經濟學認為個人是理性的自利者，他們會理性的根據充分的資訊而追求個人效用極大化。追求最大效用的人，其利他的行為是基於自利的動機，因此，不會在沒有酬償的情況下從事利他行為。但是在現實社會中，能看到人們對於慈善捐贈及公共事務有所關心。因此本文希望了解到經濟學自利之假設是否完全正確，以及哪些因素會影響捐贈與當義工之選擇。首先，本文根據 Duncan（1999）的理論基礎，建構ㄧ個混合動機且存在溫暖光芒的捐贈與做義工之決策模型，推導出人們最適選擇有四種情形：一為個人只從事義工服務而不捐贈；二為個人只捐贈而不從事義工服務；三為捐贈金錢與從事義工服務同時進行；第四種是個人既不選擇捐贈亦不從事義工服務。
另外，在實證方面，本文使用2003年「社會發展趨勢」與2004年「台灣社會變遷」資料庫，並且設立multinominal logit model分析哪些因素影響個人從事捐贈或義工的選擇行為。再以tobit model估計，影響捐贈者捐贈金額的數量及參與義工時數的因素。實證結果發現女性、年齡較長、教育程度較高、已婚的人、政府福利支出愈低對於捐贈與當義工較活絡。此外，擁有經濟學背景的人較無意願當義工，但是，我們無法以這項結果主觀的判斷學過經濟學的人是出自於自利的心態，因為有可能實證模型忽略其他的因素，如Carter（1991）與Frank（2000）等認為，學習效果、個人的價值觀及認知等，皆會影響此人的利他行為。最後，本文根據資料庫裡的捐贈動機放入實證模型當中進行分析，結果皆顯示會從事捐贈或當義工的人，其動機是來自於純粹利他與非純粹利他。換言之，社會上並不像是經濟學所言，人們對於任何事情都是以自利為出發點，而是會因為某種目的或是同情心、憐憫心而從事利他的行為。

According to Economics, person’s altruistic behavior is still rooted in self-interest; therefore, altruistic behavior won’t be conducted without any reward following behind. However, in reality, we do see people show their concerns about charity and public affairs. Accordingly, the thesis aims to scrutinize that if the self-interest hypothesis in Economics is totally correct and that what will influence donation and voluntary behavior. First of all, basing on Duncan（1999）, the thesis contructs a model of donation and volunteering with multi-motivation and warm glow. The thesis reaches a conclusion that there are four optimal choices in the model: first, one chooses to be volunteer rather than donation. In the second situation, an individual prefers donation to volunteering. In another situation, one will do both at the same time. In the last situation, an individual chooses neither donation nor voluntary work.
Moreover, the thesis uses two databases, Survey of Social Development Trend in 2003 and Taiwan Social Change Survey in 2004, to do empirical analyses. Besides, a multinominal logit model is used to analyze the factors influencing one’s optimal choices of donation and volunteering. A tobit model is adapted to investigate what influences the amount of donation and the hours of volunteering. The empirical results show that females, elders, the married and people with high education have more motivations to donate and be volunteers. On the other hand, the policy of government will also influrnce one’s optimal choices and the result indicates the more government expenditure on welfare is, the less one’s will of donation and volunteering is. Besides, people with Economics background have less motivation to be volunteers. At last, the research on the motivation of altruistic behavior comes to the conclusion that people’s motivation is out of pure altruism and impure altruism. As a result, the statement that people do anything out of self-interest, as Economics indicates, is not necessary because the motivation of altruistic behavior may come out of sympathy, compassion, some other factors and so on.

目錄
第一章 緒論1
第一節 研究背景與動機1
第二節 研究目的與方法3
第三節 本文架構4
第二章 文獻回顧5
第一節 經濟學理論對利他行為之影響5
第二節 捐贈與義工行為的探討12
第三章  理論模型16
第一節 模型設立、捐贈與義工之關係16
第二節 影響捐贈與義工行為之因素20
第四章 資料來源與敘述22
第一節 資料來源22
第二節	變數使用說明與意義	23
第三節 敘述統計分析30
第五章 實證研究39
第一節 實證模型與方法39
第二節 實證結果43
第六章 結論56
參考文獻60
附錄一 捐贈行為之比較靜態分析64

圖目錄
圖1-1 研究架構流程圖4

表目錄
表 2-1 有關合作、誠實行為之文獻彙整11
表 2-2 學習效果與自我選擇之文獻彙整11
表 4-1 綜合所得稅之稅率結構	25
表 4-2 2003年「社會發展趨勢」樣本捐贈之分配27
表 4-3 2004年「台灣社會變遷」樣本捐贈之分配29
表 4-4 2003年「社會發展趨勢」調查樣本個人屬性32
表 4-5 2003年「社會發展趨勢」樣本的敘述統計33
表 4-6 2003年「社會發展趨勢」捐贈動機之樣本敘述統計34
表 4-7 2004年「台灣社會變遷」調查樣本個人屬性37
表 4-8 2004年「台灣社會變遷」社會變遷敘述統計分析38
表 5-1 捐贈與當義工之人數39
表 5-2 2003年「社會發展趨勢」捐贈與從事義工意願之實證結果53
表 5-3 2004年「台灣社會變遷」調查捐贈與從事義工意願之實證結
       果54
表 5-4 2004年「台灣社會變遷」調查捐贈金額與義工時數之實證結
       果55

中文參考文獻

扈永安（2000），「利他對經濟行為與價值判斷之影響－捐贈、世代移轉及合作行為之研究」，國立台灣科技大學管理研究所博士論文。

萬育維（1994），「捐款行為之相關因素探究－實證資料的發現與回應」，《思語言》，第32卷4期，頁197-217。

英文參考文獻
Abrams, B. and M. Schitz (1978) ,The Crowding-Out Effect of Governmental Transfers on Private Charitable Contributions, Public Choice ,Vol.33, pp.29–39.

Andreoni, J. (1989), Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.97, pp.1447-1458.

Becker,G,S. (1974) , A Theory of Social Interactions, Journal of Political
Economy, Vol.82, pp.1063-1093.

Bergstrom, T.C, B . Lawrence and H.Varian (1986), On the Private Provision of Public goods, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 29, pp. 25-50.

Brubaker, E.R. (1975) , Free Ride, Free Revelation, or Golden Rule?, Journal of Law and Economics,18, 147-161.

Carter, J.R. and Irons, M.D. (1991) , Are Economists Different, and If So, Why?, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.5 , pp. 171-177.


Chang Wen-Chun (2005) , Determinants of Donations: Empirical Evidence from Taiwan, The Developing Economies, Vol. 43 , pp. 217-234.

Cohen,R. (1978) , Altruism: Human , Culture, or What？, In：L.Wispe (ed.), Altruism, Sympathy, and Helping, 1978, pp.79-98.

Duncan, B. (1999), Modeling Charitable Contributions of Time and Money, Journal of Public Economics, Vol.72, pp. 213-242.

Frank, R.H., T.Gilovich, and D.T. Regan (1993), Does Studying Economics Inhibit
Cooperation?, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.7, pp.159-171. 

Frank, R.H., T. Gilovich, and D.T. Regan (1996), Do Economists Make Bad Citizens?,  Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.10, pp.187-192. 

Frank, B and G.G. Schulze (2000), Does Economics Make Citizens Corrupt?, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol.43, pp.101-113.

Goode,W.J. (1960), A Theory of Role Strain, American Sociological Review, Vol.25, pp. 485-496.

Hardin, G. (1968), The Tragedy of the Commons, Science, New Series, Vol.162, pp. 1243-1248.

Hu Yung-An and Day-Yang Lu (2003), Altruism versus Egoism in Human Behavior of Mixed Motives: An Experimental Study, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 62, pp. 677-705.

Handy, F. and Eliakim, K (2008), Donating Behavior: If Time is Money, Which to
Give? A Preliminary Analysis, Journal of Economic Studies , Vol. 35, pp. 323-332.


Khanna , J., J. Posnett , and T. Sandler (1995), Charity Donations in the UK: New Evidence Based on Panel Data, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 56, pp. 257–272.

Kingma, R.B. (1989), An Accurate Measurement of the Crowd-Out Effect, Income Effect, and Price Effect for Charitable Contributions, Journal of Political Economy ,Vol.97, pp.1197–1207.

Laband, D.N. and R. Beil (1999), Are Economists More Selfish than Other Social
Scientists?, Public Choice,Vol.100, pp. 85-101.

Lipford, J.W. and B. Yandle (2009), The Determinants of Purposeful Voluntarism, The Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 38, pp. 72-79.

Marwell, G. and R.E. Ames (1981) , Economists Free Ride, Does Anyone Else?, Journal of Public Economics,Vol.15, pp. 295-310.

Mueller, D.C. (1986), Rational Egoism versus Adaptive Egoism as Fundamental Postulate for a Descriptive Theory of Human Behavior, Public Choice, Vol.51, pp. 3-23.

Olson, M. Jr. (1968), The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and The Theory of Groups, ( Schocken Books, New York ).

Ockenfels, A and Weimann, J.A. (1999), Types And Patterns: An Experimental East-West-German Comparison of Cooperation and Solidarity, Journal of Public Economics ,Vol. 71, pp. 275-287. 

Selten, R. and A. Ockenfels (1998) , An Experimental Solidarity Game, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 34, pp. 517-539.

Steinberg, R. (1991), Does Government Spending Crowd Out Donations?, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics Vol. 62, pp. 591–617.

Wilson, J.（2000）, Volunteering, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 26, pp. 215-240.  

Wymer,W. and S. Samu (2001), Volunteer Service as Symbolic Consumption: Gender and Occupational Differences in Volunteering, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.18, pp. 971-989.

Yezer, A.M, Goldfarb, R.S. and Poppen, P. J. (1996) , Does Studying Economics Discourage Cooperation? Watch What We Do, Not What We Say or How We Play, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 10, pp. 177-186.