Chinese Government/Foundation Relationships in Global Perspective: A Conceptual Comparison

• In Event: Civil society partnerships

Abstract

In recent decades, governments in different parts of the world have shown growing policy interest in philanthropic foundations and most recently sought to develop partnership relations by involving foundations in public management (Anheier, 2018; Phillips, 2018; Toepler, 2018a). Over roughly the same period, China has likewise allowed a foundation sector to emerge and foundations have evolved into one of the main forms of nonprofit institutions. In East and West alike, a major driving force behind the policy efforts to foster foundation development was an interest in generating private resources for public purposes (Toepler, 2018b), but also a variety of other goals, such as stimulating social innovation. While the thrust of government interests appear to be fairly similar at a general level across legal and political systems, the nature and institutional composition of the foundation field differs substantially, especially between the Continental European civil law and the Anglo-Saxon common law approaches (Toepler, 1999, 2016). Chinese foundation work was arguably influenced by the example of large American foundations’ activities in China, beginning with Rockefeller’s engagement early in the 20th Century (cf. Brown Bullock, 2011) to the Ford Foundation and others’ programs from the 1980s (Spires, 2012). Yet, the Chinese foundation field does not appear to look like the American one at all.

In this conceptual paper, we will attempt to discuss the Chinese foundation field in global perspective in contrast to much of the literature on Chinese foundations which has tended so far-- with few exceptions—to eschew an explicit comparative perspective. To do so, we review two recent frameworks that aim to capture key dimensions of foundation development and relations with the state. Levy and Pissler (2020) draw on the international foundation literature to develop a functional governance model to explicitly explore the Chinese situation. Toepler and Abramson (2021) suggest a foundation/government relationship typology and apply it to US federal officers tasked with interacting with foundations. Both frameworks draw on similar points and arguments from the international literature but differ in both focus and detail. In exploration the overlap and differences in the frameworks, we draw out conclusions for new directions that future foundation research in China might take. In particular, Chinese foundation research is still heavily focused on the generation of resources for foundations, such as private giving, fundraising and the importance of celebrities, whereas Western foundation discourses are frequently more occupied with the uses of foundation resources for public purposes and the advantages and disadvantages thereof, including questions over the legitimacy of foundation intervention into public affairs. These discourses are shaped by the relative prominence of grantmaking versus operating foundations, as roles and functions differ significantly between these two foundation types. While this differentiation has not been introduced in the Chinese foundation literature yet, a deeper exploration of differences between foundation types might generate additional new insights into the development of Chinese foundations.

References

Anheier, H. K. (2018). Philanthropic Foundations in Cross-National Perspective: A Comparative Approach. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(12), 1591–1602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218773453

Levy, K., & Pissler, K. B. (2020). Charity with Chinese Characteristics: Chinese Charitable Foundations between the Party-state and Society. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Phillips, S. D. (2018). Dancing with giraffes: Why philanthropy matters for public management. Canadian Public Administration, 61(2), 151–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12273

Spires, A. J. (2012). Lessons from Abroad: Foreign Influences on China’s Emerging Civil Society. The China Journal, 68, 125–146. https://doi.org/10.1086/666577

Toepler, S. (1999). On the Problem of Defining Foundations in a Comparative Perspective. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 10(2), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.10209

Toepler, S. (2018a). Public Philanthropic Partnerships: The Changing Nature of Government/Foundation Relationships in the US. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(8), 657–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2017.1295462

Toepler, S. (2018b). Toward a Comparative Understanding of Foundations. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(13), 1956–1971. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218773504

Toepler, S., & Abramson, A. (2021). Government/Foundation Relations: A Conceptual Framework and Evidence from the U.S. Federal Government’s Partnership Efforts. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32(2), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00331-z

Authors

• Katja Levy, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

• Stefan Toepler, George Mason University

• Qun Wang