I think most would-be donors would understand that earmarking funds away from a disfavored expenditure type, when enough of a charity’s funds are unrestricted, is unlikely to have any real-world impact.
Hmm, I assumed people’s largest objections aren’t ultimately consequentialist in nature, though it’s hard to know without a more concrete survey. At least the last few times I’ve had discussions with people about this, I had a strong purity/”didn’t want to be a sucker” vibe from my interlocutors, though admittedly they didn’t seem very likely to be prospective donors.
Unless almost everyone earmarked, a donation of $X (whether earmarked or not) would be expected to increase non-anon grants by $Y and anonymous ones by $Z.
I expect you’ll see effects way before “almost everyone earmarked.” Eg say ~10% is currently anonymous. If 80% of donations are earmarked for non-anonymity, then the remaining 20% of donors* would face the prospect of having ~half of their donations be anonymous, which I assume is not an enticing offer.
*assuming for simplicity that there are not systematic differences in donation amounts of donors who are okay with anonymity and not.
Hmm, I assumed people’s largest objections aren’t ultimately consequentialist in nature, though it’s hard to know without a more concrete survey. At least the last few times I’ve had discussions with people about this, I had a strong purity/”didn’t want to be a sucker” vibe from my interlocutors, though admittedly they didn’t seem very likely to be prospective donors.
I expect you’ll see effects way before “almost everyone earmarked.” Eg say ~10% is currently anonymous. If 80% of donations are earmarked for non-anonymity, then the remaining 20% of donors* would face the prospect of having ~half of their donations be anonymous, which I assume is not an enticing offer.
*assuming for simplicity that there are not systematic differences in donation amounts of donors who are okay with anonymity and not.