Imagine two food trucks parked on the same block, both selling tacos. One hangs a banner reading "TACO TUESDAY — EVERYONE COME EAT TACOS" (lift: more people buy tacos in general). The other hangs a banner reading "OUR TACOS ARE BETTER THAN THEIRS" (shift: the same taco-eaters walk to your truck instead). Every food truck does both, but the ratio matters enormously for the block's total taco sales. This paper takes that decomposition and applies it to the nonprofit fundraising world, where organizations that nominally share a social mission still compete fiercely for donor dollars. The core claim is a clean conceptual separation. Any fundraising action an NGO takes has a marginal "lift" component (it grows the total funding going to the shared cause) and a marginal "shift" component (it redirects existing funding from rival organizations to itself). When two NGOs care partly about the same outcomes — partial purpose alignment — each NGO's private incentive overweights shift relative to what would maximize aggregate mission output. The wedge between private and social optimality is proportional to shift-minus-lift. Full alignment would erase this wedge; zero alignment reproduces standard firm competition. Jaag then asks: what happens when NGOs choose among fundraising technologies that differ in their lift-to-shift ratios? Think of cause promotion ("malaria kills 600,000 people a year — give to fight it") as lift-heavy, and organization promotion ("our overhead ratio is 3%") as shift-heavy. The model predicts that greater purpose alignment pushes organizations toward lift-intensive technologies. Conversely, incompletely aligned NGOs systematically over-invest in shift-intensive fundraising relative to the mission-maximizing benchmark. The policy implication is pointed. A blanket cap on fundraising spending — the kind regulators sometimes discuss — can reduce total effort but cannot fix the composition distortion. If the problem is too much shift and not enough lift, you need instruments that change the relative cost or return of different fundraising technologies, not a uniform ceiling. This is a classic second-best insight: the margin that's distorted is the ratio between technologies, not the total level of spending. The model is deliberately spare — a two-organization, two-technology framework with no empirical calibration. There are no datasets, no regressions, no field experiments. This is pure theory, and it knows it is. The value proposition is the conceptual decomposition itself: giving researchers and regulators a language to talk about lift versus shift, and showing that purpose alignment changes portfolio composition in a predictable direction. Notably absent is any discussion of donor behavior. Donors are a background funding function, not strategic agents. Real donors compare charities, respond to matching grants, exhibit warm-glow preferences, and sometimes give more when they see competition. A richer model would endogenize these responses, and the lift/shift decomposition might look quite different when donors actively arbitrage across organizations. The paper also doesn't address multi-cause NGOs or coalitions, which could internalize the shift externality. Still, the framework has genuine pedagogical and analytical power. Anyone who has worked in or studied the nonprofit sector recognizes the tension between "growing the pie" and "winning a bigger slice." Jaag's contribution is to formalize that tension cleanly enough that you can reason about policy instruments. It is a theory paper doing theory-paper work — no more, no less.
