How giving attitudes shift when governments step back, and what it means for advisers
New UK and German research points to emerging considerations for advisers following donor response after government aid cuts.
When governments reduce international aid, a narrative often emerges that private donors will step in to fill the gap. This expectation is reinforced by traditional “crowding-out” theory, which suggests that high levels of public spending can dampen private giving, and that a reduction in government support might therefore encourage more private donations. New behavioural research from the UK and Germany, however, suggests this assumption deserves closer examination.
Conducted by GlobalGiving UK in partnership with Professor Hanna Zagefka from Royal Holloway, University of London, the research examines how individuals actually respond when governments scale back aid. Rather than prompting increased giving, the findings indicate that making aid cuts can weaken people’s willingness to donate.
At the heart of this shift lie social norms. The research shows that when governments step back, people are less likely to perceive giving as a shared responsibility. When the sense of collective response weakens, generosity becomes more abstract and delegated. The research suggests that giving is more resilient when people understand how their actions connect to others and contribute to a broader shared effort.
Across both the UK and Germany, respondents expressed strong expectations that philanthropists and businesses should help address funding gaps created by government aid reductions. Around 80% of respondents in the UK, and 90% in Germany, believe philanthropists should play a role. Expectations of companies were also high, particularly in Germany, where 78% agreed businesses should step in compared to 64% in the UK. These expectations are emerging against a backdrop of mounting pressure on frontline organisations, with recent analysis stating that current aid reductions could cause 22 million avoidable deaths by 2030, as vital programmes close and essential services are withdrawn. Taken together, the findings suggest a growing tendency to look towards other institutional actors and philanthropists at a moment of heightened need.
This highlights a central challenge in philanthropy today. As public funding declines, there is increasing reliance on philanthropists and businesses to step in. Yet when giving is framed as something handled by a small group of private actors, rather than a shared effort, people can feel less personally connected or responsible. Over time, this risks weakening the sense of collective participation that helps sustain generosity. For advisers, this reinforces the importance of shaping the context and structure of giving, ensuring it remains connected to wider efforts rather than experienced as a purely individual response.
Advisers can play an increasingly important role in maintaining a sense of shared effort, helping donors understand how their contributions connect to others, align with community need, and form part of a wider response. In this context, effective advising is as much about sustaining value, connection and collective meaning as it is about donations and responding to funding gaps.
Other research, conducted by Professor Zagefka and colleagues Bilgen and Bjornsdottir, shows that generosity is strongest when people feel emotionally connected, can see credible outcomes and understand their contribution as part of a collective response. Appeals grounded in human stories, visible impact and shared humanity tend to sustain giving more effectively than abstract statistics or responsibility framed in isolation. This aligns closely with our experience at GlobalGiving, where community-led organisations driving impact on the ground gain visibility through our platform, connecting them with donors and other networks as part of a wider collective effort.
What this research ultimately highlights is the central role of connection in sustaining generosity. Giving is most durable when donors can see how their contribution fits within a wider collective response and understand the impact it is helping to achieve. Supporting community-led organisations closest to the challenges, and therefore best placed to design and deliver effective solutions, strengthens this connection by making impact credible, sustainable and rooted in the realities of the communities affected. In practice, this invites advisers to frame giving conversations less around filling gaps and more around strengthening long-term responses, helping donors see how their contributions align with their communities, peers and public systems as part of a visible and sustainable shared effort rather than a standalone act.
For philanthropy, this has clear practical implications. As governments across Europe reassess aid budgets, the question is not simply how to fill gaps left by public funding, but how to contribute in ways that reinforce collective norms rather than weaken them. Philanthropic capital can play a vital role by working through trusted intermediaries, supporting community-led organisations and making impact more visible and legible to donors. In doing so, it helps sustain the shared meaning on which generosity depends, ensuring resources reach the right people, in the right way, as part of a broader collective effort.
Download the PDF here