How Far Has Philanthropy Sector Reform Come Since 2011? The Experts Debate

China Development Brief, No.55 (Fall 2012)

中文 English

CDB’s Guo Ting, reports on a debate among experts and leaders within the philanthropy sector about how far the sector has come since the critical year of 2011 when it was beset by scandals and energized by microblog campaigns.
 
The experts see both good and bad news in the data on public donations. While donations overall continued to climb, and donations to foundations surged to the forefront in 2011, donations from individuals (not counting wealthy entrepreneurs) appear to have declined. There were also major imbalances in the way donations were used. Most donations were spent on education and poverty alleviation, and only a very small fraction was used to fund grassroots organizations. Most importantly, for a number of experts, the scandals of 2011 did little to change a philanthropic sector that continues to uphold the special privileges of government-backed foundations.

“A year worthy of being recorded in the annals of charity”, “the public awakening of charity awareness “, “public charitable trust plunges,” “philanthropy, in the throes of development, faces a critical stage and enormous challenges.”
 
On July 2012, at the news conference to publicize the 2012 China Philanthropy Development Report (中国慈善发展报告) (hereafter referred to as the Blue Book of Philanthropy慈善蓝皮书) at the Shenzhen Charity Fair, experts and scholars put forth different interpretations on the development of philanthropy in the past year. The consensus view was that 2011 will be an important year in the history of the development of charity and that the present development of charity is closely linked with the process of social transformation and will be a critical element in the breakthrough of the reform process.

Donation Data Looks Promising

One major trend in 2011 was that charitable donations continued to grow. In the Blue Book of Philanthropy,  the data collated by the China Charity & Donation Information Center (中民慈善捐助信息中心) showed that the total value of national charitable donations in 2011was 84.5 billion, a decline of 18 percent compared with 103.2 billion in 2010.

However, in addition to being influenced by the Guo Meimei and Lu Meimei scandals of 2011 (the lack of major disasters in 2011) played  an important factor in the decline. Charitable donations consist mainly of two parts: normal donations and donations for disaster relief. Looking at the data from the last five years, the amount of donations were the highest in 2008 and 2010. However these two years were also exceptional with the occurrence of  major disasters: the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake and 2010 Yushu earthquake as well as Zhouqu landslide. The total amount of donations in 2011 was lower than 2008 and 2010 but in a year with no disaster, it still showed an obvious growth trend compared with 2007 and 2009, the two other years with no major disasters. Therefore, Yang Tuan, the Blue Book’s editor and deputy director of the Social Policy Research Centre in the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (社科院社会政策研究中) noted that the 2011 total value of  donations “reflected continued momentum in the development of charity over the last few years.”

Looking at the development trend of social organizations in 2011, there was a relaxation in the regulations for registration and management of social organizations in various parts of the country.  This trend was not confined only to major cities like Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou but also spread to Ningbo, Changsha, Chengdu and other localities. By the end of 2011, the number of registered society organizations in China had reached 462,000, an increase of 3.6 percent from the previous year. The growth rate may not seem impressive, but the number of foundations reached 2,614, an increase of 18.8 percent over the previous year. The growth in the number of private foundations continued to exceed that of public foundations, reflecting the continued growth in corporate donations1. This year, the donations received by foundations accounted for 40 percent of total charitable donations, ranking first ahead of other charitable organizations (e.g. the Chinese Red Cross and China Charity Federation) and Civil Affairs departments2.

Meanwhile, individual donations accounted for 31.62 percent of all donations. The donation of 3.5 billion yuan worth of shares by entrepreneur Cao Dewang changed the entire charitable donations scene in 20113. Of course, the numbers may not look so beautiful if examined more carefully.

Registration continues to be a problem for many social organizations. In the 2011 Civil Public Interest Development Report produced by Sun Yatsen University’s Center On Philanthropy (中山大学公益慈善研究中心) analyzed a survey that showed  only 48 percent of social organizations are registered with Civil Affairs, while 28 percent were unregistered, 14 percent were registered as businesses, and another 10 percent were “attached to” (guakao) a legal organization. The statistics on donations also show a number of imbalances. In terms of funding from donations, the statistics show a number of imbalances. For example, donations flow mostly to the education and poverty alleviation sectors. In addition, statistics from the China Charity Donation Information Center (据中民慈善捐助信息中心) showed that donations for vocational education only accounted for two percent of the total contributions to the education sector.

Moreover, less than one percent of the donations in the poverty alleviation and social development sectors went to community development, and less than three percent of funding went to support capacity building for charitable organizations. At the same time, a number of participants pointed out that the Blue Book of Philanthropy‘s statistics did not include data on micro-philanthropy and peer-to-peer donations, such as those used in the influential “Free Lunch” and “Love Clears the Lungs” programs4. These programs were funded directly by small public donations and more truly reflect the citizen-initiated forces that are changing society.

Behind the Data: Civic Action Driving Social Change

One view put forward by Mr. He Daofeng, executive vice president of the China Foundation for Poverty Alleviation (中国扶贫基金会), is that philanthropy has an important role to play in the building of civil society. In the first article of the Blue Book of Philanthropy, “2011: The Awakening of Civic Awareness among Chinese Citizens,” Mr. He points out that philanthropy’s biggest contribution to social reforms has been the creation of the spirit of contracts in the process of overseeing how donations are spent. Citizens came together to publicly track and monitor the flow of donations. If public donations only went into the government treasury, there would never be a civil society. The spirit of citizenship can only be nurtured by participating in a civil society. At the same time, freedom of association, and social autonomy are the foundations of a civil society. Many charitable drives set off by Weibo in 2011  such as the Free Lunch program, and “Snapshots for the Public Welfare” addressed issues of fairness, justice  and social conscience. They extended beyond simple charity to embrace the notion of freedom of association. Historically, British charity legislation in the mid-19th century as well as the American philanthropic movement in the late 19th century and early 20th century played important roles in the transformation of society in these two countries.

Thus, in the view of (the Blue Book editor) Yang Tuan, against the backdrop of the current contradictions arising from three decades of reforms in China, charity cannot make up for inadequate policies but can be seen as a vote of confidence and a weapon in the hands of the public. In addition, participation in micro philanthropy enables ordinary members of society to regain their confidence and compassion, and use donations to express their views and identity. From a government perspective, the dean of the China Philanthropy Research Institute (中国公益研究院), Wang Zhenyao notes that the mode of interaction between charity and government has undergone  a huge change in 2011. For instance, the Free Lunch program led to a change in the government’s public policy. Charity may create a breakthrough in social reforms. However there are problems to face and solve. Behind the data, there is a need to be vigilant against bubbles and traps.

A More Pessimistic Evaluation

A more pessimistic interpretation of the data was provided by other participants.  “The data on charitable donations for 2011 should cause more concern given that there were fewer individual donations which meant that a large number of citizens cast their votes in choosing not to participate in charity ” said Deng Guosheng, the director of the Center for Innovation and Social Responsibility at Tsinghua University (清华大学公共管理学院创新与社会责任研究中心) in the concluding speech at the Blue Book of Philanthropy press conference. In 2011, the charity sector in China faced a crisis of confidence with many questions being raised5.

However, statistics show that the amount of normal (e.g. non-disaster related) donations in 2011 was not that different from 2010. One year later, observers also found little change had taken place in the philanthropy sector, with many of government-organized organizations undertaking no discernible reform with the exception of the Red Cross (红十字会) which released an information disclosure platform. What was the reason for this lack of change? Deng Guosheng believes that these organizations remain in a monopolistic, privileged position. Using their ties with the government, they raised funds through administrative measures to acquire a large number of resources. Studies of charitable developments should look not only at the total donation amounts, but also at the proportion of corporate and individual donations. In Deng’s view, the most important indicator to measure the healthy development of the charity sector is the proportion of individual donations. Using this indicator, Deng found that China’s charitable undertaking was affected severely in 2011. Based on Deng Guosheng’s research on foundations, the proportion of individual donations received by many foundations was extremely low if donations from big individual donors like Cao Dewang and Wang Jianlin are excluded. The proportion is less than 10 percent for some foundations. In his view, the seemingly healthy total donation amounts can therefore be deceiving6.

In addition, the way in which donations are used may be more important than the numbers themselves. According to Xu Yongguang, chairman of Narada Foundation(南都公益基金会), public foundation revenues exceeds 15 billion yuan while expenditures are more than 12 billion. If 10 percent of this revenue was given to grassroots organizations, that would amount to 1.2 billion yuan. Yet the reality is that less than one percent goes to grassroots organizations. Most of the funds from public foundations and government-organized charities flow back to the government. Even private foundations love to collaborate with the government because they can get civil servants to work free of charge and benefit from other government resources. Companies also like to work under the banner of the government. In contrast, working with grassroots organizations can be difficult and yield no visible benefits. Grassroots organizations also need to have their personnel costs covered. As a result, foundations show them limited support.

Xu Yongguang also noted that foundations play almost no role in social employment. In 2011, the revenue of the nation’s top ten public foundations reached four billion. Based on comparable administrative costs in the U.S., that amount would generate 54,000 jobs in theory. However, the largest ten foundations only employ 429 people, about 0.8 percent of the job opportunities that would be generated in the U.S. under similar circumstances. The contribution of Chinese foundations to employment is thus almost zero7.

Others raised doubts about some of the policy reforms for social organizations taking place in various parts of the country. Regarding the “hub-style” social organizations that the government is using to better supervise NGOs, Jin Jinping, director of Peking University’s Center for NPO Law (北京大学非营利组织法研究中心) noted that these “hub-style” organizations are formed from the original mass organizations, such as the All-China Youth Federation, the All-China Women’s Federation, Social Science Federation and Disabled Person’s Federation.  “Given that these organizations are integral parts of the state system, their vitality and professionalism in promoting social sector development are questionable. Perhaps they should go through a performance evaluation to see whether they are fit to be called social organizations? In addition, “hub-style” social organizations are themselves  “social organizations.” Thus when they utilize government resources, there is bound to be competition with other social organizations. How then do we prevent these “hub-style” organizations from taking advantage of their own privileged position in the government to gain access to government contracts and other resources?

Debate over the Direction of Philanthropy Sector Reform

In a number of forums and meetings held in late June, Deng Guosheng criticized the Shanghai-based Non Profit Incubator (NPI) model being replicated by various local governments for deviating from its original intention. With its model of “incubating” social organizations, NPI has become just another government tool to increase GDP through social investment, rather than cultivating a civil society.

In response to Deng’s comments, Lv Chao, the founder and director of NPI (恩派) discussed the relationship between NPI and the government. He further reiterated the use of cooperation in promoting charitable reform. The purpose of NPI’s incubator was to develop “incremental shares” in charitable organizations. This idea follows the model of private enterprises in the early years of the economic system reform in the 1980s and 1990s. Given the unchanged “existing shares” of state-owned enterprises (which can be likened to today’s public foundations), the development of “incremental shares” enabled private enterprises to enter into a competitive relationship with state-owned enterprises. Lv sees this process energizing the sector and promoting development and change in both the public foundations and grassroots NGOs. Lv pointed out that currently it is very difficult for donations to reach grassroots organization and very few private  foundations are willing to support such organizations. The only realistic option is to look to the government to support NGOs. Thus, currently, the relationship between NGO and government has become the top issue for the development of the charity sector. In his view, the relationship between NGOs and the government is complicated, because the government is not monolithic. Different departments and levels of government have different perspectives, stances, and conditions. One has to look around, be open-minded and deal with supportive individuals in these different agencies. He rejected the notion that cooperation between the government and NGOs is tantamount to “cooptation”. If one does not wish to see major upheavals in society, NGOs and government will need to collaborate so that both sides benefit, and jointly explore and move ahead on the road of progressive reform.”

As to how grassroots organizations should cooperate with the public foundations that possess the most resources in the charity industry, Deng noted the answer does not lie in both parties minding their own business for the sake of peaceful co-existence. Instead, he advocates fundamental legislative reform of public foundations and the system governing philanthropic activities as a way to promote greater cooperation. Deng said the key to philanthropic reform is reform of the system itself. The main path is still through legislation, abolishing the professional supervising unit requirement for NGOs that want to register with Civil Affairs, and thereby doing away with the dual management system. However, the reform process needs to be differentiated. Different categories of charities need to have different paths of reform. For example, organizations like the Chinese Red Cross need to reference international conventions and carry out reform according to the law by modifying the Red Cross Law. Regarding the China Charity Federation, there are questions about the legality of its fundraising status and fairness of the fundraising playing field, given the Federation’s close ties with the Civil Affairs bureaucracy. The goal of reform should be to sever the connection between these “charitable organizations” and the Civil Affairs bureaucracy in order to foster relatively independent public foundations. At present, there are reforms being carried out in the philanthropic sector in certain regions For example, the Shenzhen Charity Federation (深圳市慈善会) has been separated from the Shenzhen Municipal Civil Affairs Bureau and registered as an independent public foundation. However, these reforms are relatively piecemeal. For more thorough-going changes to take place in the public foundation sector, legislation will be needed to motivate them to become truly vibrant, independent non-profit organizations without administrative rank or special treatment.


  1. Editor’s Note: The number of private foundations has grown quickly in the last 5-6 years since 2008 when tax regulations were revised to allow companies to claim tax exemptions for a larger portion of their income that went to qualified donations. 

  2. Editor’s Note: Compared with 2010, the proportion of donations going to foundations increased from 33 to 40 percent, while the proportion going to the Red Cross and Civil Affairs declined. 

  3. Editor’s Note: Cao, the chairman and CEO of the Fujian-based Fuyao Glass Industry Group, made news in the philanthropy world when he donated 300 million of his shares in the company (a reported $530 million value) to establish the Heren Charitable Foundation in 2011. 

  4. Editor’s Note: The “Free Lunch for Primary School Students in Poor Mountainous Areas” program was initiated by the journalist, Deng Fei, in the spring of 2011 and provided free lunches to more than 10,000 children in 77 schools. The Free Lunch program became the model for a nutrition improvement program for rural students carried out later that fall by the State Council. “Love Clears the Lungs” (or Love Saves Pneumoconiosis according to their website) is a microblogging project started by the journalist, Wang Keqin, and is devoted to helping the victims of pneumoconiosis, an occupational lung disease caused by the inhalation of dust. 

  5. Editor’s Note: 2011 was the year of scandals in the philanthropic sector, implicating a number of government-backed public foundations such as the Chinese Red Cross, the Soong Ching Ling Foundation, the China Youth Development Foundation, and the China Charity Federation. 

  6. Editor’s Note: Unlike in countries like the U.S. where the majority of donations come from individuals, in China the majority of donations come from corporations, so the decline in individual giving noted by Deng Guosheng should be a point of concern. 

  7. Editor’s Note: The low level of employment in Chinese foundations reflects both the fact that philanthropy is still in its early stages, and constraints imposed on administrative costs in the 2004 Foundation regulations which require that staff wages and benefits and overhead not exceed 10 percent of the foundation’s total expenditures. 

社会变革,慈善先行 - 2012 慈善蓝皮书之专家解读
郭婷
中国发展简报2012年秋季刊
"值得载入慈善史册的一年"、"慈善意识全民觉醒"、"公众对慈善的信任降到了冰点"、"慈善事业处于关键时期,承受发展阵痛,面临巨大挑 战"……2012年7月深圳慈展会期间举行的《中国慈善发展报告(2012)》(以下简称"慈善蓝皮书")发布会上,与会专家学者纷纷对过去一年的慈善发 展做出不同解读,共同的观点则是,过去的2011年将是慈善发展史上重要一年,且当前的慈善发展与社会转型大背景密切相连,依然处在改革突破的关键节点之 上。
数字表面繁荣依旧
慈善蓝皮书中,由中民慈善捐助信息中心统计的数据显示,2011年全国慈善捐赠总值为845亿,与2010年的1032亿相比,下降18%。然而,除了受到"郭美美"、"卢美美"等2011慈善危机事件影响之外,慈善捐赠的组成特点也是捐赠总值下降的重要因素。慈善捐赠主要包含常态捐赠和紧急灾害捐赠两大部分,从最近五年的数据来看,2008和2010的捐赠数值最高,但这两年有其特殊性,分别发生了重大灾难汶川地震和玉树地震、舟曲泥石流。作为没有重大 灾难的一年,2011的捐赠总量虽与2008、2010相比有所下降,但与同样没有灾难的2007、2009年相比依然呈现出明显的增长趋势,因此,用报 告主编、社科院社会政策研究中心副主任杨团的话说,2011的捐赠总值"继续体现出近年来慈善事业持续发展的势头。"
从社会组织的发展态势来看,2011年,各地出现一系列社会组织注册、管理政策放宽的举措,并突破北京、上海、广州等大城市的范围,向宁波、长沙、成都等 地蔓延。截至2011年底,全国登记注册的社会组织46.2万家,比2010增长了3.6%,看似增长幅度不大,但其中基金会达到2614家,比上一年增 长18.8%,且非公募基金会增长比例继续超过公募基金会,显示出企业捐赠的持续增长。这一年,基金会接受的捐赠占慈善捐赠总额的将近40%,超过各类慈善组织和民政部门排第一。同时,个人捐赠占全部捐赠的31.62%,而企业家曹德旺35亿股权的捐赠,改变了整个2011年的慈善捐赠格局。
当然,如果仔细揣摩更多的数字,也许并没有看起来那么美。中山大学公益慈善研究中心完成的《2011民间公益发展报告》中的抽样调查显示,当前社会组织实 现民政注册的只占48%,没有注册的和工商注册的,各自占28%和14%,挂靠的也有10%。在资金使用方面,善款流向最高的领域仍是教育和扶贫。据中民慈善捐助信息中心做的进一步统计显示,教育领域中,职业教育得到的捐助款只占该领域捐助总额的2%,而扶贫和社会发展领域中流向社区发展的捐赠不到1%, 公益慈善行业里流向支持公益慈善组织能力建设的资金不到3%……捐赠领域出现明显失衡。
同时,多位与会者也指出,蓝皮书没有纳入统计范围的微公益、点对点捐赠数据,如免费午餐、大爱清尘等那些来自公众一分一毫的捐赠,才是足以改变社会的公民力量。
数据背后社会的公民行
蓝皮书开篇综论第一文是中国扶贫基金会常务副理事长何道峰的《2011——中国公民意识之觉醒元年》。何道峰指出,慈善对社会变革的最大意义是在花善款的过程中产生了契约精神——公众追查、监督善款去向,以及追求效益、促进公民形成联合的过程。如果公众捐 了钱仅仅只是增加政府的财政收入,永远不会有公民社会,公民社会就是在参与过程中培育公民精神。同时,自由结社、社会自治,是公民社会的基础。2011年 很多由微博掀起的慈善行为如"免费午餐"、"随手拍公益"等,都关乎公平正义、社会的良心,从而超越了慈善范畴,具有自由结社的意义。
从历史上看来,英国19世纪中期的慈善立法、美国19世纪末20世纪初的慈善运动,都是两国社会转型的重要一环。因而,在杨团看来,当前中国三十年改革积累的矛盾同样突出的情况下,慈善并非弥补政策的不足,而是公众手中的信任选票和利器。此外,参与微公益,会让一部分社会底层重塑自信和关怀,用捐款表达观 点,选择认同。
虽然站在政府立场、以政府语境表达对慈善发展的肯定,中国公益研究院院长王振耀也表示,2011年慈善公益和政府的互动模式出现巨大变化,如免费午餐模式引领了政府公共政策的变革。
慈善有可能成为社会变革的突破口,但面临着众多要破解的难题。数字繁荣背后,更有需要警惕的泡沫与陷阱。
繁荣背后的泡沫
"2011年中国的慈善捐款数量更应该引起关注的是,个人的小额捐款越来越少,这意味着大量的公民其实早就投了票,没有再参与这场慈善圈中的游戏。"清华大学公共管理学院创新与社会责任研究中心主任邓国胜在慈善蓝皮书发布会的总结发言中如是说。
2011年,中国慈善受到广泛质疑,出现信任危机。然而从统计数字来看,当年常态捐款总数与2010年相差无几。一年之后,关注者们也会发现中国公益慈善领域变化不大,除了红十字会稍微做了一些改革,发布了一个信息披露平台外,很多官办组织几乎没有明显的改革。
原因何在?邓国胜认为,这些组织依然凭借官方背景处于垄断地位、享有特权,靠行政手段劝募获取大量资源。因此,关注慈善发展态势,不应仅看捐助总额,还应 关注其中企业和个人捐助的比例。他认为,衡量国家公益慈善事业健康发展的最重要的指标应是个人捐款的比例。而从这个指标看,2011年中国公益慈善事业受 到重大影响。根据邓国胜和一些基金会的接触,2011年许多基金会收到的个人捐助,排除了曹德旺、王健林这样的大额捐助之后的小额捐助比例极低,有的基金 会还不到10%。在他看来,从捐助总量来看繁荣,只能说是一种虚假的繁荣,这样的慈善繁荣存在大量泡沫,其实潜伏了巨大的危机。
此外,捐助款项的使用也比单纯的数字更值得关注。根据南都公益基金会理事长徐永光的说法,2010年公募基金会收入150多亿,支出120多亿,如果能拿 出10%的捐款资助草根组织,就有12亿的资金,然而事实上可能连百分之一都没有。公募基金会、官办慈善会拿到的钱大部分都流回了政府,就连非公募基金会 也爱和政府合作——有公务员免费干活、又可以借助政府的其他资源,还有企业看中与政府合作的大旗;跟草根组织合作,麻烦、拿不到好处、还要支付人力成本。 因此基金会对草根组织的支持非常有限。
让徐永光深为遗憾的还有基金会对社会就业几乎未起任何作用。2011年,全国前十位公募基金会的收入达到40亿,按照美国通行的行政成本支出的话,理论上 可以支持5.4万人的就业,但十大基金会的实有员工只有429人,相对其能量仅仅提供了0.8%的就业机会,可以说对就业的贡献近乎为零。
针对各地社会组织政策改革中出现的枢纽型社会组织,北京大学非营利组织法研究中心主任金锦萍也提出疑问:枢纽型社会组织依靠原来的群团组织如工青妇、社科联、残联等产生,这些组织原本产自政府体系,其自身的活力以及对社会领域建设的专业性到底如何?是否应当对他们做一个绩效评估,看他们是不是能担当得起社 会组织的称号?此外,枢纽性组织也是社会组织,那么他们在承接政府资源的时候,势必跟其他非枢纽型组织之间产生竞争关系,那么如何避免枢纽型组织依靠自己的政府关系,而垄断政府购买等资源?
慈善改革的方向
6月底,邓国胜在一些论坛和会议上发言,抨击目前被各地方政府竞相复制的"恩派模式"已经偏离了设计者的初衷,以"孵化"出若干个组织为目标,成为提高政府GDP的工具,与公民社会的理念背道而驰。
对此,恩派创始人暨负责人吕朝在7月份的蓝皮书发布会现场借阐发NGO与政府的关系进行了公开回应,并进一步表明以合作改良的路径推进慈善改革的态度。吕朝表示,恩派的孵化器要发展的是慈善"增量",即效法经济体制改革之初的民企,在国企这一"存量"(可以类比为官方背景的公募基金会)不变的情况下,通过发展增量,形成与存量的竞争关系,进而激活市场,推动双方的发展与变革。
他同时指出,在当前捐款很难进入草根、非公募基金会肯资助草根者又非常少的现实下,能把资金拿出来资助民间组织的恰恰是政府,因此当前NGO与政府的关系 已经成为行业发展过程中的首要问题。在他看来,NGO与政府的关系非常难处理,因为政府并非铁板一块,各部门、各级别的政府有着不同观点、不同立场、不同 条件的个体,只能摸索着和其中的"明白人"打交道。他反对NGO和政府合作被说成"被招安",因为"如果不愿意看到社会的巨大动荡,NGO需要和政府合作共赢,共同探索渐进的改革之路。
但对于占有慈善业内最多资源的公募基金会和草根组织的相处之道,邓国胜的观点显然不是井水不犯河水这样和平共存下去,他力主对公募基金会和慈善体制进行根本性的立法变革。
邓国胜指出,慈善变革关键在于慈善自身体制的变革,主要路径仍然要通过立法,取消NGO的业务主管部门,变更双重管理制度。只不过,改革过程需要分类进行,不同类别的慈善机构要有不同的改革路径。如红会一类的机构主要参照境外的惯例,通过修改红十字会法,依法进行改革。至于慈善会系统,由于其往往衍生自民政系统,在现行法律框架下募款的合法性和募捐市场的公平性都存在一定问题,因此改革目标则是必须跟现有民政系统脱钩,最终转型为一个相对独立的公募基金会。
当前个别地区已经对一些公募基金会做出改革,如深圳市慈善会已经从深圳市民政局脱离,转为独立的公募基金会。但相对这些零星的改革行为,大量的公募基金会转型仍然需要通过立法确认,以推动他们真正成为高度自主、没有行政级别、不具有事业单位待遇……却充满活力的非营利机构。

CDB Senior Staff Writer

Translated by Maggie Ye

Reviewed by Pauline Tan

No related content found.

Share: