Financial Volatility Paradox in Philanthropic Organizations: Evidence from Indonesian Religious and Secular Nonprofits
Abstract
This study examines the relationship between revenue concentration and financial volatility in philanthropic organizations, challenging the conventional assumption that diversification leads to greater stability. Using longitudinal data from 10 Indonesian philanthropic organizations registered with Perhimpunan Filantropi Indonesia over a 10-year period (2015-2024), this research compares income volatility patterns between religious-based and secular nonprofits. The findings reveal a counterintuitive paradox: religious organizations with concentrated revenue sources (zakat, infaq, and sadaqah) demonstrate significantly lower volatility (16.4%) compared to secular organizations with more diversified funding (53.4%). Mann-Whitney U test confirms this difference is statistically significant (U = 2.000, Z = -2.193, p = 0.028). This study introduces the concept of 'normative income stability' where religious obligations create a baseline donation pattern that is more stable than voluntary giving, thereby extending Financial Vulnerability Theory by proposing that the nature of income source moderates the diversification-stability relationship. The implications suggest that nonprofit financial management strategies should consider institutional characteristics rather than pursuing universal diversification.
Downloads
References
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973.
Calabrese, T. D. (2012). The accumulation of nonprofit profits: A dynamic analysis. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(2), 300–324.
Carroll, D. A., & Stater, K. J. (2009). Revenue diversification in nonprofit organizations: Does it lead to financial stability? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(4), 947–966.
Charities Aid Foundation. (2018). CAF World Giving Index 2018: A global view of giving trends. Charities Aid Foundation.
Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. routledge.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404–1427.
Isbahi, M. B., Zuana, M. M. M., & Toha, M. (2024). The Multi-Social Relation of the Cattle Industry in the Plaosan Subdistrict Animal Market of Magetan Regency. Malacca: Journal of Management and Business Development , 1(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.69965/malacca.v1i1.51
Lu, J., Lin, W., & Wang, Q. (2019). Does a more diversified revenue structure lead to greater financial capacity and less vulnerability in nonprofit organizations? A bibliometric and meta-analysis. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(3), 593–609.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
Paarlberg, L. E., & Gen, S. (2009). Exploring the determinants of nonprofit coproduction of public service delivery: The case of K-12 public education. The American Review of Public Administration, 39(4), 391–408.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (2015). External control of organizations—Resource dependence perspective. In Organizational behavior 2 (pp. 355–370). Routledge.
Qu, H. (2019). Risk and diversification of nonprofit revenue portfolios: Applying modern portfolio theory to nonprofit revenue management. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 30(2), 193–212.
Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2017). Legitimacy. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 451–478.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2015). The institutional logics perspective. In R. Scott & S. Kosslyn (Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences. John Wiley & Sons.
Copyright (c) 2026 Dedy Hermawan, Mohammad Ali Fikri, Endar Pituringsih
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
