building local support for chinese civil society with international resources
TRANSCRIPT
ORI GIN AL PA PER
Building Local Support for Chinese Civil Societywith International Resources
L. David Brown • Xing Hu
Published online: 27 October 2011
� International Society for Third-Sector Research and The John’s Hopkins University 2011
Abstract This article examines how international resources can be used to
strengthen local support for civil society initiatives in China to improve the cir-
cumstances of poor and vulnerable populations. It identifies ways in which inter-
national resources have strengthened civil society in other countries, such as
enhancing access to financial resources, building capacity of leaders and organi-
zations, reducing sector fragmentation, building public legitimacy and improving
cross-sector relations. It examines the characteristics and special circumstances
facing civil society in China, arguing that institutional constraints are particularly
problematic. Then it explores how international resources might be applied to each
of the problem areas identified given the constraints of the Chinese context. Finally
the article articulates five principles that might guide international donors for
building more local support for civil society activity in China.
Resume Cet article examine comment les ressources internationales peuvent etre
utilisees pour renforcer le soutien local aux initiatives de la societe civile en Chine,
dans le but d’ameliorer la situation des populations pauvres et vulnerables. Il
identifie les facons dont les ressources internationales ont renforce la societe civile
dans d’autres pays, par exemple en facilitant l’acces a des ressources financieres, en
developpant les moyens des dirigeants et des organisations, en reduisant la par-
cellisation du secteur, en instaurant une legitimite publique et en ameliorant les
relations inter-secteurs. Il etudie les caracteristiques et les situations specifiques
auxquelles est confrontee la societe civile en Chine, en faisant valoir le fait que les
contraintes institutionnelles sont particulierement problematiques. Il explore alors la
maniere dont les ressources internationales pourraient etre mobilisees dans chacun
des secteurs identifies du probleme en prenant en compte les contraintes imposees
L. D. Brown (&) � X. Hu
Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations, Harvard University, 79 John F. Kennedy St.,
Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
123
Voluntas (2012) 23:711–733
DOI 10.1007/s11266-011-9231-3
par le contexte chinois. Enfin, cet article formule cinq principes susceptibles de
guider les acteurs internationaux dans l’amelioration du soutien local a l’activite de
la societe civile en Chine.
Zusammenfassung Dieser Beitrag untersucht, wie internationale Ressourcen
eingesetzt werden konnen, um die Unterstutzung von Burgergesellschaftsinitiativen
vor Ort in China zu starken und so die Bedingungen fur verarmte und gefahrdete
Bevolkerungsgruppen zu verbessern. Es werden Methoden dargelegt, wie interna-
tionale Ressourcen die Burgergesellschaft in anderen Landern gestarkt haben, bei-
spielsweise durch den verbesserten Zugang zu finanziellen Ressourcen, den Ausbau
von Fuhrungs- und Organisationskapazitaten, die Reduzierung der Sektoraufteilung,
die Entwicklung offentlicher Legitimitat und die Verbesserung sektorubergreifender
Beziehungen. Der Beitrag untersucht die Merkmale und besonderen Umstande, mit
denen die Burgergesellschaft in China konfrontiert wird. Es wird in diesem
Zusammenhang behauptet, dass institutionelle Zwange ein ganz besonderes
Problem darstellen. Anschließend untersucht der Beitrag, wie internationale
Ressourcen auf die jeweiligen Problembereiche in Anbetracht der Einschrankungen
in China angewandt werden konnen. Abschließend werden funf Grundsatze
formuliert, die internationalen Spendernhelfen konnten, großere Unterstutzung vor
Ort fur Burgergesellschaftsaktivitaten in China zu entwickeln.
Resumen Este documento examina como se pueden utilizar los recursos inter-
nacionales para fortalecer el apoyo local a favor de las iniciativas de la sociedad
civil en China para mejorar las circunstancias de las poblaciones pobres y vulner-
ables. Identifica las formas en las que los recursos internacionales han fortalecido a
la sociedad civil en otros paıses, tales como aumentando el acceso a los recursos
financieros, creando capacidad de lıderes y organizaciones, reduciendo la frag-
mentacion del sector, creando legitimidad publica y mejorando las relaciones in-
tersectoriales. Examina las caracterısticas y circunstancias especiales a las que se
enfrenta la sociedad civil en China, argumentando que las restricciones institucio-
nales son particularmente problematicas. Despues, explora como los recursos in-
ternacionales podrıan se aplicados a cada una de las areas con problemas
identificadas dadas las restricciones del contexto chino. Finalmente, el documento
articula cinco principios que podrıan orientar a los donantes internacionales para
crear mas apoyo local a favor de las actividades de la sociedad civil en China.
Keywords Chinese civil society � International donors � Capacity building �Building local support � Strengthening civil society
Chinese scholars estimate that there were three million civil society organizations
(CSOs) in China in 2007, though only about 1.5 percent of them were actually
registered with the government (Gao 2008). Most observers believe that the number
of grassroots social organizations is growing rapidly. The Chinese Government is
concerned about whether this rapid growth will undermine social stability and
712 Voluntas (2012) 23:711–733
123
development, especially when funds come from foreign funders whose interests
may not converge with Government goals.
This article focuses on how international resources can build local support for
Chinese CSOs to work with vulnerable groups. We use the term ‘‘civil society’’ to
include a wide range of citizen initiatives that are based in shared values, Including
neighborhood organizations, temple associations, unions, professional associations,
religious groups, not-for-profit service organizations, or advocacy campaigns. The
focus of this analysis, however, is on CSOs that provide goods and services to
vulnerable social groups.
Is local support for civil society important to China? After all, China has a strong
government that is widely recognized as an emerging superpower. Its decision to
foster a market-oriented for-profit sector has led to extraordinary economic growth
over recent decades, bringing literally hundreds of millions out of poverty—more
than any other country by a significant margin. What does an enhanced civil society
offer to a country with a strong government and productive business sector?
In other countries CSOs have made several kinds of contributions to social
development and problem-solving. Civil society can mobilize citizen energies for
problem-solving, enabling individuals, and groups to mobilize energies, talents and
resources that would not otherwise be available. In the slums of Karachi, for
example, local neighborhood associations with technical support from an nonprofit
organization (NPO) built latrines and sewage systems for hundreds of thousands of
residents with more than 90% of the resources provided by the local residents
themselves (Khan 1997). Civil society can also catalyze social innovations,
inventing new ways to deal with challenging issues. An economics professor and his
graduate students in Bangladesh experimented with small loans to very poor
borrowers and launched a micro-credit revolution that has fostered millions of small
businesses (Yunus 2001). Civil society can also enable and extend policy
implementation, mobilizing citizen assets in shaping, and implementing policies
that affect disadvantaged groups. The national association of development NGOs in
Bangladesh organized 1,200 members to work with Ministry of Health officials to
vaccinate 80% of the country’s children, reducing the under-five mortality rate by
20% (Brown and Ashman 1996). Strong civil societies have some drawbacks—but
like strong government and business sectors, they can help create and sustain social
problem-solving.
Over the past several years, the Chinese government has increasingly recognized
the roles of the social organizations. In a Central Committee decision promulgated
in September 2004, the Party proposed to ‘‘give the social associations, trade
association and social intermediary organizations the full role to play in
service,…build[ing] up a social security network on the base of social insurance,
social relief, social welfare, and philanthropic undertakings combined.’’ In the
Central Committee and Party Congress meetings in following years, the Party
continued to recognize the positive roles of philanthropic undertakings. Reports to
the National People’s Congress in 2009 and 2010 emphasized continued support to
philanthropic undertakings and social organizations.
We begin with the assumption that local and national civil societies must be
fundamentally rooted in values, energies, and resources of the local society to
Voluntas (2012) 23:711–733 713
123
realize their potential for sustainable contributions to local and national social
problem-solving (Ottaway and Carothers 2000, p. 15). International actors who seek
to facilitate the development of civil societies must take care that values,
assumptions, and interests rooted in their own contexts do not subvert developing
a locally grounded civil society.
This article explores how experience from other contexts can be adapted to
strengthening CSOs in China. It is grounded in a series of workshops with Chinese
civil society leaders carried out in cooperation with the Center for Civil Society
Studies at Beijing University as well as discussions with leaders of different forms
of Chinese CSO, leaders of Chinese and international foundations, government
officials, and Chinese academics concerned with civil society. It is intended to
provide a framework and examples that will stimulate discussions among CSO
leaders, government officials, and international donors concerned with the evolution
of CSOs in China rather than to make specific proposals
In the next section, we briefly describe initiatives used to strengthen civil
societies in other countries. Then we discuss characteristics of the Chinese context
that are important to designing initiatives to strengthen its civil society. The fourth
section suggests approaches for enhancing local support for Chinese civil society
given its unique circumstances, drawing on the preceding analysis, and noting
relevant examples that have been identified in our research. The last section
articulates some principles to guide international actors who seek to strengthen that
support.
International Experience with Strengthening Civil Societies
We now have several decades of experience with strengthening civil society to
foster development (e.g., Brown and Kalegaonkar 2002; Pratt 2003; Lewis and
Kanji 2009). We focus here on five areas in which international support has
enhanced civil society capacities in many countries. They include: (1) enabling
access to scarce financial resources, (2) enhancing the capacities of civil society
leaders, staff, and organizations, (3) reducing sector fragmentation and competition,
(4) building wider public legitimacy, and (5) improving relations with organizations
from other sectors, such as government and business. In each area, we identify some
common problems and how international resources have been used to deal with
them.
Enable More Access to Scarce Financial Resources
CSOs are often desperately short of material resources. While international actors
often provide such resources, interventions that foster national and local sources of
funds can produce more sustainable long-term solutions. How can international
actors use their resources to mobilize local resources for CSOs that support
vulnerable communities?
International research on the funding of nonprofits suggests that fees for service
are a primary source of CSO revenues, particularly in developing and transitional
714 Voluntas (2012) 23:711–733
123
countries (Salamon et al. 2004, pp. 30–33). While cost recovery is difficult from the
very poor, many low-income people have some resources and place a higher value
on services for which they pay fees. International donors have encouraged some
programs, such as microcredit services, to use interest charges to sustain services to
poor populations.
Another common form of support for CSO programs is government funding.
While many governments regard CSOs with suspicion, others fund them to provide
services to reduce government size and costs. In industrialized countries govern-
ments provide almost half of incomes of nonprofit organizations (Salamon et al.
2004, ibid.). International donors can create local support for CSOs by helping them
to deliver government programs. In India, for example, a state government funded
local CSOs to help villagers to build and use biogas plants. The state implemented
its biogas programs at low cost and the CSOs implemented their village
development programs (Brown and Ashman 1996).
While philanthropy is often a highly visible source of funds, it has been less
important than fees and government as a funding source for CSOs (Salamon et al.
2004, ibid). International actors have often helped to build local and national
foundations (Ashman et al. 1998) that are grounded in local values and concerns.
For instance, Fundacion para la Educacion Superior (FES) in Colombia began as
part of a university but has funded many civil society initiatives for social
development (Holloway 2001, pp. 49–50). International support to create local
foundations is particularly appropriate to countries with growing economies and
expanding upper and middle classes.
A fourth potential source of financial and other resources is in the creation of new
wealth by CSOs themselves or in cooperation with other organizations. Some CSOs
have created for-profit ventures that subsidize their not-for-profit activities. The
Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC), for example, has launched
business ventures that fund their work with the poorest of the poor. In other cases,
CSOs have used their special understanding of the poor to help businesses provide
goods and services to billions of people ‘‘at the bottom of the pyramid’’ (Prahalad
2005). Such partnerships can enhance CSO incomes, enable new business models
for corporations and deliver needed services to vulnerable populations.
Enhance the Capacities of Leaders, Staff, and Organizations
CSOs are often started by ‘‘dedicated amateurs’’ who are inspired to tackle social
problems but who have little training for the complex problems that often emerge
with success. Scaling up initial successes to cover wider clienteles or to deliver
more services often requires more capacity to understand problems, mobilize
resources, coordinate complex activities, and build effective long-term, and large-
scale strategies. International resources can help build the capacities of leaders and
CSOs for more effective and expanded roles.
One strategy adopted by international donors in many countries is to foster civil
society support organizations that offer technical and capacity-building resources.
Support organizations can provide information and research on critical issues,
training for human resources, consultation on organization development, or linkages
Voluntas (2012) 23:711–733 715
123
to partners and allies (Brown and Kalegaonkar 2002). Organizations like the Society
for Participatory Research (PRIA) in India and the PRIP Trust in Bangladesh
provide research, training and consultation support to many CSOs, enhancing the
capacities of civil society leaders and the sector as a whole (Brown and Tandon
1990; Almazan-Khan et al. 1995).
A second strategy for capacity-building is to support civil society think tanks or
research centers to provide the ‘‘intellectual capital’’ needed for social innovation.
For example, international resources supported the Institute for Socio-economic
Research, Training and Information (LP3ES) in Indonesia to help water user
associations and national government agencies improve farmer involvement in the
development and management of irrigation systems (Brown and Ashman 1996).
The intellectual resources mobilized by the Institute were central to enhancing the
utilization of scarce irrigation resources.
A third possibility is to support the development of educational programs
designed to serve the capacity-building needs of civil society. International
resources can support educational programs that create human capital for civil
society. The Institute of Rural Management in India, for example, has trained
generations of leaders for CSOs and government service programs that otherwise
could not have expanded to a national scale. International resources can supplement
national resources to build programs tailored to national needs.
International resources can also build local associations and self-help groups that
focus on social problem-solving. Organizations like Six-S in West Africa have
mobilized external resources to help village organizations to solve local problems
(Lecomte 1997). A recent review of a hundred cases of citizen engagement in
twenty countries found that positive outcomes were especially likely when citizen
engagement involved local associations (Gaventa and Barrett 2010). International
resources that enhance local self-help groups may be particularly helpful in
strengthening civil society.
Reduce Sector Fragmentation and Competition
CSOs often grow out of concerns about particular problems and communities and
sometimes have difficulty coordinating with other organizations to avoid duplica-
tion or speak with a collective voice, even when coordination and coherence would
advance shared interests. This fragmentation may be exacerbated when CSOs
compete for funds and other resources.
In some circumstances international resources can support the emergence of
national alliances or associations that enhance members’ ability to deliver services
and to respond cohesively to common challenges. International support for the
Association of Development Agencies of Bangladesh (ADAB), for example,
enabled the creation of a national association that cooperated with the Government
of Bangladesh to undertake a national immunization campaign that involved more
than 1200 CSOs and reduced child mortality by 20 per cent (Brown and Ashman
1996). Associations can help their members share information, learn from one
another and act more effectively together.
716 Voluntas (2012) 23:711–733
123
International resources can also support issue-based networks or ‘‘communities
of practice’’ that link CSOs for learning, cooperation, innovation and advocacy. The
Small Enterprise Education and Promotion (SEEP) Network, for example, connects
microenterprise practitioners around the world to develop resources and tools, build
capacities, and set standards that advance their common vision (SEEP 2010).
Communities of practice can foster and disseminate innovations as well as solve
particularly challenging issues and problems.
International support has also fostered unified civil society voice on critical
issues, by supporting multi-organization campaigns on women’s rights, human
rights, and environmental action. Campaigns to end violence against women, for
example, have generated significant support and government action around the
world (Keck and Sikkink 1998). USAID support for CSO policy advocacy created
new CSOs but often failed to build local roots that could sustain long-term
engagements (Carothers 1999; Ottaway and Carothers 2000). International support
for politically sensitive initiatives must be careful not to alienate actors needed for
long-term sustainability and effectiveness.
Build Wider Public Legitimacy
In some contexts CSOs are not widely recognized or understood by the general
public. External support can be used to help citizens as well as actors in other
sectors understand CSO strengths, weaknesses and potentials. That support may
enable the public to value civil society contributions as well as to hold CSOs
accountable.
In some countries, international resources have supported research, dissemination
and public discussion of civil society contributions. Such studies can correct public
misconceptions and clarify expectations about civil society. Research on the
characteristics of CSOs in Kenya, for example, revealed that, contrary to common
perceptions, the overwhelming majority of Kenyan CSOs had little or no foreign
funding. Most are local organizations supported by their members or the
communities they serve (Kanyinga et al. 2007). That research also described a
wide variety of public goods and services generated by CSOs that were not widely
recognized by the general public.
External resources may also contribute to building consensus on shared standards
and codes of conduct that define good practice for CSOs. Initiatives to create shared
standards have produced widespread recognition of issues and concerted action to
resolve them. In Pakistan and India, for example, systematic efforts have built
agreement on standards across NGOs and other stakeholders (Brown and
Jagadananda 2007). Many countries have developed codes of CSO conduct that
set standards and in some cases create mechanisms for complaints and redress
(Lloyd 2005). In some cases CSOs have worked with Government agencies to
develop accountability systems that enforce those standards. In the Philippines, for
example, the Government and national NGO associations negotiated certification
standards to be enforced by the Philippines Council for NGO Certification (Golub
2006). Support for articulating and enforcing standards for civil society can help
build local and national legitimacy.
Voluntas (2012) 23:711–733 717
123
Sometimes international recognition of civil society contributions can build
wider legitimacy for the sector. In Japan and China the outpouring of voluntary help
after earthquakes expanded public recognition of CSO value to the wider society.
The award of Nobel Peace Prizes and Magsaysay Awards to civil society actors has
contributed to their public recognition and legitimacy. When the Ashoka and
Schwab Foundations celebrate the accomplishments of social entrepreneurs, they
enhance the visibility and credibility of civil society actors around the world.
Improve Relations with Other Sectors
Relations between CSOs and other sectors take many forms (Brinkerhoff 2002).
These relations are shaped by larger political developments: CSOs are allies of the
state in some contexts; they challenge or hold government agencies accountable in
others; they act as bridges among and balancers of market and state institutions in
still other contexts, or they become catalysts for creating transnational norms in yet
others (Kaldor 2003). In many industrialized countries, such as the US, CSOs
partner with government agencies to deliver goods and services, enabling the
government to deliver public services through competing CSOs rather than by
expanding government departments (Salamon 1995).
One role for external donors is to fund forums that enable CSOs, government
agencies and others to promote enabling environments in which parties use their
resources to meet shared development goals. The Aga Khan Development Network,
for example, has fostered discussions of ‘‘enabling environments’’ to promote
engagement across sectors and problems (Aga Khan Development Network 2011).
The World Bank has worked with organizations like the International Center for
Nonprofit Law to identify legal frameworks that safeguard the interests of both
government and civil society actors. International resources can be used to identify
contexts for that make effective use of resources from different sectors.
In some countries, research on constructive cross-sector engagement can help
governments and CSOs identify conditions that support effective cooperation. In
Kenya and Pakistan, for example, research by the Aga Khan Development Network
has identified factors that enable partnerships to pave the way for joint work that
advances shared interests. Cross-sector committees have been created to define
policies for wider use of partnerships to solve difficult development problems.
Similar discussions in Tajikistan have produced legislation to promote cross-sector
partnerships in the future.
International support can foster public private partnerships by identifying
complementary resources that CSOs bring for difficult problems. Recognizing the
limited capacities of one sector can be a precondition for cross-sector cooperation
(Bryson et al. 2006; Weber 2003). Expanding the vaccination program in
Bangladesh depended on recognizing that CSOs had resources critical to
accomplishing Government goals (Brown and Ashman 1996). Experience from
other countries can be helpful in recognizing the resources brought by different
sectors.
Support for building such partnerships can mobilize citizens for self help when
they might otherwise wait for others to solve their problems. Government officials
718 Voluntas (2012) 23:711–733
123
in Tajikistan reported that many citizens are afflicted by the ‘‘Soviet disease’’—
waiting for government action rather than solving problems themselves. New
legislation encourages partnerships between citizens and government agencies to
solve problems. Water user associations in the Philippines have reduced the burden
on government agencies of rehabilitating and managing irrigation systems (Korten
and Siy 1988). There is wide recognition that joint action by governments and CSOs
can solve otherwise intransigent problems (Austin 2000, Austin et al. 2004; Bryson
et al. 2006; Weber 2003).
Partnerships between CSOs and corporations can strengthen the capacities of
both. In Latin America, social partnerships have mobilized resources of business
and civil society (Austin et al. 2004). While many of these partnerships were
initially motivated by philanthropic interests, some partners have come to share
strategic and value concerns as well. From the business point of view, work with
CSOs has enabled expansion to serve large markets of poor customers: Hindustan
Lever, for example, has developed a profitable business in small packets of laundry
soap in India (Prahalad 1999). Businesses have found that CSOs who understand the
needs of poor populations can help create business models and distribution networks
that enable profitable ‘‘business at the bottom of the pyramid’’ (Prahalad 2005).
The Development of Civil Society in China
Civil society in China is subject to a number of special circumstances that influence
the development of increased local support. Some of those characteristics are
inherent in the way civil society is evolving in China. Some grow out of the fact that
China has a strong government and—more recently—a strong for-profit sector.
Others are grounded in the rapid economic and social changes underway in China.
Part of the challenge of making better use of civil society resources is to enable a
conversation among key stakeholders that makes effective use of the resources of
strong state institutions, effective market firms and emerging CSOs without
exacerbating social and political sensitivities.
The Rise of Social Organizations as Development Actors
Many observers have noted the rapid recent growth in CSOs (Roy 2010; Gao 2008).
A large majority of these organizations remain outside the formal registration
system, which requires the sponsorship of some agency already recognized by the
government. Many emerging CSOs remain unregistered and so illegal under
Chinese law. But, as in other countries, CSOs are emerging to deal with the
problems of many vulnerable populations in spite of the challenges of formal
registration.
Chinese CSOs largely fall into three categories (See Hu et al. 2010; Roy, 2010).
Grassroots social organizations are closest to the ground and provide direct services
to vulnerable groups. They are usually small, locally based nonprofit organizations
that provide direct services on a modest scale. Some of them are registered as
businesses; many remain unregistered voluntary associations. They generally lack
Voluntas (2012) 23:711–733 719
123
professional and managerial skills and have limited capacity to absorb funds or to
mount large-scale projects.
The second category is government-organized NGOs (GONGOs) that operate
under the supervision of a government ministry or regional government. Some were
set up by the government to receive foreign donations, such as the China Family
Planning Association; others carry out government administrative functions
regarding important constituencies, such as the All China Federation of Women’s
Associations; still others were created so China could participate in international
dialogues, such as the China Human Rights Research Association. Many GONGOs,
such as the China Association of NGO Cooperation (CANGO), began as
government agencies but have become CSOs as the government has divested some
activities. The leaders of GONGOs are often retired civil servants or Party officials.
They frequently have good relations with the government and can operate at a large-
scale, but they often depend on subcontracts with other CSOs to deliver services.
The third category is private foundations and corporate philanthropies, which
have been growing rapidly as the expanding economy creates more citizens with
resources that might be used for philanthropic purposes. Most large-scale Chinese
philanthropy today grows from the personal giving of wealthy individuals and
corporations or from government-backed campaigns to respond to emergencies.
This sector is at an early stage of development.
More recently, a fourth category of NPO has emerged. There are a growing
number of intermediary support organizations in China that provide services to
nonprofits and foundations. Examples include the Nonprofit Incubator and the
CANGO, which offer capacity-building and information support to a wide range of
CSOs.
Constraints on Civil Society Development
There are interest and energy for developing a stronger civil society in China. But
that process will be shaped by at least four sets of constraints: financial, political,
legal, and institutional factors that can enable or undermine the efficacy and
sustainability of CSOs.
The financial constraints have historically reflected the availability of economic
resources. A decade ago, as one scholar noted, there were few alternatives to foreign
funds if a grassroots social organization needed more than voluntary energies to
carry out its programs. Today, although economic development has expanded the
possibilities for finding resources from national and local sources, many Chinese
CSOs still depend on foreign funding. In a recent study more than 90% of 109 CSO
respondents who receive international funding indicated that its withdrawal would
require significant scaling back of their current programs (Busgen and Michael
2010). But the increase in private and corporate foundations and the growth of upper
and middle economic classes suggests that more financial resources will be
available to Chinese CSOs in the future.
The political constraints on civil society reflect concern within the Communist
Party about the need for organized civil society and its potential negative impacts.
On one hand, the Party sees the sector as useful and has increased its commitment to
720 Voluntas (2012) 23:711–733
123
delivering social services through nonprofit organizations. On the other hand, Party
leaders are sensitive to questions of social stability and mass events. They have
observed the roles of CSOs in the recent ‘‘color revolutions’’ in nearby countries and
they remain suspicious of the motives of foreign donors. The China National
Security Law has specifically noted that some social organization activities can
harm national security, including through collusion between domestic organizations
and foreign forces. Initiatives in rights advocacy, such as the Women’s Legal Aid
Center affiliated with Peking University, have received attention because of
government perceptions that their work may stir up social unrest by disclosing
injustice in the society. In recent history incidents of social turbulence have
preceded tightened government controls over social organizations. Government
reviews and rectifications of social organizations have often followed highly visible
challenges to government control, such as the Tiananmen Square and Falun Gong
demonstrations (Yuan 2009). Initiatives that support a ‘‘harmonious society’’, such
as education, health, poverty alleviation, or environmental protection, have
generated fewer negative reactions.
The legal constraints on civil society development reflect its recent emergence as
a development actor. The Ministry of Civil Affairs (MOCA) and local civil affairs
agencies require new organizations to have a government agency sponsor before
registering—a requirement that has forced many new organizations to register as
corporations rather than nonprofits. These requirements may be eased by a new Law
on the Promotion of Charities currently under discussion. The new Law might set
the stage for sector growth, but its adoption is not expected for several more years.
Some local governments, such as those of Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, and
Chengdu, have experimented with registering social organizations without
sponsoring government agencies.
Institutional constraints include the lack of organizations and institutions that can
help CSOs deal with the challenges they face. Experience in other countries
suggests that capacity-building agencies, information and research think tanks,
national associations, and networks, and alliances with government and business
actors can be key institutional responses to meeting those challenges. In the past
several years, more university research centers have emerged in China and more
local governments have set up special agencies to serve social organizations, but the
demand is rising for networks, associations and intermediary organizations that can
help deal with the sector concerns.
The combination of financial, political, legal, and institutional constraints pose
formidable challenges to Chinese CSOs—indeed, it is remarkable that so many
grassroots social organizations are active at all. One thoughtful analysis of
grassroots CSOs argues that they exist in a ‘‘contingent symbiosis’’ that ‘‘allows
ostensibly illegal groups to operate openly while relieving the state of some of its
social welfare obligations’’ (Spires 2011). The Government tolerates these CSOs
because they provide needed services. CSOs from this perspective live in a fragile
relationship that is sustained by their capacities to deliver services of which the
Government approves (and for which it can often take credit).
International resources can build local support for civil society if they enhance
CSO abilities to provide needed services without provoking concerns with social
Voluntas (2012) 23:711–733 721
123
stability. Earlier emphasis on financial support may be less relevant as more funds
become available from local sources. Foreign influence on political and legal
constraints can increase government concerns about civil society. But support for
initiatives that reduce institutional constraints may enable international resources to
foster CSO and sector development without exacerbating current political
sensitivities.
Enhancing Local Institutional Supports for Civil Society
How might experience from other countries be adapted to enable institution-
building support to strengthen Chinese civil society? We explore in this section how
the themes identified earlier apply in the Chinese context, some current activities
relevant to that theme, and some possible uses of international resources in the
future. We believe that successful projects will have to be designed by participating
donors and CSOs, so we seek examples that might be useful in China’s special
context rather than argue for specific projects.
Enabling Access to Financial Resources
The growth of the upper and middle classes in China has expanded the possibilities
for local support for civil society. Researchers report that philanthropic donations
have expanded meteorically in recent years, with a fivefold increase from 2007 to
2009 to more than RMB 32 billion (Ministry of Civil Affairs of China 2010).
Government figures indicate that the number of private and corporate foundations
increased by 50% to over 1900 from 2004 to 2010.
International support can enhance philanthropy theory and practice that supports
civil society services to vulnerable groups by adapting foreign concepts of
philanthropy to Chinese contexts, building the capacities of corporate and private
foundations, and promoting wider public understanding and participation in
philanthropic donations. International support can help wealthy individuals in
China find CSOs to support and help establish good philanthropic practices drawn
from international experience.
Interview respondents indicated that GONGOs, such as government foundations,
Charity Federation agencies, and Red Cross units, have absorbed 90% of public
donations in the past. These GONGOs have little obligation to account for how they
use resources so some donors are reluctant to contribute to them; foundations that
meet accountability practices common in other countries might generate increased
donations from donors who want results. The new China Foundation Center (CFC),
established to create standards of good foundation practice and accountability, may
generate wider awareness of and resources for the foundation community.
International resources supported leaders of the foundation community to create
the CFC on the basis of learning from experience in other countries. The rise of
indigenous foundations and philanthropies might make more support available to
the hundreds of thousands of grassroots social organizations that are emerging at the
village level in many communities.
722 Voluntas (2012) 23:711–733
123
Expanding ideas and practices of corporate social responsibility also has great
potential for mobilizing resources for China’s social organizations. Many Chinese
corporations are interested in building corporate social responsibility by supporting
nonprofits, but they need guidance on how to use their resources effectively.
International donors might expand the corporate social responsibility field by
proving information and training to Chinese corporations. There are currently few
programs or educational opportunities for learning about the area even in the elite
Chinese business schools.
International support could also facilitate the emergence of intermediary support
organizations that build capacity with local associations and grassroots organiza-
tions. It is risky for international funders to engage directly in building local
associations, but they might support the work of Chinese intermediaries. Research
on local CSOs, such as temple associations, suggests that creative grassroots
organizations already exist and make important contributions to local problem-
solving and quality of life (Gao 2006; Tsai 2007). International support could
provide resources to support organizations, GONGOs, and other institutions that
fund local associations and so contribute to large local multiplier effects. Indeed,
some GONGOs, such as Charity Federation agencies and the China Youth
Development Foundation, already act as pass-through agencies for international
donations, enabling support for local CSOs while reducing government concerns
about foreign influence at the same time.
An important source of financial resources—the most important in industrialized
countries—is government funds used to purchase CSO services. In many
developing countries, governments are less willing to use CSO services, even
though such partnerships might be more efficient than expanding government
bureaucracies to implement policies. Some local governments in China, such as
Beijing, Shanghai, and Chengdu, have begun to purchase services from social
organizations. International resources might facilitate increased local government
support for civil society services to vulnerable populations by providing research on
successful cases, supporting pilot projects, building required capacities (for both
government and civil society) and enabling monitoring and evaluation of
experiments. Such initiatives will have to grapple with problems of registration
and with local government fears about losing public assets in dealing with CSOs.
The primary source of financial resources in most developing countries is fees
and international resources might help Chinese CSOs explore how to generate more
fees for service. Fees are difficult to collect from very poor and vulnerable
populations, especially if both providers and recipients expect free services. But
where CSOs offer new services or act for other agencies, such as corporate
foundations or local governments, fee collection may generate significant resources
to sustain continued services. Some foundations have experimented with vouchers
or other ways of providing clients with funds to purchase services from their choices
of providers, creating a market for services that might not otherwise exist.
CSOs in other countries have also sometimes generated income by creating new
wealth, either by creating for-profit businesses that subsidize their activities or by
partnering with businesses to create markets ‘‘at the bottom of the pyramid’’ that
combine civil society knowledge of the poor with business capacity to deliver goods
Voluntas (2012) 23:711–733 723
123
and services. The rise of the for-profit sector in China has created a context in which
partnerships with business are increasingly possible. International support might
provide information to potential partners about models for profitable business with
poor customers as well as capacity-building and mediating services.
Finding the right points at which international resources can support enhanced
funding for Chinese civil society depends on careful assessment of civil society
needs and the kinds of institutions that might meet them. But the development of the
Chinese economy and the rise of Chinese business entrepreneurs interested in social
problem-solving have created opportunities for emergence of new financial support
institutions by the wise investment of external funds.
Enhancing Capacities of Civil Society Staff and Organizations
Interviews with Chinese scholars and practitioners indicate that staff profession-
alism and organizational capacity are major barriers to the development of Chinese
CSOs. As interest in strengthening CSOs has increased, Chinese organizations have
emerged to provide capacity-building and information support.
Most CSOs begin as local initiatives led by individuals or small groups
concerned about a social problem. As they seek to expand their impacts, they
encounter management and technical problems. In many other countries, support
organizations have emerged to enhance civil society leadership skills and
organizational capacities. International resources have often been involved in
starting up and supporting intermediary capacity-building organizations. These
organizations are also beginning to emerge in China in several regions. They
include the Shanghai NPO Development Center, the Shanxi Women Research
Center, the Nonprofit Incubator in several cities, and the China Association for
NGO Cooperation in Beijing. The training and consulting services of these
intermediary organizations are in huge demand. Many of them developed their
initial programs with international funds and continued support for their develop-
ment may be important.
CSOs also need access to intellectual capital about both civil society and social
problems. International resources may be critical to constructing research and
education centers that provide that intellectual capital. New centers have been
created at key universities to carry out research on the sector and to train future
researchers and human resources of future civil society initiatives. Centers have
been started, for example, at Beijing University, Tsinghua University, Beijing
Normal University, Remin University, Zhejiang University, Shanghai Jiaotong
University, and Sun Yat-Sen University. As these centers grow and mature they will
build wider understanding of the sector and their students will bring more awareness
of its potentials and resources.
Scholars engaged in research and education about civil society may also serve as
bridges between CSOs and the government, since they work for state-controlled
institutions and are often trusted by Government officials. International funding that
encourages scholars to engage with civil society practices and organizations can
help develop intellectual capital needed by the sector as well as reassure the
government about the value of its activities.
724 Voluntas (2012) 23:711–733
123
International funders can also support sector development by enabling Chinese
CSOs to participate in forums to learn about international practices. Engagement
with CSOs and leaders from other countries enables sharing knowledge, skills, and
methodologies as well as ‘‘the spirit of civil society’’ that shapes its impacts in other
contexts. Foundation and faculty representatives, for example, have been partic-
ularly impressed with the teaching technologies and skills of international experts
who work with civil society leaders. Others noted that international exchanges
improve the management practices of Chinese CSOs and promote more applied
research by Chinese academics.
These capacity-building activities can combine increasing sophistication about
the challenges facing Chinese civil society with sensitivity to the political
boundaries that constrain it. Potentially they are appropriate avenues through
which international resources can be channeled to build intellectual, human, and
organizational capital that fits Chinese political and institutional contexts.
Reducing Civil Society Fragmentation and Competition
Regulations in China limit the number of registered CSOs that operate in particular
regions, so duplication of services is not a major problem. On the other hand, the
lack of competition among CSOs to deliver services also limits increased innovation
and enhanced efficiency that might otherwise emerge. International resources might
be used to encourage civil society innovation and development by creating forums
in which new ideas can be recognized, discussed and rewarded. For example, the
Ford Foundation has supported meetings of capacity-building organizations to
explore what services are needed and available to Chinese CSOs. Such engagements
can stimulate increased innovation in capacity-building initiatives.
In some countries, a range of CSOs have emerged in response to different social
needs. But since their creation depends on individual social entrepreneurs, they
often emerge in patterns that produce fragmented services, uncoordinated use of
resources, and little understanding of national and regional priorities. When civil
society actors compete for the same sources of funding or support, they may
undermine the accomplishment of larger purposes. International resources can
clarify problem areas and foster shared diagnoses to improve CSO coordination.
The China Global Fund Watch Initiative, for example, has built a community
among nonprofits in the Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria program. It has
greatly enhanced the collaboration among HIV/AIDS nonprofits in China.
A common response to civil society fragmentation is to develop CSO associations
and networks that share information about common problems; improve use of scarce
leadership talent; and build capacity for unified voice to key stakeholders, such as
government agencies. In many countries networks focused on particular concerns
enable staff development and joint learning in ‘‘communities of practice’’. The China
Foundation Center, for example, is concerned with improving the practice of
philanthropy across many organizations and types of philanthropies. The Chinese
Government bans the establishment of cross-region networks by private individuals,
but some GONGOs are positioned to act as associations and networks. GONGOs like
the China Disabled Persons’ Federation or the China Charity Federation tend to
Voluntas (2012) 23:711–733 725
123
adopt a top-down approach on behalf of the government rather than bottom-up
responsiveness to their members. Some nonprofits have circumvented the no-
networking policy by organizing forums in their fields. The Twenty-First Century
Education Research Institute, for example, built a database of education organiza-
tions and holds Education Roundtables. International resources might facilitate CSO
networks or build GONGO association capacities to respond to critical problems.
While governments often set standards for good practice, standard-setting can be
difficult and costly if the regulating authority does not understand the work to be
done, the resources for doing it or the experience that establishes best practices. In
many countries international support has mobilized CSOs to build consensus about
standards and codes of conduct and so set performance expectations grounded in
civil society experience and legitimized by widespread participation. Support
organizations can facilitate agreement on standards of accountability, since they are
already focused on effective management and enhanced CSO performance. The
Capital Philanthropy Federation, as China’s first provincial trade association in
philanthropy, recently announced that it will develop codes of conduct for charita-
ble and philanthropic organizations (http://news.cntv.cn/china/20101031/100258.
shtml). This announcement indicates that both government and CSOs see the need
for shared standards. International resources might support the development of CSO
standards that meet the interests of many stakeholders, from business leaders to
government officials to grassroots groups.
In many countries national alliances, coalitions or networks represent CSOs in
discussions of government policies that affect the sector. In countries with strong
governments like China, the benefits of discussion with civil society representatives
may not be immediately clear. But international resources can support research and
discussion of how cohesive civil society engagement with policy-makers can
advanced shared interests. The Chinese economy has clearly benefited from
enabling a stronger for-profit sector, and similar benefits may be gained from
facilitating the development of civil society. The interests of civil society coalitions
and associations could be aligned with Government priorities in ways that produce
otherwise unavailable mutual gains. The Charity Federations at the provincial and
city levels, which have largely been created and controlled by the government, can
be bridges between the government and the CSOs. International resources could be
used to build the capacities of Charity Federations to better utilize the energy and
resources of CSOs.
Expanding the Public Legitimacy of Civil Society
The public legitimacy of civil society in most countries rests on both past
contributions and present relations with key stakeholders. In some countries with
long histories of active CSOs, there is widespread public awareness about their
activities; in others CSOs are seen largely as international agencies, so the public
may be skeptical about their activities—particularly as they work on sensitive
issues. In China many people are particularly aware of GONGOs and see
contributions to them as a kind of tax rather than a voluntary contribution. An
important discourse is evolving in China about role of civil society and social
726 Voluntas (2012) 23:711–733
123
organizations in ‘‘social construction.’’ This discourse will be critical to articulating
the roles of social organizations and their legitimacy as well as appropriate roles for
international resources.
In some countries, international resources have contributed to public awareness
and discussion of civil society actors and their roles by funding research to assess
their activities and contributions. Credible studies and public discussions of civil
society activities can be the basis for more informed public opinion about CSO
roles. In China research by respected University centers, such as those at Beijing
and Tsinghua Universities, has helped to raise awareness about why CSOs might be
valuable contributors to national development. To the extent that researchers are
seen as responsible by the government, their research may shape government
perceptions as well, even when their research is funded by international sources.
Some argue that international funds have supported Chinese intellectuals in shifting
the discourse describing grassroots CSOs as ‘‘a democratic force whose nature is anti-
government’’ to ‘‘social organizations that provide useful services.’’ Fostering
discourse shifts requires high sensitivity to the official discourses, emphasizing the
role of social organizations in enhancing ‘‘social construction’’ and promoting ‘‘social
harmony’’ instead of ‘‘defending social justice’’. Academics can also help the public
and the Government to understand new situations, such as explaining the importance
of preserving public foundation independence to government Ministries that seek to
commandeer the funding raised for earthquake relief.
CSOs may also become more widely recognized and appreciated by the public as
a consequence of high-profile activities in emergencies or other highly visible
events. International resources that enable CSOs to respond to crises may enhance
the reputation of the sector as well as support the victims of the crisis. The
contributions of CSOs in responding to the Sichuan earthquake, for example, have
increased their visibility and legitimacy in China, leading the media to refer to 2008
as the ‘‘First Year of Philanthropy in China.’’ Effective action in emergencies can
draw a lot of attention, as can actions that clearly demonstrate commitment to
values widely held in the larger society.
International recognition may also enhance the public perceptions of CSOs. The
involvement of international funders themselves with CSOs can provide credibility.
International funders can also convene CSOs and government agencies in forums
that enhance mutual understanding. Enabling recognition of civil society innova-
tions and performance can enhance its legitimacy. The high-profile annual award for
innovative nonprofits by the Jet Li One Foundation helps draw public attention to
the effective initiatives. The Anti-Poverty Innovation Award sponsored by the
Commerce Promotion Bureau also recognizes excellence in grassroots social
organizations. International recognition may of course also be problematic when it
challenges government policies or political sensitivities.
Encouraging Cross-Sector Partnerships to Expand Impacts
Bringing together organizations from different sectors that share interests in a
particular problem can produce understanding and mutual recognition that supports
coordinated problem-solving. In China the legitimacy of government and business
Voluntas (2012) 23:711–733 727
123
sectors is more widely accepted than the legitimacy and value of civil society actors.
So CSO contributions to helping victims of the Sichuan earthquake came as a
surprise to many observers. International resources can identify issues and foster
engagement where multi-sector action can mobilize complementary resources
essential to sustainable solutions. International agencies that have experience with
cross-sector partnerships and their development in other settings might play
valuable roles in fostering such initiatives in Chinese contexts.
International support for research on effective partnerships can identify mutual
gains for partners as well as lessons for future initiatives. Scholars at the Center of
Civil Society Studies at Beijing University, for example, have developed case
studies of successful partnerships between CSOs and Government agencies in
China. International resources might be used to learn lessons from comparative case
analyses to foster wider awareness of the steps need to make use of complementary
sector resources.
Cross-sector partnerships may be particularly valuable when past problem-
solving by agencies from one sector have failed. In China, for example, the
challenges of dealing with environmental degradation may require joint action by
civil society, business and government agencies. In 2009 the China Association of
NGO Cooperation worked with the Beijing Environment Exchange to enable the
Tianping Auto Insurance Company to purchase carbon reduction credits generated
from CANGO’s ‘‘Green Commuting’’ campaign (http://www.cleanair.net.cn, 2009).
International resources might be used to identify problems suitable for cross-sector
problem-solving. While the long-term implementation of such partnerships depends
on commitment from local actors, the analysis of sector failures and initial explo-
rations of cooperation might grow from international support for research on
complex social problem-solving.
In some circumstances, work with local associations to foster self-help and build
organizational capacity may be a prerequisite to cross-sector cooperation. Citizens
of strong states sometimes become passive recipients of government services rather
than active problem-solvers—the ‘‘Soviet disease’’ may lead to citizen passivity
when engagement is essential to effective problem-solving. International resources
may be used to build local capacity for active citizenship and self-help that enable
CSOs to join with Government agencies to serve vulnerable populations. In China
the Narada Foundation, for example, started the Gingo Partners Program to support
and encourage Chinese social entrepreneurs to lead change initiatives, much as the
Ashoka Foundation has encouraged social entrepreneurs in many other countries.
The rise of the for-profit sector has also increased the likelihood that Chinese
firms will see potential ‘‘business at the bottom of the pyramid.’’ In other countries,
business alliances with CSOs that understand the challenges facing poor populations
have helped create business models for commercially viable services to low-income
groups. International resources might enable sharing international learning and
creating incentives for business innovations in which Chinese civil society
and business leaders together create businesses that enhance the lives of poor and
vulnerable populations. Products and services geared to the poor could serve large
markets in China. For example, Credit Ease, a micro-credit financial firm in China,
provides loans to help farmers, rural residents, and students and uses a strict
728 Voluntas (2012) 23:711–733
123
screening process and community networks to get high repayment rates and
competitive returns for its investors (creditease.cn 2010).
International Resources and Local Support for Chinese Civil Society: SomePrinciples
In the section, we propose some principles for using international resources to build
local support for civil society in China, based on combining international experience
with our assessment of the Chinese context.
Emphasize Work on Problems Seen as Important and Not Easily Managed
by Other Actors
International actors should focus on strengthening long-term support for civil
society initiatives that have positive impacts on important problems. Those
problems should be important to key decision-makers, such as government
agencies, as well as to vulnerable populations. The focus should be on problems
that are not already handled by other actors. Initiatives will not sustain the long-term
development of civil society if they duplicate the work of others.
Some current social organization work provides clues about appropriate areas for
emphasis. Education for the children of migrant workers, for example, is an
important problem that is not being solved by other institutions. Lack of such
services may contribute to social unrest that is seen as worrisome by government
officials. Helping local governments meet the demands of citizens that are
underserved by existing services might also contribute to the emerging ‘‘symbiosis’’
between government agencies and CSOs (Spires 2011). International resources
should support problem-solving that is important to local and national agendas and
at the same time does not compete with other sectors.
Focus on Problems for Which Civil Society Resources Complement
the Resources of Other Actors
Bringing resources to problem-solving that complement those of other actors can
position CSOs as partners rather than as competitors or threats. Bringing funds and
services that compete with those offered by local governments can produce conflict
and competition rather than cooperation. Bringing access to international funds and
otherwise unavailable resources can encourage coordination and cooperation.
Experience in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the Philippines, for example, suggests
that international support can help CSOs rebalance the roles of government agencies
and water user associations in managing large irrigation systems. Capacity-building
by CSOs can help farmers organize themselves to manage irrigation systems,
freeing up government agencies to focus on services users cannot provide for
themselves (Korten and Siy 1988; Uphoff 1992). CSO work with water users and
with government officials allowed each to see how their resources might
complement each other to create mutual gains rather than competition.
Voluntas (2012) 23:711–733 729
123
Design Programs for Local Sustainability After Time-Limited Investment
of External Resources
International resources should be invested to catalyze sustainable changes in civil
society rather than to create long-term external participation in civil society
development. If civil society development must be rooted in local interests,
concerns, and meanings, ongoing dependence on external resources can distract
attention from grounding CSOs in local values and priorities.
In a country with rapid economic growth and expanding upper and middle
classes, local resources to support civil society may also expand. Investments in
civil society may also promote public education about civil society actors and their
need for local support. The rise of Chinese private and corporate foundations is a
good sign for future support. The creation of the China Foundation Center to set
standards for philanthropic reporting and accountability may enhance the legitimacy
and sustainability of foundations as new institutions.
Work with Chinese Partners Who Can Build Bridges to the Chinese Context
International funders are often perceived to be insensitive to the special challenges
posed by strengthening civil society and CSOs in China. They are understandably
tempted to interpret Chinese events in terms of their own experience and
expectations even when the context is sufficiently different to undermine the
effective use of international resources.
Working with Chinese partners who can translate or adapt international concepts
in terms that are appropriate to China is essential. Chinese academics who work at
the intersections between theory and practice can be valuable assets in building
discourses that integrate international values and concepts with Chinese perspec-
tives and in responding to unfamiliar political realities. Chinese networks and
support organizations can adapt international information, capacity-building, and
other resources to insure that they are congruent with Chinese expectations.
Emphasize Initiatives Where ‘‘Foreign Interests’’ do not Threaten Social
and Political Stability
The Government of China faces immense challenges in managing a very large and
diverse society through the social and political challenges of industrialization and
globalization. They have some reason to be suspicious of resources from other
countries that could be used to exacerbate existing issues and sources of instability,
particularly given the recent history of popular revolts in a wide range of countries.
External investments will be more likely to build local support for civil society if
they do not increase Government concerns about political sensitivities. The
Government is sensitive to issues like human rights and the governance of Tibet.
International resources that strengthen the ‘‘contingent symbiosis’’ between CSOs
and the Government are more likely to strengthen civil society actors in the long
run. International funders may want to emphasize support for CSOs that have
730 Voluntas (2012) 23:711–733
123
demonstrated capacity to work on problems without creating confrontations and
misunderstandings with the Government.
Build Toward a Long-Term ‘‘Enabling Environment’’ for Civil Society Support
to Vulnerable Groups
The idea of an ‘‘enabling environment’’ has emerged from the work of the Aga
Khan Development Network, which focuses on building business, civil society, and
government contexts that support social and economic development (AKDN 2011).
Enabling environments make it possible for organizations from different sectors to
work together to foster sustainable development and to provide alternatives to
struggles over social, economic, and political power.
To the extent that international resources can contribute to building and
sustaining an enabling environment, it becomes more likely that civil society can
gain access to local financing, enhance its capacities, reduce sector fragmentation,
and competition, build wider public legitimacy, and engage in cross-sector
partnerships—and these activities in turn can strengthen the capacities and roles
of civil society actors as well as their contributions to improving the lives of poor
and vulnerable groups.
Building Local Support for Civil Society
We began this analysis with the idea that building local support for civil society
would require grounding it in local values and energies and coming to terms with
other critical social institutions such as the Government. Our discussions with
Chinese civil society leaders, foundation executives, scholars, and government
officials consistently reflected the expectation that the Government would continue
to be a central actor in Chinese development. As one scholar put it, ‘‘the
Government is very strong, very smart and it learns fast.’’ International actors
interested in building local support for civil society must deal with this aspect of
Chinese reality in one way or another. We believe that strengthening the existing
symbiosis between Government and civil society in the service of unmet needs and
vulnerable populations may enable a wider and more constructive for the social
energies that can be mobilized by civil society without at the same time setting off
repressive Government reactions.
Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to the China Office of the Ford Foundation for its support
and to interview and workshop participants who have contributed their insights to the research on which
this article is based. The authors are responsible for inaccuracies or mistakes that remain in the article.
References
Aga Khan Development Network. (2011). Creating an enabling environment. Retrieved February 31,
2011, from http://www.akdn.org/programmes_eec.asp.
Almazan-Khan, M. L., Tandon, R., & Brown, L. D. (1995). Strengthening civil society: Contributions ofsupport organizations in South Asia. New Delhi: Society for Participatory Research in Asia.
Voluntas (2012) 23:711–733 731
123
Ashman, D., Zwick, E., & Brown, L. D. (1998). The strength of strong and weak ties: Building social
capital for the formation and governance of civil society resource organizations. NonprofitManagement and Leadership, 9(2), 153–171.
Austin, J. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and businesses. Nonprofit and VoluntarySector Quarterly, 29(1), 69–97.
Austin, J., Reficco, E., et al. (Eds.). (2004). Social partnering in Latin America: Lessons drawn fromcollaborations of businesses and CSOs. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2002). Partnership for international development: Rhetoric or results?. Boulder:
Lynne Rienner.
Brown, L. D., & Ashman, D. (1996). Participation, social capital and intersectoral problem-solving:
African and Asian cases. World Development, 24(9), 1467–1479.
Brown, L. D., & Jagadananda (2007). Civil society legitimacy and accountability: Issues and challenges.
Johannesburg: CIVICUS World Alliance for Citizen Participation.
Brown, L. D., & Kalegaonkar, A. (2002). Support organizations and the evolution of the NGO sector.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(2), 231–258.
Brown, L. D., & Tandon, R. (1990). Strengthening the grassroots: The nature and role of supportorganizations. New Delhi: Society for Participatory Research in Asia.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector
collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66 (Supplement),
44–55.
Carothers, T. (1999). Aiding democracy abroad: The learning curve. Washington: Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace.
Gao, B. (2006). An organic collaboration between social association: Collaboration and civil society in
China. China Social Sciences, 3, 2006.
Gao, B. (2008). Foreword. Blue book on civil society development in China. Beijing: Beijing University
Press.
Gaventa, J., & Barrett, G. (2010). So what difference does it make? Mapping the outcomes of citizen
engagement, Working Paper No. 347. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies and Development
Research Centre on Citizenship, Participation and Accountability.
Golub, S. (2006). NGO Accountability and the Philippine Council for NGO Certification: Evolving roles
and issues. In L. Jordan & P. v. Tuijl (Eds.), NGO accountability: politics, principles andinnovations (pp. 93–108). London: Earthscan.
Holloway, R. (2001). Towards financial self-reliance: A handbook on resource mobilization for CSOs inthe south. London: Earthscan.
Hu, X., Argote, A., & Stone, C. (2010). Interim report on philanthropy in China: Review of theinstitutional landscape and policy environment. Cambridge, MA: Hauser Center for Nonprofit
Organizations, Harvard University.
Kaldor, M. (2003). Global civil society: An answer to war. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kanyinga, K., MItullah, W., & Njagi, S. (2007). The nonprofit sector in Kenya: Size, Scope and
Financing, Nairobi: Institute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi and Aga Khan
Development Network.
Keck, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists without borders. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Khan, A. H. (1997). The Orangi Pilot Project: Uplifting a Periurban Settlement near Karachi, Pakistan. In
A. Krishna, N. Uphoff, & M. J. Esman (Eds.), Reasons for Hope (pp. 25–40). West Hartford, CT:
Kumarian Press.
Korten, F. F., & Siy, R. Y. (Eds.). (1988). Transforming a bureaucracy: The experience of the Philippinenational irrigation administration. West Hartford: Kumarian Press.
Lecomte, B. J., & Krishna, A. (1997). Six-S: Building upon Traditional Social Organizations in
Francophone West Africa. In A. Krishna, N. Uphoff & M. J. Esman (Eds.), Reasons for hope:Instructive experiences in rural development (pp. 75–90). West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
Lewis, D., & Kanji, N. (2009). NGOs and development. London: Routledge.
Lloyd, R. (2005). The role of NGO self-regulation in increasing stakeholder accountability. Retrieved August
28, 2010, from http://www.oneworldtrust.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=
51&tmpl=component&format=raw&Itemid=55.
Michael, B. (2010). Same bed, different dreams? How Chinese NGOs view their cooperation with foreign
institutional donors. Working paper supported by the Nonprofit Incubator, the Institute for Civil
Society of Sun Yat-sen University, the Capacity Building and Assessment Center, NGO.cn and the
Social Resource Institute.
732 Voluntas (2012) 23:711–733
123
Ministry of Civil Affairs of China. (2010). 2009 China charitable donation report. Retrieved February 5,
2011, from http://wenku.baidu.com/view/05801d7931b765ce05081494.html.
Ottaway, M., & Carothers, T. (2000). Funding virtue: Civil society aid and democracy promotion.
Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hart, S. (1999). Strategies for Business at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Sustainable
Development, Academy of Management.
Prahalad, C. K. (2005). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Upper Saddle River: Wharton School
Publishing.
Pratt, B. (2003). Changing expectations? The concept and practice of civil society in internationaldevelopment. Oxford: INTRAC.
Roy, D. (2010). China’s Dilemma over CSOs. Engaging civil society: Emerging trends. In G. S. Cheema
& V. Popovski (Eds.), Democratic governance (pp. 174–192). Tokyo: UN University Press.
Salamon, L. (1995). Partners in public service: Government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfareState. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
Salamon, L. M., Sokolowski, S. W., et al. (2004). Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector.
Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.
Small Enterprise Education and Promotion (SEEP) Network. (2010). Retrieved December 10, 2010, from
http://www.seepnetwork.org/Pages/Default.aspx.
Spires, A. J. (2011). Contingent symbiosis and civil society in an authoritarian State: Understanding the
survival of China’s grassroots NGOs. American Journal of Sociology, 117(1), 1–45.
Tsai, L. L. (2007). Accountability without democracy: Solidary groups and public goods provision inrural China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Uphoff, N. (1992). Learning from Gal Oya: Possibilities for participatory development and post-newtonian social science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Weber, E. (2003). Bringing society back in: Grassroots ecosystem management, accountability andsustainable communities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Yuan, R. (2009). Government transitions and their impacts on social organization administration. In Bluebook of the civil society in China 2008. Beijing: Beijing University Press.
Yunus, M. (2001). Banker to the poor: Micro-lending and the Battle against World Poverty. Philadelphia:
Public Affairs.
Voluntas (2012) 23:711–733 733
123