Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are now working with humanitarian organizations to develop infrastructure abroad. This emerging phenomenon is puzzling: when, where, and why do Chinese SOEs, best known for constructing massive overseas infrastructure projects for commercial and political gain, execute smaller, lower-profile humanitarian projects? Similarly, why would humanitarian organizations––often with minimal experience in infrastructure contracting––select partners criticized for lack of emphasis on the international standards and best practices that they seek to promote? We address these questions through qualitative case studies of Chinese SOE-humanitarian organization collaboration in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, and the Republic of Congo. These cases suggest that such partnerships are more likely when a humanitarian organization has previous experience working in China or with Chinese actors, when Chinese SOEs aim to enter new markets, or when these firms operate in dangerous or politically unstable environments. This study contributes to scholarship on China’s evolving role in international development by providing the first empirical analysis of Chinese SOE-humanitarian organization partnerships.
How do autocrats manage civil society? I develop a typology of authoritarian responses to civil society and show how leaders employ selective policies to adjudicate among risks and benefits in the third sector. Using data on laws managing foreign support of civil society in China and Russia, I find evidence of selective implementation that reveals which groups are seen as threatening or beneficial. While there are some similarities across the two countries, I find a divergence in their response to environmental groups, who are selectively repressed or neglected in Russia but selectively encouraged or co-opted in China. Using fieldwork interviews, I conduct a case study to show that while environmental groups in both countries pose some risk, the key difference is their perceived benefit.
This chapter compares recent restrictions on foreign funding or the operation of foreign NGOs in Russia and China, including the 2012 law on “foreign agents” and the 2015 law on “undesirable” organizations in Russia and the 2017 law on the management of overseas NGOs in China. Using open sources and interview data, this chapter compares the development of these laws and their impact on domestic and international civil society groups in both countries. The chapter finds similarities in their timing and motivations for national security, their intentions to shape civil society, and their use of uncertainty as a strategic tool. They differ, however, in how quickly they were created, their choice of public versus private record, and their approach to implementation and punishment. Ultimately, the findings highlight how Russia and China use these laws to repress some groups while allowing others, striking a balance between liberalization and repression.
Despite the increasingly authoritarian atmosphere in Russia and China, mass protests in both countries are pervasive, including protest motivated by environmental grievances. Existing scholarship often focuses on the sources, spread, or volume of mass mobilization, but few examine how civil society actors themselves evaluate the tactic. How does the state respond to environmentally-motivated mass mobilization? In light of the state’s response, how have activists altered their approach to mass mobilization over time? Using case studies and interviews, I find that Russian and Chinese environmental groups approach mass mobilization in distinct ways. Over time, Russian activists have increasingly turned to mass tactics, including coordinated regional protest. Meanwhile, Chinese ENGOs have reduced their formal involvement in such campaigns, limiting visible horizontal linkages between environmental groups. These approaches are shaped by the different historical legacies of mass mobilization in either country, which also shape state perceptions of the threat posed by environmental activism.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.