Can Chinese Philanthropy Adapt to the Changes in the Country’s Set-up?

中文 English

Editor’s Note

This article was originally published by the China Lingshan Council for the Promotion of Philanthropy (中国灵山公益慈善促进会) on the 27th of June 2018. Below is CDB’s translation. 

 

The following content was complied on the basis of the talk given by Chinese Academy of Social Sciences researcher, Centre for Social Policy Research advisor and Blue Book of Philanthropy chief editor Yang Tuan at the “2008-2018 China civil society ten year summit with the 2018 Blue Book of Philanthropy publication conference” on 20th June. The content has been examined by the author.

 

1. Statistics on the development of Chinese charity in 2017

 

The data provided in the 2018 Blue Book of Philanthropy allows us to get a general picture of Chinese charity and philanthropy in 2017.

First of all, in 2017 China’s total private donations were estimated at 155.8 billion RMB. Due to the delay in government and industry data collection, the Blue Book of Philanthropy calculates totals using an annual rolling method, announcing every year the confirmed total for two years prior and the estimated total for the previous year. Therefore, the data for 2017 is an estimate made by the Blue Book of Philanthropy using partial data and data calculations to collate data on the development and trends of the charity and philanthropy sector.

However the figure for total donations in 2016, 145.8 billion RMB, was obtained through various statistical corrections of raw data to calculate the final total, and the 2015 total of 121.5 billion RMB was calculated in a similar way. In light of this, the estimated total donations for 2017 shows continued growth compared to 2016 and 2015, but the growth rate is only 6.86%, the lowest since 2012.

 

article 1

(graphics from the presentation at the “2008-2018 China civil society ten year summit with the 2018 Blue Book of Philanthropy publication conference”)

 

Second of all, the value of China’s volunteering hours in 2017 was calculated at 54.997 billion RMB, a growth of 10.48% compared with 2016. Since 2014, the Blue Book of Philanthropy has stimulated research measuring Chinese volunteering, and drawing from leading overseas research on volunteer services it has developed indicators of the development of Chinese volunteering. Not only does this take into account the value of the time contributed by the volunteers as a major contribution to charitable causes and thus the philanthropic sector; it also directly promotes the integration of Chinese and international measurements of voluntary services, from which long-term and stable professional and research sectors can emerge.

In 2017, the total number of volunteers in China was 158.0734 million people, of which 60.9266 million were active, with a participation rate was 8.7%. There were 1.3067 million voluntary service organizations, and volunteer service time was 1.793 billion hours.

 

article 2

(graphics from a presentation at the “2008-2018 China civil society ten year summit with the 2018 Blue Book of Philanthropy publication conference”)

 

Third comes the money raised through public welfare lottery funds. Starting in 2015 the Blue Book of Philanthropy increased its reporting on the topic of China’s lotteries and the development of philanthropy, explaining the history of the modern Chinese lottery since 1987, the money collected through the public welfare lottery fund and its utilisation. Since then there has been continuous follow up and research done annually. Statistics show that China’s accumulated public welfare lottery funds were approximately 114.326 billion Yuan in 2017, a growth of 10.03% compared to 2016.

The Blue Book of Philanthropy suggests a new statistical approach, which is to take the sum of the annual total donations, the calculated value of volunteer service time and the money raised from the public welfare lottery fund, in order to calculate that year’s “total assessed social charity value”. Calculating in this way, China’s 2017 total assessed social charity value is estimated at 324.923 billion RMB. Compared to 2016 there is a 8.56% growth, but the growth rate has fallen by around 6.2%.

 

article 3

(graphics from a presentation at the “2008-2018 China civil society ten year summit with the 2018 Blue Book of Philanthropy publication conference”)

 

The total number of social organisations in China in 2017 passed the 800,000 mark, reaching the figure of 801,083. Out of these there were 6322 foundations, 373,194 social groups and 421,567 private non-enterprise units. (These totals come from big data analysis. The data on nationwide social organisations comes from the registration information systems of the Ministry of Civil Affairs, and for local social organisations the data comes from the national social organisation unified social credit code system. The data is continuously updated – last update: 11 April 2018.)

 

2. Reflections on the basic characteristics of the development of Chinese philanthropy

 

The Blue Book of Philanthropy summarises the basic characteristics of the development of Chinese philanthropy in 2017 with the following words: 负重前行, or “shouldering the heavy load and moving forward”. More specifically:

 

1. Overall the number of social organisations has continued to grow, but the growth rate of the three major types of organisations has been unsteady.

2017 was the second year of implementation of the Charity Law and the Overseas NGO Law. In the less than two years that these laws have been implemented, the number of China’s social organisations has continued to grow, but there has been a change in the growth rate. As seen in the graphic below, the growth rate of foundations has seen a significant fall, while the growth rate of social groups and private non-enterprise units has seen a small increase.

 

article 4

(graphics from a presentation at the “2008-2018 China civil society ten year summit and the 2018 Blue Book of Philanthropy publication conference”)

 

There are two reasons for this. The first one is that there has been a gap in terms of institutional cohesion, especially since some key supporting systems that should aid the implementation of the Charity Law have yet to be introduced, for example, the management regulations for the three major types of social organisations (foundations, private non-enterprise units and social groups), resulting in a lack of compliance from the relevant government departments. Secondly, while supervision of social organisations is being increased, gaps in the knowledge of some departments have occurred. I have heard of some relevant people in charge of departments say, “we already have too many social organisations, we don’t manage to supervise them all, why are they still establishing more?”.

 

2. The change in the pattern of the supply side of the charity market has been unstable

When the 2017 Blue Book of Philanthropy was published last year, I said that the pattern of the supply side of the charity market was changing. This year the trend is even more obvious, the supply side of the charity market presents an unstable pattern. This is to say that the situation is not always good, and a lot of new problems have emerged that could never have been foreseen.

For example the internet fundraising market was making triumphant progress in 2016, but in 2017 it repeatedly came into question, with the issues surrounding Tencent’s 9/9 Philanthropy Day, including machine-generated fundraising, yet to be clarified. Furthermore, there is the issue of the private sector attempting to get involved in charitable work; although some major tycoons have made great efforts, on the whole most of the private sector seems to be observing from the sidelines, and the main reason for this is the lack of policy support, especially in the case of equity donations. Moreover, those foundations whose name is prefixed with a (zhong – the indicator term for China)1, with the exception of a few special cases like the China Foundation for Poverty Alleviation, have shown a definite declining trend; since 2017, foundations have gained the encouragement and support of the central government, but development coexists with problems, and in some regions administrative interference has taken up a dominant position. Within the field of modern charity, science and educational work and environmental protection are obviously increasing in importance, but there is considerable overlap with the work of technology, industry and commerce, which is a demonstration of the changing patterns of the supply side of the charity market.

In regards to the changing pattern of the supply side of the charity market, one last thing that deserves a mention is the rapid development of community charity. Community charity is informal, unregistered philanthropy, and it includes web-based charities. The rapid development of this type of philanthropy is creating new developments and highlights for the future. Due to its unique adaptation to the centralization of the online age, its growth has been rapid. However, at the moment its growth lacks the direction and supervision of regulations.

The unstable pattern on the supply side of the charity market can be understood as a normal phenomenon which comes with the drastic transformation of China and the world. The transformation of China’s general set-up is the new economic norm, moving from high-speed growth towards medium to low speed, and from the single minded emphasis on quantity to an emphasis on the development of quality. This has inspired reform on all sides, including within the charity and philanthropy sector. On the international stage, which is represented by China and the US, there may be a long-term contest between the paths of global cooperation and of unilateral hegemony. The range of problems that has emerged during the reform of the supply side of China’s charity market I believe is a natural result of wider changes that are taking place.

However the philanthropic sector, as a part of the wider world, lacks the analysis and strategic planning to deal with the changes happening around it. Philanthropy is not simply an isolated field, but a human creation infused with the spirit of the age’s politics, economy, society, culture and education. Whether it can meet the new challenges coming form the changing domestic and international situation, and take hold of the new opportunities brought by these changes, is crucial to its future.

 

article 5

(Yang Tuan at the“2008-2018 China civil society ten year summit and the 2018 Blue Book of Philanthropy publication conference”, photo taken by Shen Zhijia)

 

3. A new type of philanthropy is emerging, modern philanthropy is exploring new paths

Another important phenomenon in 2017 is the philanthropic sector’s exploration of new paths.

The first path is rural development. Rural development has in reality given Chinese philanthropy a huge opportunity. Within rural development, not only is there work to be done on poverty alleviation, or providing the elderly, women, and children with social support, but more important is whether civil society has the ability to enter the core areas of rural development and carry out ecological improvements, create industrial prosperity and in the process motivate the local farming communities to cooperate, creating a change in the foundations of the urban and rural societies.

The second is cultural philanthropy. How can modern and traditional cultures, the humanities and ecological sciences be brought together is a big question. Ecology and the humanities are two fields that don’t overlap, one deals with the natural sciences and the other with the social ones. For millions of years the development of agriculture has in fact been driven by the cooperation of these two fields, but in the industrial era ecology became a way to decodify the manufacturing technology industry, completely separated from the humanities, leading to an ecology divorced from humanistic concepts, lacking vitality and motivation. Cultural philanthropy takes a wide cultural perspective, reintegrating humanities and ecology, to go as far as creating an ecological humanities discipline that can sustain China and the world’s march towards an ecologically civilized era.

The third is the Belt and Road Initiative. In actuality the Belt and Road represents how China faces the outside world, how it can face the global goal of building a community of shared future. In the midst of this, do philanthropy and social organisations have an advantage? Who to partner with and how to proceed? These are all questions that require in depth consideration.

The fourth is having to deal with complex relationships at multiple levels. As traditional philanthropy turns into a more modern form of non-governmental charity, there is a need for a universally applicable rule to deal with the relationship between philanthropy and business. To do this we need to break with traditional thought and take new ideas in a new direction. The 2017 “two lights debate” (亮光争论 liang guang zheng lun), is currently testing the waters of breaking those traditional thoughts. The debate is not simply a personal disagreement, but the demonstration of a clash between two different ways of thinking that is a necessary part of the development of modern philanthropy. In the changing pattern of the supply side of the charity market, what direction should Chinese charity and philanthropy take? Can it not go to extremes and rather take a middle road – this is a question that needs to be considered seriously.

Over the past ten years, the questions that we used to constantly consider have become less important, but new questions have emerged.

For example, what is philanthropy? What is charity? What is the relationship between the two? Nowadays it seems that answering these questions is not as important as it used to be, because modern non-governmental charity can include traditional philanthropy.

Furthermore, what is the relationship between the government and philanthropy? It seems that making this distinction is also not as crucial as it used to be, but rather cooperation is. The government has already demonstrated a commitment to learning, purchasing the services of social organisations, expressing hopes that charitable organisations and social organisations can be a part of the innovation and reform of social governance, etc… It is in fact the willingness and ability of non-governmental organisations to fulfil these demands that has not been fully demonstrated. This cannot simply be blamed on the incompatibility of the general environment, because if one is not prepared even if the opportunity comes along it cannot be seized, and what social organisations can achieve has been demonstrated in the field of rural development. The government and general environment cannot always take the blame, and non-governmental organisations also need to reflect on themselves.

Personal charities and organisational charities, public donations and personal donations; should the line between the two be clearly drawn? It seems that the urgency of this question has also weakened. In the internet age individuals can casually create groups, generating lots of non-registered, community-based alliances and platforms that can carry out informal philanthropy. This shows that the lines between types of charity are being blurred thanks to these new cooperations and the generation of new communities.

Are there clear boundaries between charitable organisations and commercial ones? From the current perspective, it seems that this boundary needs to be drawn, but cooperation is vital, and in the end, is it drawing boundaries that is important or cooperating and doing things together, then identifying and tackling issues within the operation? How these two sectors can be integrated to become a community-based organisation that does things together – this may be an innovative direction in which traditional Chinese wisdom and culture can be made use of.

 

article 6

(Photo from the “2008-2018 China civil society ten year summit and 2018 Blue Book of Philanthropy publication conference”, photo taken by Shen Zhijia)

 

3. Looking forward to the next ten years of Chinese philanthropy and charity

 

All in all, Chinese philanthropy can seize the opportunities generated by the structural changes in China and abroad. China needs to look forward, develop a prosperous society on all fronts and participate in the building of a common human destiny. Changing from focusing purely on economic growth to focusing on the overall construction of high-quality development requires China to adapt and change in all aspects, including the philanthropic sector. This is an opportunity, and at the same time a historic challenge. In order to face this challenge, the questions of how Chinese philanthropy will reform its structures, obtain technologies, increase its vitality and remain close to reality are all questions that today’s “2008-2018 China charity ten year summit and 2018 Blue Book of Philanthropy publication conference” needs to pay specific attention and consideration to.

I believe that the most important think is to break out of the exclusive “philanthropic circle”, and enter the platforms and coordinated actions that the government, industry, education, research and society are discussing together. Non-governmental organisations have their own unique advantages, and at the same time they need to push other sectors to make use of their own advantages. This will probably be an important new direction of development for the coming ten years.

To do this well, it will be necessary to work diligently under the Charity Law, creating stronger and more targeted platforms and community-based organisations.

The famous sociologist Xiao Tongzeng (孝通曾) came up with a celebrated saying regarding China’s direction in the world: “ge mei qi mei” (各美其美), meaning that everyone can bring out the talents and strengths in each other, “mei ren zhi mei” (美人之美), meaning one should appreciate the strengths and beauty of others, and “mei mei yu gong” (美美与共), meaning that all the good, all of the strengths of everyone put together can create a great community, and only in this way can the reality of “harmony in the world” (tian xia da tong – 天下大同) be realised.

 

article 7

(Presentation of the tenth anniversary edition of the Blue Book of Philanthropy at the “2008-2018 China civil society ten year summit an 2018 Blue Book of Philanthropy publication conference”, photo taken by Shen Zhijia)

Notes

1) The use of the term “China” in organizations’ names is restricted. Foundations prefixed with the character 中 are thus likely to have a strong government background. 

杨团:中国的大格局变了,但中国的公益慈善还缺乏适应性的大思考和战略发展规划

2018-06-27 13:53:17  来源:中国灵山公益慈善促进会  点击数量:827

 

以下内容根据中国社会科学院社会学研究所研究员、社会政策研究中心顾问、《慈善蓝皮书》主编杨团6月20日在“2008-2018中国公益十年高峰会暨2018年《慈善蓝皮书》发布会”上的讲话整理而成,并经作者审订。

01 2017年中国公益慈善发展大数据

从《慈善蓝皮书(2018)》所展示的慈善大数据中,基本可以看到中国公益慈善2017年发展的一个概貌。

首先,2017年中国社会捐赠总量预估是1558亿元。由于政府统计数据和行业统计数据的滞后性,《慈善蓝皮书》采取数据计算年度滚动法,每年公布两年前的确定数据和一年前的预估数据。所以,2017年的这个数据是《慈善蓝皮书》根据部分统计数据和测算数据,结合公益慈善行业的发展环境和发展态势预估的。

而2016年的社会捐赠总量,1458亿元,是经过各统计口径的数据矫正后得出的确定性数据,同理,2015年我国实际社会捐赠总量为1215亿元。这样看,2017年的社会捐赠总量预估值还是在2015、2016两年的基础上继续保持增势,只是,增速为6.86%,为2012年来最低。

(图片来自作者在“2008-2018中国公益十年高峰会暨2018年《慈善蓝皮书》发布会”上的报告PPT。)

第二,2017年中国志愿服务的时间价值折算约549.97亿元,与2016年相比,增长了10.48%。从2014年开始,《慈善蓝皮书》推动了中国志愿服务的测量研究,借鉴境外志愿服务测量的前沿研究成果,开发出中国志愿服务发展指数,不仅将志愿者贡献的时间价值作为对慈善事业的重大贡献进入慈善行业,还直接推动了中国志愿服务测量与国际的接轨,从而形成长期、稳定的事业领域和研究领域。

2017年,中国志愿者总数达到15807.34万人,其中活跃志愿者6092.66万人,志愿服务参与率为8.7%;志愿服务组织数量达130.67万家;志愿服务时间17.93亿小时。

(图片来自作者在“2008-2018中国公益十年高峰会暨2018年《慈善蓝皮书》发布会”上的报告PPT。)

第三,关于彩票公益金的筹集。《慈善蓝皮书》从2015年开始,增加中国彩票与慈善发展专题报告,阐释了1987年以来中国现代彩票发展史和彩票公益金的筹集和使用情况,并开始了每年的持续性追踪和研究。据统计,2017年,中国筹集的彩票公益金约1143.26亿元,与2016年相比,增长了10.03%。

《慈善蓝皮书》提出了一个新的统计概念,这就是把每年的社会捐赠总量、志愿服务时间价值折算和筹集的彩票公益金相加,得出当年全国的“全核算社会公益总价值”。经统计,2017年中国全核算社会公益总价值预估为3249.23亿元,与2016年相比,增长了8.56%,但是增幅下降了约6.2%。

(图片来自作者在“2008-2018中国公益十年高峰会暨2018年《慈善蓝皮书》发布会”上的报告PPT。)

关于社会组织,2017年中国社会组织总量突破了80万个,达到801083个。其中,基金会6322个,社会团体373194个,民办非企业单位421567个。(数据来源:社会组织大数据分析展示栏。其全国性社会组织数据来自民政部社会组织登记管理信息系统,地方社会组织数据来自全国社会组织统一社会信用代码系统。其数据处于不断更新中。最后访问时间,2018年4月11日。) 02 2017年中国公益慈善发展的基本特点与思考

 

关于2017年中国公益慈善发展的基本特点,《慈善蓝皮书》把它概括为“负重前行”四个字。具体而言:

1.社会组织数量继续保持增速,但社会三大组织的增速有升有降

2017年是《慈善法》和《境外非政府组织管理法》公布并执行的第二年。在不到两年的时间中,中国社会组织的数量变化保持增势,但是增速有所变化。如下图显示,基金会的增速有相当幅度的下降,社会团体和民办非企业单位的增速有小幅上升。

(图片来自作者在“2008-2018中国公益十年高峰会暨2018年《慈善蓝皮书》发布会”上的报告PPT。)

原因有二:一是制度衔接出现空白,尤其是具体帮助《慈善法》贯彻执行的一些关键性配套制度仍未出台,例如三大社会组织管理条例(基金会、民办非企业单位,社会团体),致使有关政府部门无所遵从。二是在加强对社会组织监管的同时,一些部门出现了认识空白。我曾听到某些相关部门负责人讲,我们的社会组织已经够多了,监管不过来了,还成立这么多干什么?

2.慈善市场供给侧格局在改变中进进退退

去年发布《慈善蓝皮书 (2017)》时,我就说过慈善市场供给侧格局在发生变化。而今年的趋势更加明显,慈善市场供给侧格局在改变中进进退退,也就是说,并非一直向好,而是出现了很多新的、过去没能预料的问题。

比如说,网络募捐市场在2016年是高歌猛进,2017年却屡遭质疑,腾讯99公益日刷单、套捐等问题到今天都还没能厘清;还有,民企有进军慈善的意向和尝试,一些企业大亨如何享建等做出了极大的努力,但总体看更多的民营企业家仍在观望,主因是缺乏政策支持,尤其是在股权捐赠方面;此外,“中”字头的基金会,除中国扶贫基金会等个别之外,下滑的趋向很明显;社区基金会从2017年开始得到中央层面的鼓励和支持,但是发展和问题并存,在某些地区行政干预占主流地位;在现代慈善领域里,科教文卫体、生态环保增势明显,但与技术、工商业有相当的交叉,这种交叉是慈善市场供给侧格局正在改变的一种表现。

最后,关于慈善市场供给侧改革,还应该提出的就是社群慈善的快速发展。社群慈善是非正式慈善,是不登记注册的慈善,包括平台型慈善。这种慈善的快速发展,正在给未来带来新的发展、新的亮点。正由于它们适应了互联网时代去中心化的特点,所以,其发展势头很猛。不过,它们目前的成长缺乏规则的指导和监督。

慈善市场供给侧改革进进退退实属正常现象,这与当下中国和世界大格局的重大转变密切相关。国内大格局的转变是经济新常态,即从高速走向中低速,从单纯重视量的成长转折为重视质量的发展。这推动了方方面面的变革,这其中当然包括公益慈善界。国际大格局更是出现以中美为代表的是走向人类命运共同体还是一国独霸世界的很可能是长期的博弈局面。中国慈善市场供给侧改革中出现的各类的问题,我认为是大格局转变的一种正常反映。

只是,作为大格局一个组成部分的慈善格局,缺乏适应大格局转变的大思考和战略性规划。慈善不是简单的单纯的孤立领域,而是贯穿于政治、经济、社会、文化、教育等所有领域的具有精神特质的一种人类创造物,它能不能应对国内外大格局转变带来的新挑战,并且把握由此带来的新机遇以实现创造性超越,在未来至关重要。

(杨团在“2008-2018中国公益十年高峰会暨2018年《慈善蓝皮书》发布会”上发布《慈善蓝皮书(2018)》。拍摄/申志家,益人录)

 

3.慈善出现新兴业态,现代慈善探索新路

慈善事业在行进中的探路也是2017年一个重要现象。

第一就是乡村振兴。乡村振兴实际上给中国慈善带来了巨大机会。在乡村振兴中,不仅是助力脱贫,不仅是为老人、妇女、儿童提供社会服务,更重要的是慈善有没有可能进入乡村振兴的核心区域去做生态改善、产业兴旺,并且在这个过程中拉动农民合作组织成长,促进城市和乡村的社会基础的改变。

第二是文化兴善。怎样把传统文化与现代文化,人文科学和生态科学连接甚至融合起来,是一个大题目。生态学和人文学目前是两个不搭界的领域,一个属于自然科学,一个属于社会科学。但是千百年来的农耕实践其实都是生态与人文融合的,而在工业时代,生态学成了技术制造业的诠释学,与人文科学完全分离,导致没了人文理念的生态变成无活力无动力的人造生态。文化兴善就是要从大文化的角度,将生态和人文重新融合起来,甚至要建立生态人文学以适应这个走向生态文明时代的中国和世界。

第三是“一带一路”。一带一路实际上是中国怎么面对世界、怎么面对构建人类命运共同体这个伟大的世界目标的问题。这当中,公益慈善和社会组织有没有可能先行?与谁结合,怎么走向世界?这些都是需要探索的问题。

第四是要处理多层面的多种复杂关系。传统慈善走向现代民间公益,处理公益与商业的关系,就要提出普遍适用的规则。这要求我们打破传统的思考方向,走向一个创新的思考方向。2017年的“两光争论”正是打破传统思考方向的一种尝试。他们两人的争论不是简单的个人争论,而是现代慈善发展当中必然的思想冲突的一种表现。在慈善市场供给侧格局改变的过程中,中国公益慈善到底往哪里走?能不能不走向极端,而是走中道之路,是很可以认真讨论的重要问题。

过去十年,我们一直思考的一些问题,变得不那么重要了,而新的思考方向冒出来了。

例如,什么是慈善?什么是公益?两者的关系是什么?现在看来,对这些问题的回答不像过去那么重要了,因为现代民间公益可以包容传统慈善。

还有,政府与慈善、公益的关系是什么?现在看来,分立不那么重要了,合作更重要。政府已经表现出学习的意愿和行动,包括购买社会组织服务、希望慈善组织或者是社会组织参与社会治理改革和创新,等等。反而是民间组织适应需求的供给意愿和能力还没有被充分激发出来。这不能一味地归因于大环境不相容,因为只要你没有做好准备,机遇来了你也抓不住、乡村振兴中社会组织到底能做什么就是一例。不能总是怪政府怪环境,民间组织更要反思自己。

个人慈善与组织慈善、公募与私募的边界要不要划清?现在看来,这个问题的重要性也减弱了。在互联网时代,个人可以随时组群,可以成立很多非注册登记的联盟型、平台型的社区集群式机构并开展非正式慈善。这说明各类边界在打破,新的融合、新的集群在产生。

公益慈善组织和商界组织如何厘清边界?现在看,边界固然要划,不过,其实很多事情是一起做的,到底是先划边界重要,还是先融合起来一起做事情,在操作中发现问题并且厘清更重要?如何跨界整合,成为共同做事的社区集群型组织,这可能是发扬中国传统文化智慧的创新方向。

(“2008-2018中国公益十年高峰会暨2018年《慈善蓝皮书》发布会”现场。拍摄/申志家,益人录)

 

03 展望中国公益慈善未来十年新方向

 

总之,中国公益慈善正面临国内外大格局变化中的巨大机会。中国要向前走,一是要全面建设小康社会,一是要参与建设人类命运共同体。从单纯的经济量的增长为中心变化为以高质量发展的全面建设为中心。这要求中国的各个方面都要发生适应性的转变。公益慈善也不例外。这是机会,同时也是历史性的新挑战。面对挑战,中国的慈善如何改革体制、培育机制、增强活力、贴近现实,是我们这次“2008-2018中国公益十年高峰会暨2018年《慈善蓝皮书》发布会”需要特别思考和讨论的问题。

我认为,首要的方向就是要打破“公益小圈子”,进入政、产、学、研、社共商的平台型思维和共同协作的行动。民间公益慈善组织有自己的独特优势,同时又要具有促推其他各界发挥优势的能力。这可能是未来十年很重要的一个新方向。

要在这个方向上走好,就要在《慈善法》的指导下制定共同遵守的规则,建设更多的的针对性更强的平台型组织和社区集群型组织。

著名社会学家费孝通曾在晚年谈及中国走向世界时有一段脍炙人口的名言:“各美其美”,大家把大家的优势发挥出来;“美人之美”,别人的美我们要喜欢欣赏;“美美与共”,所有的好,所有的优势大家结合起来形成共同体,这样,才能实现“天下大同”。

(在“2008-2018中国公益十年高峰会暨2018年《慈善蓝皮书》发布会”上,社会科学文献出版社副社长梁艳玲向《慈善蓝皮书》编委会赠送《慈善蓝皮书》10周年纪念版。拍摄/申志家,益人录)

Translated by Luxia Broadbent

No related content found.

Share: