On the Transfer Value of Gratitude

  • Oded Stark
  • Ita Falk


The literature on private transfers tends to differentiate between two main transfer motives: exchange and altruism (for a recent review see Laitner [1997]; for a recent empirical analysis see Cox and Rank [1992]). An exchange-driven transfer is positively correlated with the income of the recipient; a recipient is better equipped to provide a service (for example, insurance or support) to a donor when the recipient’s income is higher. A higher anticipated return then prompts a higher transfer. This reasoning implicitly assumes the recipient’s willingness to provide a service. An altruism-driven transfer is negatively correlated with the income of the recipient. The donor cares about the recipient’s well-being. A decline in this well-being prompts an infusion of support aimed at raising the recipient’s income and consumption. This reasoning explicitly assumes that the donor’s attitude toward the recipient is parameterized by an altruism coefficient attached to the recipient’s utility in the donor’s utility function, and implicitly assumes that the recipient’s attitude toward the donor is given; indeed, that in the donor’s mind or heart it plays no role whatsoever.


Marginal Utility Expected Utility Gift Exchange Private Transfer Initial Income 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akerlof, G.A. 1982. “Labor Contracts as Partial Gift Exchange.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 92: 543–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow, KJ. 1965. Aspects of The Theory of Risk-Bearing. Helsinki: Yrjö Jahnssonin Säätio.Google Scholar
  3. Cox, D., and M.R. Rank. 1992. “Inter-Vivos Transfers and Intergenerational Exchange.” Review of Economics and Statistics 74: 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Goranson, R.E., and L. Berkowitz. 1966. “Reciprocity and Responsibility Reactions to Prior Help.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 3: 227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Greenglass, E.R. 1969. “Effects of Prior Help and Hindrance on Willingness to Help Another: Reciprocity or Social Responsibility.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 11: 224–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hirshleifer, J. 1987. “On the Emotions as Guarantors of Threats and Promises.” In: J. Dupré (ed.), The Latest on the Best: Essays in Evolution and Optimality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Laitner, J. 1997. “Intergenerational and Interhousehold Economic Links.” In: M.R. Rosenzweig and O. Stark (eds.), Handbook of Population and Family Economics. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  8. Mauss, M. 1966. The Gift. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  9. Pemberton, J. 1991. “Risk Aversion, Leisure, and Wage Determination.” University of Reading (mimeo).Google Scholar
  10. Stark, O. 1995. Altruism and Beyond, An Economic Analysis of Transfers and Exchanges Within Families and Groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Udry, C. 1994. “Risk and Insurance in a Rural Credit Market: An Empirical Investigation in Northern Nigeria.” Review of Economic Studies 61: 495–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oded Stark
  • Ita Falk

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations