Contractual controls and pragmatic professionalism: A qualitative study on contracting social services in China

Abstract

This study used the contracting projects of a district branch of the Women's Federation in Guangzhou as case examples to demonstrate both the Chinese state's contractual controls over social work organisations (SWOs) and the pragmatic response strategies of SWOs and professionals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seventeen participants, including local officials of the Women's Federation and social workers from contracted SWOs. It was found that with the ultimate goal of consolidating the legitimacy of the Communist Party of China, the Women's Federation's dual role in politics and service provision had led to normative, managerial, technical and relational controls over SWOs. SWOs and professionals were generally submissive to these controls, but they employed diverse coping strategies, including compliance, bargaining, transformation and investment in personal relationships. The interactions within the contractual relationship created a pragmatic professionalism that embraced dominant political ideologies, employed de-politicising techniques, and personally depended on individual officials.

Government Contracting Services to Social Organisations in China: A Review of Research for Future Enquiry

“…The literature review also suggests that contracting has not necessarily brought about the revolutionary changes to China's welfare model as was claimed (Chan, 2018;Lei and Cai, 2018), and as observed elsewhere (Considine, 2003), at least regarding its restructuring of state-society relations. Empirical evidence presented here provides the most critical view in scholarly work of services contracting, challenging established narratives that contracting separates state and society, enhances partnerships (Brinkerhoff, 2002) and civic engagement (Bovaird, 2007).…”

Between autonomy and subordination: The micro-production mechanism of professional roles in a Chinese street social workstation

“…Undeniably, the dependence on government resources may force social workers to be relatively subordinate (Lei et al, 2023). However, social work organizations are not positioned as subordinate organizations of the street government.…”

“…Social workers place themselves in a subordinate role to communicate with the government to conform to the expectations of the government (Fulda et al, 2012;Tsang et al, 2008). At the same time, social workers adopt a different approach from the government in their actions, creatively complete governance tasks, and create their irreplaceable unique advantages in social services (Jiang et al, 2014;Lei et al, 2023) The second way is active stealth. Social workers transfer their achievements to the government, form a low-key style, and hide their contributions in various ways, such as marginalizing their work in media (Yang, 2023) and highlighting the government's contributions among community residents (Yu et al, 2021), thereby establishing a deeper trust connection with the government (Jing and Hu, 2017), and being able to gain more government support and tolerance in creative governance activities (Hu et al, 2022).…”

“…Social workers place themselves in a subordinate role to communicate with the government to conform to the expectations of the government (Fulda et al, 2012; Tsang et al, 2008). At the same time, social workers adopt a different approach from the government in their actions, creatively complete governance tasks, and create their irreplaceable unique advantages in social services (Jiang et al, 2014; Lei et al, 2023)…”

Welfare contracting with Chinese socialist characteristics: Experience of the Bohai Bay Economic Rim, Northern China

“…Since 2007, extensive studies have been conducted on contracting out social services in China. The main concerns of these studies are summarised as three related issues: delivery of quality social services, growth of social workers' professionalism and development of autonomous NGOs (Cho, 2017; Howell, 2019; Lei et al, 2022; Mok et al, 2021a; Teets, 2016). The three issues eventually contributed to the discussion on state–society relationships and changing welfare governance in China (Hsu et al, 2017; Jing & Hu, 2017).…”