The incentivization scheme is tricky and I’d guess (>70%) that it would work (significant increase in giving).
But—and this is independent of the scheme—I dispute your motivating assumption of illusority
That means that a dollar from a smaller donor doesn’t actually cause the matcher to contribute more.
at least in its full generality. The donor could feel that if his own charitable giving isn’t suitably matched then it is voided (and presumably invested in some other way). I’d act that way to some degree. I think some many people some need for reciprocation and this is more a question of degree.
The incentivization scheme is tricky and I’d guess (>70%) that it would work (significant increase in giving).
But—and this is independent of the scheme—I dispute your motivating assumption of illusority
at least in its full generality. The donor could feel that if his own charitable giving isn’t suitably matched then it is voided (and presumably invested in some other way). I’d act that way to some degree. I think some many people some need for reciprocation and this is more a question of degree.