Zhibin Zhang and Chao Guo
To what extent do Chinese nonprofit organisations, through advocacy activities, engage citizens in influencing public policies and contribute to the development of a participatory policy process in China? Based on data collected through a mail survey of 203 registered nonprofit organisations, this study examines the advocacy activities of Chinese nonprofits and their contributions to a responsive government. We find that the intensity of advocacy activities by Chinese nonprofits is relatively low and varies by organizational type, by degree of professionalisation, and by dependence on government funding. We find no association between advocacy intensity and the extent to which Chinese nonprofits engage citizens at the organisational level prior to their advocacy efforts. The ineffective marshalling and integration of citizens’ interests within Chinese nonprofit organisations might be attributable to the corporatist structure of the institutional and resource environments in which Chinese nonprofit organisations operate.
Australian Journal of Public Administration 71, no. 2 (2012): 221-232
Zhibin Zhang, Chao Guo and Dongjin Cai
Using the lens of board governance, this study examines the capacity of Chinese nonprofit organizations as an alternative to the market and the state in addressing societal problems. Based on case studies of two community-based organizations, we find that in both the advocacy-oriented and service-oriented organizations, the board focuses on fundraising and program development. Yet this seemingly similar focus results from different environmental conditions: facing unfavorable institutional and resource environments, the board of the advocacy organization is pressured to take a more proactive and rigorous role for the sake of survival. In contrast, the board of the service organization, with significant support from the government, is committed to expanding the organization. Our findings thus raise concerns about whether Chinese nonprofit organizations are an effective “third way” to address public problems.
International Review of Public Administration 16, no. 1 (2011): 11