Conclusion: Generosity in Action—Benefiting the Collective Good

  • Patricia Snell Herzog
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Altruism, Morality, and Social Solidarity book series (PSAMSS)


The conclusion is co-authored with a graduate student who also has significant experience as a practitioner, and summarizes the central themes of the book and their relevance for comprehending the full sphere of generous activities, from causes through to consequences. The conclusion draws out the implications of these studies for emerging scholars and for relevant practitioner audiences. For emerging scholars, implications are drawn for forming a modern guidebook on generosity, developing studies of generosity and philanthropy, and for contributing next best steps as a burgeoning scholar. For practitioners, parents, and individuals, the focus is especially on the implications for prompting the desire to help, forming generosity, identifying various manifestations of generosity, situating generosity within a global perspective, and considering fruitful avenues for future studies.


  1. Andreoni, James, and Justin M. Rao. 2011. The Power of Asking: How Communication Affects Selfishness, Empathy, and Altruism. Journal of Public Economics 95 (7): 513–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreoni, James, Justin M. Rao, and Hannah Trachtman. 2017. Avoiding the Ask: A Field Experiment on Altruism, Empathy, and Charitable Giving. Journal of Political Economy 125 (3): 625–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benjamin, Lehn M., and Jeffrey L. Brudney. 2018. What Do Voluntary Sector Studies Offer Research on Co-Production? In Co-Production and Co-Creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services, ed. Taco Brandsen, Bram Verschuere, and Trui Steen, 49–60. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Castillo, M., R. Petrie, and C. Wardell. 2014. Fundraising Through Online Social Networks: A Field Experiment on Peer-to-Peer Solicitation. Journal of Public Economics 114: 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Giridharadas, Anand. 2018. Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  6. Head, Brian W. 2008. Wicked Problems in Public Policy. Public Policy 3 (2): 101.Google Scholar
  7. Head, Brian W., and John Alford. 2015. Wicked Problems: Implications for Public Policy and Management. Administration & Society 47 (6): 711–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kleinberg, Ethan. 2008. Interdisciplinary Studies at a Crossroads. Association of American Colleges & Universities’ Liberal Education, 2008. Retrieved from:
  9. Konrath, S. 2013. The Empathy Paradox: Increasing Disconnection in the Age of Increasing Connection. In Handbook of Research on Technoself: Identity in a Technological Society, 204–228. Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Learning to Give. 2019. Retrieved from:
  11. Luker, Kristin. 2010. Salsa Dancing into the Social Sciences: Research in an Age of Info-Glut. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Mansilla, Veronica Boix, Irwin Feller, and Howard Gardner. 2006. Quality Assessment in Interdisciplinary Research and Education. Research Evaluation 15 (1): 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Moody, Michael. 2011. Chapter 8: A Hippocratic Oath for Philanthropists. In For the Greater Good of All: Perspectives on Individualism, Society, and Leadership, ed. Donelson R. Forsyth and Crystal L. Hoyt, 143–165. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nelson, S.K., K. Layous, S.W. Cole, and S. Lyubomirsky. 2016. Do Unto Others or Treat Yourself? The Effects of Prosocial and Self-Focused Behavior on Psychological Flourishing. Emotion 16 (6): 850–861. Scholar
  15. Osili, U., and S. Zarins. 2017. Fewer Americans Are Giving Money to Charity but Total Donations Are at Record Levels Anyway. Retrieved May 21, 2019, from Lilly Family School of Philanthropy website:
  16. Reich, Rob. 2018. Just Giving: Why Philanthropy Is Failing Democracy and How It Can Do Better. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Repko, Allen. 2006. Disciplining Interdisciplinarity: The Case for Textbooks. Edited by Francine Navakas and Joan Fiscella. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies 24: 112–142.Google Scholar
  18. Ritchey, Tom. 2013. Wicked Problems: Modelling Social Messes with Morphological Analysis. Acta Morphologica Generalis 2 (January): 1–8.Google Scholar
  19. Simonton, Dean Keith. 2013. Scientific Genius Is Extinct. Nature 493 (7434): 602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith, S., F. Windmeijer, and E. Wright. 2015. Peer Effects in Charitable Giving: Evidence from the (Running) Field. The Economic Journal 125 (585): 1053–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. The Nonprofit Sector in Brief 2018 | National Center for Charitable Statistics. n.d. Retrieved May 21, 2019, from
  22. The Philanthropy Lab. 2019. Retrieved from:
  23. Thornton, J. 2006. Nonprofit Fund-Raising in Competitive Donor Markets. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 35 (2): 204–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. United Nations. 2018. Ending Poverty. United Nations, Global Issues. Retrieved from:
  25. Waite, Marilyn. 2018. A Year in Review and What’s Ahead for Our Climate Finance Strategy. Hewlett Foundation (blog), December 18. Retrieved from:

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia Snell Herzog
    • 1
  1. 1.IndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations