发表机构
Swiss Economics; Somaha Foundation（瑞士经济学研究所; 索马哈基金会）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本文研究NGO在共同目标下竞争资金时，目标一致性如何影响筹款构成，区分提升与转移效应，并指出不完全一致性导致投资组合过度偏向转移，需调整相对激励以纠正扭曲。
AI 中文摘要
非政府组织（NGO）在争夺资金的同时，往往重视相似的社会成果。筹款可能会扩大对某一事业的总捐赠，或将给定的资金池重新导向焦点组织。本文研究了跨组织目标一致性如何改变此类竞争的构成。分析区分了筹款的两种效应：总资金边际“提升”（lift）和资金在组织间的边际“转移”（shift）。不完全一致性在NGO的边际使命回报与总使命回报之间造成了一个楔子，该楔子与转移减去提升成正比。当NGO在选择筹款技术时，更大的目标一致性会将努力转向相对更偏向提升的技术。相对于总使命基准，不完全一致的NGO会选择过于偏向转移的投资组合。对筹款的统一限制可能会改变总努力，但通常无法纠正这种构成扭曲；纠正投资组合需要改变不同技术之间的相对激励。一个简单的微观基础将事业推广解释为提升，组织推广解释为转移。生产率差异在提高使命产出时保留重新分配，而组织特定利益即使在完全一致性下也会恢复竞争性。因此，该模型预测了共同目标如何改变竞争形式，即使其对竞争水平的影响是模糊的。
英文摘要
Non-governmental organizations often compete for funding while valuing similar social outcomes. Fundraising may expand total giving to a cause or redirect a given funding pool toward the focal organization. This paper studies how cross-organizational purpose alignment changes the composition of such competition. The analysis separates two effects of fundraising: marginal \emph{lift} in aggregate funding and marginal \emph{shift} of funding between organizations. Incomplete alignment creates a wedge between an NGO's marginal mission return and the aggregate mission return that is proportional to shift minus lift. When NGOs choose among fundraising technologies, greater purpose alignment shifts effort toward the relatively lift-intensive technology. Relative to the aggregate mission benchmark, incompletely aligned NGOs choose portfolios that are too shift-intensive. A uniform restriction on fundraising may change total effort but cannot generally correct this composition distortion; correcting the portfolio requires changing relative incentives across technologies. A simple microfoundation interprets cause promotion as lift and organization promotion as shift. Productivity differences preserve reallocation when it raises mission output, while organization-specific benefits restore rivalry even under complete alignment. The model therefore predicts how a common purpose changes the form of competition even when its effect on the level of competition is ambiguous.
