State‐NGOs relationship in the context of China contracting out social services

Abstract

China's practice of contracting out social services raises two related questions. The first one seeks to determine “the contractual relationship” between the Chinese government and its third sector in a mixed welfare regime. The second one inquires whether China's commissioning welfare strategy has increased the power of its civil society. This study attempts to address these two issues based on the experiences of non‐governmental organisations (NGOs) in a Chinese city. It was found that the contracted NGOs were unable to obtain an equal status but were treated as assistants of local governments. The NGOs were also asked to do extra work that was not listed in the service contracts. Moreover, the service performance assessment criteria were unable to accurately evaluate the work of NGOs. Thus, the welfare participation of Chinese NGOs has not brought with them more political power. It is proposed that China's welfare reform needs to be backed up by its legal reform to put in place a mechanism that tackles the unequal power distribution between welfare purchasers and welfare providers. The study further illustrates that the Chinese government has adopted a pragmatic instrumentalism strategy by placing NGOs in a supplementary and subordinate role. This paper offers a conceptual discourse on analysing the state‐NGOs relationship against China's market reform and its search for a better welfare management strategy.

The Strengthening Mechanism of the Relationship between Social Work and Public Health under COVID-19 in China

“…The operationalized legality reduced the resistance of social work and promoted social work to obtain more resource support and grassroots recognition and enabled it to provide services more generally. More independent legal and policy protection and financial support can improve the social power and status of welfare professionals or related organizations, allowing them to better develop and perform the role in the provision of welfare [ 42 ]. In the value dimension, the urgency of the epidemic created expectations from the government, other professional groups (such as medical staff), and the public in relation to social work.…”

Social participation of social organizations in education governance in China

“…However, this does not suggest that they can only passively implement the predefined policy agenda; this is because they often insert their policy ideas into the predefined policy agenda-via the back-and-forth accommodation of their thoughts-through policy networks (Chan, 2019). This situation implies that policy networks may not be entirely either asymmetric or symmetric (Tao & Liu, 2020) and that the social participation of social organizations may not be liberal, neoliberal, or progressive in the context of Chinese education governance in the spirit of social governance (Mok et al, 2021). Accordingly, the interactions between state and nonstate actors may be more dynamic in China than might be expected from a network governance perspective.…”

Remaking higher education for the post‐COVID‐19 era: Critical reflections on marketization, internationalization and graduate employment

“…Putting these two articles into perspective, we can appreciate China's higher education expansion exhibits the characteristics of the East Asia model, which is shaped by the strong nation‐state structure with pragmatic instrumentalism. Following the principle of ‘pragmatic instrumentalism’, the private sector could provide development opportunities for education programmes as depending on government funded public schools alone will constrain education provision with regard to both capacity and diversity (Mok, Chan, & Wen, 2020).…”