The existing NGO legislation in China is a product of historical inertia and the reaction, either active or passive, of the government against the background of the ongoing reform campaign and thriving NGOs. It is als...The existing NGO legislation in China is a product of historical inertia and the reaction, either active or passive, of the government against the background of the ongoing reform campaign and thriving NGOs. It is also the consequence of the legitimacy crisis, ineffective centralism and absence of democracy that appeared in the later 1970s. Both socially induced and spontaneous changes have led to the emergence of modern NGOs.1 In the reasonably long term, induced changes determine that the government will continue to dictate the development of NGOs; in other words, this government-dominated NGO development pattern, or what we may call a corporatist pattern, will be the basic model of NGO development. NGOs in China cannot expect to build themselves into a con- straining force on the government in the near future, but they can at least become a force incorporated in the government and one that is a restraint on governmental activities. Spontaneous changes determine that incorporation of the forces of civil society is quite essential to the success of China＇s social reform, because only when civil society prospers and achieves political and social participation in a systematic way can we truly solve such problems as the crisis of legitimacy, ineffective centralism, and absence of democracy, and complete the historical task of establishing a nation-state and social integration which China has been trying to accomplish since the 1840s. Induced and spontaneous change can also shape the management of NGOs, leaving such management faced with more complexity than that other countries have ever experienced. For govemment-steered NGOs, the core of the problem in current NGO management is to make NGOs an integral part of public administration by fostering their autonomy. Meanwhile, it is essential in the process of reform and management to prevent NGOs from rent seeking by misusing their dual governmental and civil identity and keep them from being assimilated into the state mechanism. In short, NGO legislation needs a rational balance between control and freedom.展开更多
文摘The existing NGO legislation in China is a product of historical inertia and the reaction, either active or passive, of the government against the background of the ongoing reform campaign and thriving NGOs. It is also the consequence of the legitimacy crisis, ineffective centralism and absence of democracy that appeared in the later 1970s. Both socially induced and spontaneous changes have led to the emergence of modern NGOs.1 In the reasonably long term, induced changes determine that the government will continue to dictate the development of NGOs; in other words, this government-dominated NGO development pattern, or what we may call a corporatist pattern, will be the basic model of NGO development. NGOs in China cannot expect to build themselves into a con- straining force on the government in the near future, but they can at least become a force incorporated in the government and one that is a restraint on governmental activities. Spontaneous changes determine that incorporation of the forces of civil society is quite essential to the success of China＇s social reform, because only when civil society prospers and achieves political and social participation in a systematic way can we truly solve such problems as the crisis of legitimacy, ineffective centralism, and absence of democracy, and complete the historical task of establishing a nation-state and social integration which China has been trying to accomplish since the 1840s. Induced and spontaneous change can also shape the management of NGOs, leaving such management faced with more complexity than that other countries have ever experienced. For govemment-steered NGOs, the core of the problem in current NGO management is to make NGOs an integral part of public administration by fostering their autonomy. Meanwhile, it is essential in the process of reform and management to prevent NGOs from rent seeking by misusing their dual governmental and civil identity and keep them from being assimilated into the state mechanism. In short, NGO legislation needs a rational balance between control and freedom.
