Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Social Capital on Organ Donation: Evidence from the Netherlands

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Netherlands faces a shortage of organ donors. Figures from Statistics Netherlands show that of Dutch residents aged 12 and over, only one in four is a registered organ donor. In July 2020, a new law has changed the system from ‘opt-in’ to ‘opt-out’, with the aim of increasing the number of registered donors. Under the new system, everyone is in principle automatically registered as a donor unless they decline permission for their organs to be used. But what are the drivers of organ donation? This question is particularly interesting in the Netherlands, not only because of the new law, but also in light of the diversity in social capital and religious involvement which may play an important role in the decision to donate. This paper explores the impact of social capital on organ donation. It uses a unique database which contains information on organ donation for the whole Dutch population over 12, enriched by the Survey on Social Cohesion and Wellbeing covering the period 2012–2017 (N = 45,645). Results demonstrate a linear increase in registered organ donors as individual social capital, measured by a composite index based on 17 participation and trust indicators, increases. The results further show that religion has a detrimental impact on organ donation. The paper also discusses the effects of the separate social capital indicators on organ donation and their policy implications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See: https://www.transplantatiestichting.nl/donatie-transplantatie/wachtlijst-voor-orgaantransplantatie.

  2. See: http://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/82814NED/table?ts=1564745699901.

  3. See: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/orgaandonatie-en-weefseldonatie/vraag-en-antwoord/wat-houdt-de-nieuwe-donorwet-adr-in.

  4. See: http://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/82814NED/table?ts=1564745699901.

References

  • Aarts, O. (2010). Religious diversity and religious involvement: A Study of religious markets in western societies at the end of the twentieth century. PhD study. Radboud University Nijmegen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abdeldayem, H., El-Kased, A. F., Elshaarawy, A., Hammad, E. S., Al-Haddad, O., Gihan Sobhi, G., & Allam, A. (2016). Religious concepts in organ transplantation (pp. 3–22). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/62401

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Abraham, K. G., Helms, S., & Presser, S. (2009). How social processes distort measurement: The impact of survey nonresponse on estimates of volunteer work in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 114(4), 1129–1165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akbari, B. (2013). Examine the relationship between religiosity and social capital. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Science, 3(12), 328–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akiş, M., Katirci, E., Uludağ, H. Y., Küçükkiliç, B., Gürbüz, T., Türker, Y., Kayacan, H., Öngel, K., & Hüseyi, G. (2008). Knowledge and attitudes of Süleyman Demirel University’s staff towards organ donation and transplantation. Journal of the Süleyman Demirel University Faculty of Medicine, 15, 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alam, A. (2007). Public opinion on organ donation in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Journal of Kidney Disease and Transplantation, 18, 54–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashraf, O., Ali, S., Ali, S. A., Ali, H., Alam, M., Ali, A., & Ali, T. M. (2005). Attitude toward organ donation: A survey in Pakistan. Artificial Organs, 29(11), 899–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balbin, L. (2016). Gender a key factor in registered organ donations. The Sydney Morning Herald, January, 15, 2016. https://www.smh.com.au/national/gender-a-key-factor-in-registered-organ-donations-20160115-gm6xwx.html.

  • Bekkers, R. (2003). Trust, accreditation, and philanthropy in the Netherlands. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 596–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R. (2006). Traditional and health-related philanthropy: The role of resources and personality. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(4), 349–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R. (2012). Trust and volunteering: Selection or causation? Evidence from a 4 year panel study. Political Behavior, 34(2), 225–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R. H. F. P., & Schuyt, T. N. M. (2008). And who is your neighbor? Explaining denominational differences in charitable giving and volunteering in The Netherlands. Review of Religious Research, 50(1), 74–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger-Schmitt, R. (2002). Considering social cohesion in quality of life assessments: Concept and measurement. Social Indicators Research, 58, 403–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake, J. (2015). Religious beliefs and attitudes towards organ donation. Welsh Government social research, 44/2015. Welsh Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolt, S., Eisinga, R., Venbrux, E., Kuks, J. B., & Gerrits, P. O. (2011). Personality and motivation for body donation. Annals of Anatomy-Anatomischer Anzeiger, 193(2), 112–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1983). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruzzone, P. (2008). Religious aspects of organ transplantation. Transplantation Proceedings, 40, 1064–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callendar, C. O., Koizumi, N., Miles, P. V., & Melancon, J. K. (2016). Organ donation in the United States: The tale of African–American journey of moving from the bottom to the top. Transplantation Proceedings, 48, 2392–2395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CBS. (2019a). http://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/82249NED/table?ts=1549970769317. https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/82249NED/table?ts=1561896214960.

  • CBS. (2019b). https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/37944/table?ts=1561896306071.

  • CBS. (2019c). https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/82814NED/table?ts=1561895969655.

  • Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coté, S., & Healy, T. (2001). The well-being of nations. The role of human and social capital. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, C., & Randhawa, G. (2006). The influence of religion on organ donation and transplantation among the black Caribbean and black African population. A pilot study in the United Kingdom. Ethnicity and Disease, 16, 281–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Hart, J. (2014). Geloven binnen en buiten verband. [Believe within and without context]. SCP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, E. (1912/1965). The elementary forms of religious lifes (J. W. Swain, Trans.). Free Press.

  • Fukuyama, F. (2010). Het vertrouwen moet terug [Trust must return]. Trouw, 13–9–2010.

  • Gannon, B., & Roberts, J. (2018). Social capital: exploring the theory and empirical divide. Empirical Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-018-1556-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghaly, M. (2012). Religion-ethical discussions on organ donation among Muslims in Europe: An example of transnational Islamic bioethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 15(20), 207–2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guillen, L., Coromina, L., & Saris, W. (2011). Measurement of social participation and its place in social capital theory. Social Indicators Research, 100, 331–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, D. (2005). Social capital. Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy, K. (2004). Altruism as an organizational problem: The case of organ procurement. American Sociological Review, 69(3), 387–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, K. (2005). Do presumed-consent laws raise organ procurement rates. DePaul Law Review, 55, 1017–1044.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, M., & Vanhoutte, B. (2011). Subjective well-being and social capital in Belgian communities. The impact of community characteristics on subjective well-being indicators in Belgium. Social Indicators Research, 100, 17–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, J. (2006). Institutional trust and subjective well-being across the EU. Kyklos, 59(1), 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iisakka, L. (Ed.). (2006). Social capital in Finland. Statistical review. Statistics Finland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyver, S., Kitson, M., & Toh, B. (2005). Social capital, economic growth and regional development. Regional Studies, 39(8), 1015–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeannotte, S. (2000). Social cohesion around the world: An international comparison of definitions and issues. Strategic Research and Analysis Directorate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Job, K., & Antony, A. (2018). Organ donation and transplantation: “Life after death.” In G. Tsoulfas (Ed.), Organ donation and transplantation. Current status and future challenges (pp. 17–32). ImtechOpen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaasa, A. (2013). Religion and social capital: Evidence from European countries. International Review of Sociology, 23(3), 578–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2013.856162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeley, B. (2007). Human capital. How what you know shapes your life. OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Knack, S., & Keefer, P. (1997). Does social capital have an economic pay-off? A cross country investigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), 1251–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kregting, J., Scheepers, P., Vermeer, P., & Hermans, C. (2019). Why god has left The Netherlands. Explanations for the decline of institutional christianity in The Netherlands between 1966 and 2015. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 57(1), 58–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-019-00364-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladin, K., Wang, R., Fleishman, A., Boger, M., & Rodrigue, J. R. (2015). Does social capital explain community-level differences in organ donation designation? The Milbank Quarterly, 93(3), 609–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, P.-Y. (2006). Religion and civic culture: A cross-national study of voluntary association membership. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45(2), 177–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lochner, K., Kawachi, I., & Kennedy, B. P. (1999). Social capital: a guide to its measurement. Health and Place, 5(4), 259–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohmöller, J.-B. (1989). Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Merz, E. M., Van den Hurk, K., & De Kort, W. L. (2017). Organ donation registration and decision-making among current blood donors in The Netherlands. Progress in Transplantation, 27(3), 266–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muliira, R. S., & Muliira, J. K. (2014). A review of potential muslim organ donors’ perspectives on solid organ donation: Lessons for nurses in clinical practice. Nursing Forum, 49(1), 59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nederlandse Transplantatie Stichting. (2019). Jaarverslag 2018. Nieuwe kansen omarmen [Year report 2018. Embrace new changes]. Nederlandse Transplantatie Stichting.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neira, I., Vazquez, E., & Portela, M. (2009). An empirical analysis of social capital and economic growth in Europe (1980–2000). Social Indicators Research, 92, 111–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nieminen, T., Martelin, T., Koskinen, S., Simpura, J., Alanen, E., Härkänen, T., et al. (2008). Measurement and socio-demographic variation of social capital in a large population-based survey. Social Indicators Research, 85, 405–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijkamp, M. D., Hollestelelb, M. L., Zeegers, M. P., Borne, B., & Reubsaete, A. (2008). To be(come) or not to be(come) an organ donor, that’s the question: A meta-analysis of determinants and intervention studies. Health Psychology Review, 2, 20–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M., Ahmed, A., & Woywodt, A. (2012). Donating in good faith or getting into trouble religion and organ donation revisited. World Journal of Transplantation, 2(5), 69–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M., Woywodt, A., Ahmed, A., & Saif, I. (2011). Organ donation, transplantation and religion. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, 26, 437–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Őzer, A., Ekerbiçer, H. C., Celik, M., & Naçar, M. (2010). Knowledge, attitudes and behaviors of officials of religion about organ donation in Kahramanmaras, an Eastern Mediterranean city of Turkey. Transplantation Proceedings, 42, 3363–3367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paxton, P. (1999). Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple indicator assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 105(1), 88–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piersma, T. W., Bekkers, R., De Kort, W., & Merz, E.-M. (2019). Blood donation across the life course: The influence of life events on donor lapse. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 60(2), 257–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poortinga, W. (2006). Social relations or social capital? Individual and community health effects of bonding social capital. Social Science and Medicine, 63(1), 255–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poreddi, V., Sunitha, T. S., Thimmaiah, R., & Math, S. B. (2017). Gender differences in perceptions and attitudes of general population towards organ donation: An Indian perspective. Saudi Journal of Kidney Diseases and Transplantation, 28(3), 599–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portela, M., Neira, I., & Del Mar Salinas-Jiménez, M. (2013). Social capital and subjective wellbeing in Europe: A new approach on social capital. Social Indicators Research, 114, 493–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portes, A. (1998). Social capital. Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portes, A. (2014). Downsides of social capital. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(52), 18407–18408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puoti, F., Ricci, A., Nanni-Costa, A., Ricciardi, W., Malorni, W., & Ortona, E. (2016). Organ transplantation and gender differences: A paradigmatic example of intertwining between biological and sociocultural determinants. Biology of Sex Differences, 7(35), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (1995). America’s declining social capital. Journal of democracy, 6(1), 65–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (1995). Tuning in, turning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. Political Science and Politics, 28, 664–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D., & Campbell, D. E. (2012). American grace. How religion divides and unites us. Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiter, S., & de Graaf, N. D. (2006). National context, religiosity and volunteering: Results from 53 countries. American Sociological Review, 71(2), 191–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, J. (2003). Leven door geven: Religieuze en levensbeschouwelijke standpunten over orgaan- en weefseldonatie. [Living by giving: Religious and philosophical views on organ and tissue donation]. Meinema.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmeets, H. (2019). Religie en sociale cohesie [Religion and social cohesion] (pp. 1–21). Statistische Trends.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmeets, H., & De Witt, S. (2017). Gerapporteerde spanningen in de samenleving en eigen ervaringen daarmee [Reported and experienced tensions in society]. Bevolkingstrends, 2017(5), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmeets, H., & Peters, F. W. C. (2016). De rol van religie in orgaandonatie. [The role of religion in organ donation]. Tijdschrift voor Recht, Religie en Beleid, 7(3), 24–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmeets, H., & Te Riele, S. (2014). Declining social cohesion in The Netherlands? Social Indicators Research, 115(2), 791–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SCP. (2016). Solidariteit en duurzaamheid: Opgaven voor 2050. Persbericht [Solidarity and sustainability press release]. SCP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, C., & Randhawa, G. (2012). Social capital and deceased organ donation. In G. Randhawa (Ed.), Organ donation and transplantation (pp. 115–136). IntechOpen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, C., & Randhawa, G. (2016). The potential role of social capital in the willingness to be a deceased organ donor: A Case study of |UK Polish Migrants. Transplantation Proceedings, 48, 680–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smidt, C. E. (2003). Religion as social capital: Producing the common good. Baylor University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009). Report by the commissions on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr.

  • Tarhan, M., Dalar, L., Yildirimoglu, H., Sayar, A., & Altin, S. (2015). The view of religious officials on organ donation and transplantation in the Zeytinburnu District of Istanbul. Journal of Religious Health, 54, 1975–1985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenenhaus, M. (2004). PLS regression and PLS path modeling for multiple table analysis. In COMPSTAT’ 2004 symposium (pp. 1–12).

  • Thompson, T. L., Robinson, J. D., & Kenny, R. W. (2003). Gender differences in family communication about organ donation. Sex Roles, 49(11/12), 587–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tillie, J., van Holsteyn, J., Van der Kolk, H., & Aarts, K. (2016). Rumoer [commotion]. AUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Beuningen, J., & Schmeets, H. (2013). Developing a social capital index for the Netherlands. Social Indicators Research, 113(3), 859–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Beuningen, J., & Schmeets, H. (2015). De meetlat sociaal kapitaal. [The social capital measurement index]. In H. Schmeets (Ed.), Sociale samenhang: Wat ons bindt en verdeelt [Social cohesion: What us connects and divides] (pp. 15–27). CBS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Branden, S., & Broeckaert, B. (2011). The ongoing charity of organ donation. Contemporary English sunny fatwas on organ donation and blood transfusion. Bioethics, 25(3), 167–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Ingen, E., & Bekkers, R. (2015). Generalized trust through civic engagement? Evidence from five national panel studies. Political Psychology, 36(3), 277–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeij, L., & Den Ridder, J. (2016). Samenleven: Veranderende verbanden en het risico van segregatie. [Living together: Changing connections and the risk of segregation]. In A. Van den Broek, C. Van Campen, J. De Haan, A. Roeters, M. Turkenburg, & L. Vermeij (Eds.), De toekomst tegemoet [Facing the future] (pp. 143–173). SCP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorstius Kruijff, P., Witjes, M., Jansen, N. E., & Slappendel, R. (2018). Barriers to registration in the national donor registry in nations using the opt-in system: A review of the literature. Transplantation Proceedings, 50(10), 2997–3009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield, C., Reid, J., & Homewood, J. (2011). Religious and ethnic influences on willingness to donate organs and donor behaviour: An Australian perspective. Progress in Transplantation, 21(2), 161–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield, C., Watts, K., Homewood, J., Meiser, B., & Siminoff, L. (2010). Attitudes toward organ donation and donor behaviour: A review of the international literature. Progress in Transplantation, 20(4), 380–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield, S. E. L., & Poland, B. (2005). Family, friend or foe? Critical reflections on the relevance and role of social capital in health promotion and community development. Social Sciences Medicine, 60, 2819–2832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Van Oppen, C. (2009). Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33(March), 177–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wuthnow, R. (2002). Religious involvement and status-bridging social capital. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(4), 669–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social-Economic and Spatial Statistics, Statistics Netherlands, CBS-weg 11, 6412 EX, Heerlen, The Netherlands

    Hans Schmeets

  2. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Maastricht University, Grote Gracht 90-92, 6211 SX, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Hans Schmeets & Floris Peters

Authors
  1. Hans Schmeets
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Floris Peters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hans Schmeets.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 13 kb)

Appendices

Appendix 1: Measures for the 17 Indicators in the Social Capital Composite Index

Social participation.

  1. 1.

    Family contacts [Rarely or never (1)—at least once a day (5)]

    How often do you have contact with family members outside the home?

  2. 2.

    Contacts with friends [Rarely or never (1)—at least once a day (5)]

    How often do you have contact with friends or close acquaintances?

  3. 3.

    Contacts with neighbors [Rarely or never (1)—at least once a day (5)]

    How often do you have contact with neighbors?

  4. 4.

    Informal help (0 = No, 1 = Yes)

    Have you provided any informal help in the last 4 weeks?

Organizational participation

  1. 5.

    Organizational activities (0 = No, 1 = Yes)

    Do you participate in organizational activities at least once a month?

  2. 6.

    Work (0 = Less than 12 h, 1 = 12 h or more)

    How many hours per week do you spend on a paid job?

  3. 7.

    Volunteering (0 = No, 1 = Yes)

    Have you done any volunteer work in the last 12 months for any of the following types of organizations:

    • Youth work

    • School

    • Health care organization

    • Sports organization

    • Hobby organization

    • Cultural organization

    • Church or mosque

    • Union or employee organization

    • Political party or protest organization

    • Social care organization

    • Housing association

    • Neighborhood organization

    • Other

Political participation

  1. 1.

    Political action (0 = No, 1 = Yes)

    In the last 5 years, have you participated in political actions or influenced politicians/civil servants via:

    • radio, TV, newspaper

    • political parties or organizations

    • government organized meeting

    • personal contact with politician or civil servant

    • protest group

    • public protest or demonstration

    • internet, e-mail, SMS

    • otherwise

    • none of these

  2. 9.

    Voting (0 = No, 1 = Yes)

    Have you voted in the most recent national elections?

Social trust

  1. 10.

    Social trust (0 = One can’t be too careful, 1 = Most people can be trusted)

    Indicate which statement you agree with most: most people can be trusted; one can’t be too careful.

Organizational trust

  1. 11.

    Trust in army (1 = Not at all, 4 = A lot)

    Indicate to which extent you trust the army

  2. 12.

    Trust in judges (1 = Not at all, 4 = A lot)

    Indicate to which extent you trust judges

  3. 13.

    Trust in civil servants (1 = Not at all, 4 = A lot)

    Indicate to which extent you trust civil servants

  4. 14.

    Trust in press (1 = Not at all, 4 = A lot)

    Indicate to which extent you trust the press

  5. 15.

    Trust in police (1 = Not at all, 4 = A lot)

    Indicate to which extent you trust the police

  6. 16.

    Trust in large companies (1 = Not at all, 4 = A lot)

    Indicate to which extent you trust the large companies

Political trust

  1. 17.

    Trust in parliament (1 = Not at all, 4 = A lot)

    Indicate to which extent you trust the Dutch parliament

Appendix 2

See Table 9.

Table 9 Descriptive statistics indicators social capital composite index
Full size table

Appendix 3

See Table 10.

Table 10 Descriptives control variables
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schmeets, H., Peters, F. The Impact of Social Capital on Organ Donation: Evidence from the Netherlands. Soc Indic Res 157, 863–897 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02666-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02666-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation