving Rank" based on the average itemized amount of charitable donations per person. These figures are related to each other ("Rank Relation") by subtracting the "Giving Rank" from the "Having Rank." The resulting "Rank Relations" for each of the 50 states are then compared to each other to determine the state’s overall place in the Generosity Index.
For example, the least-generous state is New Hampshire. It has a "Having Rank" of 9 (the 9th most income-rich state), but its "Giving Rank" is 48 (meaning 47 states give more money on average per person than New Hampshire). This means its "Rank Relation" is -39 (9 – 48 = -39), which is the worst ranking in the nation.
By contrast, the most generous state is Mississippi. Its "Having Rank" is 50 (making it the least income-rich state), but its "Giving Rank" is 5 (only 4 states give more money on average per person than Mississippi). This means that its "Rank Relation" is 45 (50 – 5 = 45), which is the highest ranking in the nation.
When you examine the full list of states, a pattern emerges: The most generous states are all red.
In fact, you don’t hit a blue state until you reach the 26th item on the list (New York). All of the blue states are thus in the lower half of the generosity index.
Why this is is an interesting question. It may be due in part to the fact that there are more red states than blue states. But not one blue state in the top half of the list? There were 18 blue states and not one of them is in the top 25 for generosity? All 18 blue states are in the bottom 25 states in terms of charitable giving? There’s more going on here than just the predominance of red states.
An obvious possible factor is the higher percentage of practicing Christians in such states (this is something that should be checkable via some number-crunching).
I also wonder whether another factor may also be in play: Many of the blue states (such as where I live: California, number 29 on the list) have more social welfare programs in place via the government. Many have conjectured that creating government-mandated benevolence will depress personal benevolent giving (and thus rob individuals of the chance to exercise the virtue of charity).
It would be interesting to see some number-crunching on whether that is the case.
As it is, the "Have Not" states are the most generous givers.
This brings to mind the story of the Widow’s Mite (Mark 12:41-44)–and the fact that "God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor. 9:7).
