The public goods idea _does_ help explain things if we think there’s a threshold issue (not valuable unless a certain amount is redistributed) _AND_ a coordination problem such that many people would like to donate, but only if they know the total is over the threshold.
It may also explain things if the motivation to not get full utility by an altruist donating more is some form of punishment for free riders (those who don’t donate, but still get value).
I agree that the more likely explanation is that poverty altruism isn’t linear (in utility with money donated) for any individual, and most people are, in fact, giving at the level they want to give. They would like to get some “free” utility by encouraging/forcing others to give more.
This isn’t at odds with a public goods model—there are lots of public goods that go un-provided because they’re not worth it to enough people to provide it privately or mandate it publicly. “this is a public good; therefore government must do it” is not a valid argument.
The public goods idea _does_ help explain things if we think there’s a threshold issue (not valuable unless a certain amount is redistributed) _AND_ a coordination problem such that many people would like to donate, but only if they know the total is over the threshold.
It may also explain things if the motivation to not get full utility by an altruist donating more is some form of punishment for free riders (those who don’t donate, but still get value).
I agree that the more likely explanation is that poverty altruism isn’t linear (in utility with money donated) for any individual, and most people are, in fact, giving at the level they want to give. They would like to get some “free” utility by encouraging/forcing others to give more.
This isn’t at odds with a public goods model—there are lots of public goods that go un-provided because they’re not worth it to enough people to provide it privately or mandate it publicly. “this is a public good; therefore government must do it” is not a valid argument.