When Charitable Gifts Become a Zero-Sum Game: A Formal Model of How Donations to One Public Service Can Quietly Defund Another

Proves that earmarked philanthropy can pass additionality tests while still harming other publicly funded services — a fiscal externality donors never see.

Imagine you and three roommates share a grocery budget. One roommate's parents send a care package of fancy pasta. The house rule says no one's personal food spending can go down — additionality preserved. But the budget authority (the roommate who shops) now reallocates the freed-up pasta money across everything else. Your olive oil budget rises, but your roommate who wanted cheese finds less of it. The pasta gift was "additional" to pasta — but it reshuffled everyone else's plate. That's the mechanism this paper formalizes. The core claim: baseline additionality — the standard policy test requiring that a donation doesn't reduce the government's own spending on the donated-to service — is a weaker guarantee than most people think. A donation to service A passes additionality checks while simultaneously reducing the fiscal benefits that service B would have received from pooled discretionary budgeting. The paper calls this a "cross-donor fiscal externality" and proves it's not a corner case but a structural feature of shared budgets with heterogeneous donor preferences. The architecture is pure microeconomic theory — constrained optimization over a budget authority's allocation problem with donor-imposed floors. No simulation, no empirical data. The budget authority maximizes a welfare function subject to both a total budget constraint and service-specific minimum-provision floors set by donor protections. The key mathematical result is an exact feasibility condition: a reform that expands at least one donor-backed service while preserving all others exists if and only if every service's maximum permissible floor reaches its portfolio reference level. If any service's floor falls short, every effective protection reform hurts that service relative to what discretionary pooling would have delivered. Under logarithmic preferences — the workhorse utility form in public economics — the paper shows that donation shares determine which services are "protectable" (a structural property), while heterogeneous donor valuations determine who gains and who loses welfare. This separation is clean and somewhat surprising: the size of your gift determines whether your service can be shielded, but the distribution of everyone's preferences determines who actually benefits. The integrity picture is honest but narrow. This is a theorem-and-proof paper with no empirical validation. The results are mathematically rigorous within the model, but the model assumes a single budget authority with full discretion over a shared pool — a simplification that doesn't capture earmarked appropriations, political bargaining, or multi-level governance. The paper acknowledges this scope but doesn't test how robust the results are to relaxed assumptions. The practical implication lands squarely on philanthropy policy. Foundations and governments increasingly use additionality requirements to ensure private giving supplements public funding. This paper shows that the standard baseline additionality test — checking whether the government maintained its own spending on the donated service — can pass while other services quietly lose. Portfolio preservation, which checks whether each service maintains its share after all gifts are pooled, is the stronger test, and the paper characterizes exactly when it's achievable. The field fight here is between those who treat philanthropic additionality as a solved measurement problem and those who argue the fiscal general equilibrium effects make it fundamentally harder. This paper is a formal entry on the "harder" side, providing the first exact characterization of when cross-donor externalities are unavoidable versus manageable.