40 Years of Chinese Charity in Different Phases

CDB

中文 English

Editor’s Note

This author of this article, Huo Weiya (霍伟亚), worked for years in environmental protection and started the Hongzhi Cafe’, a social enterprise in Beijing that regularly hosts events linked to the charity sector. The original article was published on CDB’s Chinese website, with the title 如何划分公益领域40年? You can find the full original here. Below is an abridged translation.

 

This year is a suitable one for reflection, since it has been 40 years since 1978 and in the charity sector we are also looking back at the past and towards the future.

On the 14th of October I attended a lecture at Tsinghua University entitled “the 20th anniversary of the Forum of Testimonies and Prospects from Chinese social organisations and NGOs”, where students, former government workers, and service professionals gathered together for commemorative activities. In the morning each person took it in turns to give a review for 3-5 minutes, and with more than 30 people it took over four hours; in the afternoon, there were two parallel research discussion forums about the next twenty years of research for NGOs. The day’s schedule was a tight one with many points of view expressed, drawing many people.

How should we look at the charity sector of the last 40 years? There were those who tried to divide history up into stages, and one speaker said that people who research NGOs can be divided into two generations, and the actual NGO workers into three generations; there were those who looked at the “ondulations” and “cycles” of the last 40 years, there were people who reflected on the references to and research on the term ‘NGO’ up until now and how the concept is frequently changing, asking whether this was because the research paradigm had lost its explanatory ability, or whether there were other reasons.

When we refer to the cycles, peaks and troughs, we are concealing a concern over 40 years of historical changes and divides.

How can we divide up 40 years of Chinese civil society? In books I have seen two schools of thought, one is that of the Nandu Foundation Director General Xu Yongguang’s ‘Three-point Theory’, which comes from his 2017 book “Civil society towards the Right, Business towards the Left”, and whose details I heard in an activity at the Shenzhen College of International Charity; the other is the Three Point Theory of Professor Gao Bingzhong of Peking University’s Civil Society Research Centre, which comes from his 2016 book ‘Citizens’ mutual trust and organisational structures in the sphere of society’. But their Three-Point Theories are not the same.

I will first explain their Three-Point Theories, and also try to make a fourth point. Before I begin, I will clarify that the object we are trying to divide gets called by many different names, the field of social organisations, the social field, civil society, the third sector, the charity or philanthropic sector and more. In this article I will mainly use the term “charity sector” to refer to it.

The concept of “charity” has many different definitions. I quote the Chinese Poverty Alleviation Foundation’s Former Executive President He Daofeng’s words, as they are easily understood – the voluntary involvement of private forces in public affairs.

 

Xu Yongguang’s three-stage theory

In his book “Civil society towards the Right, Business towards the Left”, Mr. Xu Yonghuang divides Chinese charity since the eighties and nineties into three periods, stressing the changes in the space available for social action that appeared in the midst of “state-society” relations.

The first stage is from the 80s until 2004, when reform of the charity sector began and the “state lets the private advance” (国让民进) setting arose, and “the government moved from high levels of centralised power to opening up a space, and supported the development of non-governmental and charitable ventures”. In 1998 the State Council passed the “Foundation Management Law”, after which some hundreds of Foundations with a government background were set up and carried out newly launched public welfare activities in the spheres of  education, healthcare, poverty relief.”

The second phase started in 2005. As Mr. Xu recalls in his book, this year was the first time Prime Minister Wen Jiabao proposed “Supporting the Development of Charitable Activities” in the Government Work Report in the National People’s Congress, and it was thought that the springtime was coming for China’s charity and philanthropy, but it didn’t even occur to us that afterwards a few local governments would turn “supporting the development of charitable activities” into “supporting charitable activities to develop a second source of taxes”.

After this and right through to around the time of the 18th Congress was considered to be “the state advances and the private retreats” (国进民退), but advancing to where? According to Mr. Xu’s argument, this period was one of “using one’s position for personal gain”, when public power tossed aside its identity as a referee, rolled up its sleeves and entered the charity sector that was the preserve of private volunteer activities, took the social resources and donations and did the work itself. After the 2008 Great Sichuan Earthquake, and the 2011 earthquake in Yushu, the government put social donations into its own bank accounts. This was an important sign that created a negative social impact, of which a notable consequence was the Guo Meimei incident in 2011.

After the 18th Congress, the next phase begun: “the state and society cooperate and compete”. “The phenomenon of seeking donations through power had basically stopped. In contrast, the government put forward funds towards social organisations for the procurement of public sector services, and this improved the efficiency of the services. The implementation of the “Charity Law” furthered clarified the dividing line between the state and the private sector within charity, and non-governmental charities received legal protection.

 

Gao Bingzhong’s three-stage theory

Professor Gao divides the development of China’s legal social organisations after the Reform and Opening Up into three phases, and he puts an emphasis on the influence of institutional changes on the number of social organisations.

The first phase in 1978-1987 was that of social organisations’ convalescence. During this period academic organisations recovered and flourished, and there was a surge of many kinds of social associations.

The second phase was from 1988 – 2001, when the social organisations where in a phase of complicated development during a process of consolidation. During this time the state set up the management office of social groups under the Ministry of Civil Affairs, and it established the “Double Supervision System”. The Ministry of Civil Affairs was mostly focused on restrictive management, leading two rounds of “cleaning up and consolidation” (清理整顿) and re-registration.

The first round of re-registrations happened through the “Foundations Management Law” and the “Regulations on the Management of the Registration of Social Groups” of 1988 and 1989. In the second half of 1989, the re-examination and registration of foundations and social groups took place in the whole country. Following this, from June 1990 to June 1991 the first national clearning up and consolidation was launched. This re-registration did not bring about a decline in the number of social groups, on the contrary it opened up opportunities for a large number of existing social organisations to register as legal persons.

The second “cleaning up and consolidation”, which brought about a decline in the number of social organisations, went from 1997 to 2001. On the 8th of April 1997, the State Council published a document by the Ministry of Civil Affairs about cleaning up and consolidation; in October 1998 the Ministry of Civil Affairs issued new “Regulations on the Registration and Management of Social Groups” and “Provisional Regulations on the Registration and Management of Citizen-run Non-enterprise Units”; in 2000, the Ministry of Civil Affairs issued the “Provisional Methods for the Suppression of Illegal Civil Society Organisations”, and the restricting and delisting of social organisations that failed to re-register led to a decline in the number of social groups.

The third phase was from 2002 until now, when the development of social organisations persisted and grew steadily. From the beginning of 2002, the number of social organisations started to rise again, and from the beginning of 2003, social organisations started to be classified as social groups, foundations and citizen-run non-enterprise units, and the total number of social organisations showed a trend of stable growth.

“In conclusion, after the high speed development and the twists and turns from 1988 to 2001, in the 10 years after 2002 the growth in the number of registered social organisations became an irreversible and stable trend. The growth had slower periods, but most years it stayed at a level of 8-11%, and the growth in 2015 was 1.7 times more than in 2002. This reflects a kind of ‘normal state’, and it reveals the relationship between society’s self-organising and the steadiness of the politics, economy and other factors at the macro level.”

 

An attempt at a four-stage theory

The ways in which Xu Yongguang and Gao Binzhong divide the charity field into different phases reveal the changes in the institutional environment in the sector and emphasize the role of government regulations and policies and administrative interventions in bringing changes with regards to the space for action and the number of organizations.

Nevertheless, questions such as which social forces should participate and how they should do so since the country “gave” space to them in 1978 remain undiscussed in Xu and Gao’s stage divisions analysis.

From a relatively neutral perspective, taking institutional changes and crucial events into account, I try to make a four-stage division spanning 40 years (1978-2018), and emphasize the sequence of social forces.

The first stage lasts 15 years, from 1978 to 1992, and it is the recovery and consolidation period.

After the state gave space, the first kind of organizations to debute on the charitable stage were charities with a government background and international NGOs (re)entering China, and they cooperated with each other. The earliest state-backed public fundraising foundation was the China Children and Teenagers Foundation, which was established in 1981 and is affiliated with the All China Women’s Federation.

Why could charitable organizations take the stage at this point? As Mr. Xu explains in his book: “at the beginning of the Reform and Opening-up, the government was quite poor and public participation alleviated the deficiency of government public service investment to some extent. ”

Due to the state’s approach of total management, where all should be arranged by the country, the international NGOs active during the Republic of China period were extinct by the 1950s. They started returning to China in the 1980s, but the peak was in the 1990s.

When introducing its work, the environmental organization WWF often mentions that its work in China dates back to the protection activities for the giant panda and its habitat in 1980, and “(it) was the first international organization invited by the Chinese government to operate protection activities”. The Ford Foundation established its office in 1988 in China, “becoming the first international NGO to obtain a special operating license in China.” ( The Roles and Challenges of International NGOs in China’s Development; Dr. Shawn Shieh (谢世宏); Signe Knutson (柯思林); China Development Brief Fall 2012 ). Of course, some international NGOs have not yet obtained any legal status, but they have already undertaking a fair amount of work in China.

According to The Roles and Challenges of International NGOs in China’s Development, there were 221 international NGOs in the country and 48 of them entered China during the period from 1978 to 1991, accounting for 22%.

The second stage lasted 11 years, from 1993 to 2003, ad it was the start-up period for grassroots organizations. There were also more international NGOs entering China during this period.

The middle class, such as media workers and intellectuals, became a new force in the charity field in this period. In the field of environmental protection that I have experienced, the first generation of grassroots environmental protection organizations such as Friends of Nature, the Green Home, and the Global Village were established during this period. This trend started in 1993, with the emblematic launch of Friends of Nature, and all four of the initiators had intellectual backgrounds, marking a difference from the origins of previous charitable organizations.

After the disturbances of the late 1980s, people with public concerns found in the environmental cause a new social opening. After all, environmental topics have the least ideological flavour. In August 2003, the news of the Nujiang dam construction came under the spotlight of the media and environmental protection NGOs. Civil society environmental organizations got involved in the discussion on a major national construction project for the first time, completing their overall coming out.

During this period, the hosting of the UN World Women’s Conference 1995 in Huairou, Beijing should be highlighted. Even though the conference’s location was shifted to the outskirts of Beijing, away from the crowds, the conference still played a significant role in introducing the word “NGO” to China, and it became an enlightening lesson for the first-generation of civil society practitioners in China.

The World Women’s Conference 1995 also brought in its wake the peak for international NGOs entering China. According to the statistics in The Roles and Challenges of International NGOs in China’s Development, there were 78 international NGOs entering China in 1996-2001, accounting for 35% of the total statistics (1978-2008).

The third stage went from 2004 to 2010, approximately seven years. In this period, capital and the strength of the public entered the stage of philanthropy.

The Foundations Management Ordinance, which was put into effect in June 2004, firstly divided foundations into public fundraising and non-public fundraising foundations. According to this ordinance non-public fundraising foundations could be established by social wealth, proving that capital had entered the philanthropic area. Henceforth enterprises and entrepreneurs, who benefited a lot from the reform and opening up, entered the philanthropic field in abundance. By 2010, there were more non-public fundraising foundations than public fundraising foundations for the first time.

Capital not only brought funds, but also a confident mindset and belief, and the advantages of its scale and objective effectiveness quickly spread to the whole sector.

The symbol of the strength of the masses entering the stage was the mass participation in the events of 2008, including the ice and snow disasters in southern China, the Beijing Olympics and the Wenchuan Earthquake. This year is often referred to as the first year of Chinese philanthropy (or civil society).

Capital and the strength of the masses entered the charity sector built up by NGOs with government backgrounds, overseas NGOs and public figures from the outside. While enriching and remodelling the sector, they also provided many hot topics in recent years, including the Ice Bucket Challenge, the 9/9 Philanthropy Day, the Free Lunch project, Chen Guangbiao’s “violent philanthropy” and more. This reminds us that reformation always come from the outside, bringing both pleasant surprises and worries.

At this point social forces with all kinds of background, including the authorities, international forces, capital, the elites and the masses were all present, and the charity sector had become a colorful, diverse and complex field, but it was also about to face a structural adjustment.

The fourth stage has been from 2011 to 2018, also approximately seven years. The charity sector entered a period of reconfiguration led by political authority, which still isn’t over.

In 2011, civil society turned into “the trap of civil society”, became a sensitive word, and finally retreated from the charity sector. After the adjustment of the discourse system, the resource structure and the legal system in the charity sector also readjusted in succession.

In September 2013, Guidance on the government purchase of services from the social forces was launched. The government would no longer take away social resources, but provided resources, purchase nongovernmental services and influence philanthropic development using resources.

In 2015, the general office of the CPC central committee launched “Opinions on Strengthening the Party Building among NGOs”, aimed at enhancing the leadership of the Communist Party.

In 2016 and 2017, the implementation of the Charity Law and the Overseas NGOs Law completely re-regulated the charity field from the legal perspective, and the influence of this is still unfolding.

On August 3, 2018, the government released the draft of the Regulations on NGOs Registration to solicit feedback from the public. The draft merges the Regulations on Social Groups Registration, the Foundation Management Ordinance and the Regulations on Private Non-Enterprise Registration. If the new regulations are put into effect, these three older regulations would be repealed at the same time.

In this period of reconfiguration the charity sector is filled with uncertainty, and all kinds of social forces are trying to adapt while they watch the developments.

The “marketization of philanthrophy” discourse would sometimes appear before 2011, but it was after 2011 that it really raised a clamour, to some extent filling the lack of meaningful discourse within the charity field, and becoming the loudest voice. This discourse system proposed to “solve social problems” through a professional, effective and large-scale approach, while it dodged or gave up upon the responsibility of charities to autonomously define such problems. Acquiring the legal space available in the new period by becoming simply a “tool to solve social problems”, it is hard to say whether it was a sincere cry or just a clever strategy.

In this four-stage division, we can see how the various social forces all entered at different stages, and their growth, ups and downs, and characteristics help to shape the charitable field.

At present the charity sector is in a reconstruction stage led by the authorities. Institutional space, relations among parties, methods of action and the sector’s culture are all under adjustment. The different actors are all trying to adapt with different moods, and a new structure is on the horizon.

如何划分公益领域40年?

今年是一个适于回望的年份,距离1978年正好40年,公益领域也在看过去、想未来。

10月14日我去清华大学旁听“中国社会组织40年见证与展望论坛暨清华NGO研究20周年”纪念活动,学者、前政府官员、实务工作者云集。上午大约4个小时,每人3-5分钟,30多人轮番回顾;下午2个平行研讨会展望下一个20年的NGO研究。整天时间紧凑而观点繁多,激发着在场的很多人。

如何看待公益领域过去的40年?有人尝试给历史划分阶段,一位讲者说,研究NGO的学人分两代、实务工作者有三代;有人看到40年的“起伏”和“周期”;有人在反思,如今指称、研究NGO的名词、概念频繁更换,是研究范式失去了解释能力,还是其它原因。

当提到周期、起伏、代际等词语,我们隐含着一个40年历史变迁与划分的关切。

如何划分公益领域40年?我在书面上看过两种分法,一种是南都基金会理事长徐永光先生的三分法,出自他2017年出版的《公益向右 商业向左》这本书,我也在深圳国际公益学院的一场活动,以及上述活动中听到他的三分法描述;另一种是北京大学公民社会研究中心高丙中教授的三分法,出自他2016年底出版的《社会领域的公民互信与组织构成》。但他们的三分法不一样。

我先介绍他们的三分法,也尝试做个四分法。开始前,我说明一下,所划分的对象有很多称呼,社会组织领域、社会领域、民间社会、第三部门、公民社会、公益(慈善)领域等等,本文我主要使用“公益领域”一词来指称这个存在。

关于“公益”的概念,有很多种定义,我引用中国扶贫基金会前执行会长何道峰的说法,比较通俗易懂——私力对公共事务的志愿性介入。

徐永光的三分法

徐永光先生在《公益向右 商业向左》中,把20世纪八九十年代以来的中国公益分三个阶段,着重呈现了“国家-社会”关系中社会行动空间的变化。

 

第一个阶段是80年代后期到2004年,公益在改革开放、“国让民进”的背景下发起,“政府从高度集权到开放空间,支持民间公益事业的发展”。1988年国务院通过《基金会管理办法》,之后数百家有政府背景的基金会设立并在教育、医疗、扶贫等领域开展公益活动,“为公民参与公共事务打开了通道”。

第二个阶段始于2005年。徐先生在书中提到,这年温家宝总理首次在全国人大《政府工作报告》中提出“支持慈善事业发展”,本来以为中国公益慈善的春天要来了,未曾想后来一些地方政府将“支持慈善事业发展”偷换成“支持慈善事业,发展第二税源”。

 

此后一直到十八大前后,算是“国进民退”,进在何处?按照徐先生的说法,这个时期“以权谋私”,公权力抛开裁判员身份,撸起袖子进入属于私力自愿活动的公益领域,要拿走社会资源捐赠资源自己干。2008年汶川地震,2011年玉树地震,政府要把社会捐款放进了自己的账户,是重要的表现,而这造成了恶劣的社会影响,比较突出的是2011年的郭美美事件。

 

而十八大以后,是处于“政社合作与博弈”的阶段。“以权谋捐的现象已经基本停止,反过来是政府拿出财政资金向社会组织采购公共服务,以提高公共服务的效率。《慈善法》的实施,进一步厘清了慈善的官民分野,民间慈善受到了法律规范的保护。”

高丙中的三分法

高教授把改革开放后的中国法人社会组织发展,划分为三个阶段,着重体现制度变迁对社会组织数量的影响。

第一阶段1978-1987,为社会组织恢复期,这一时期学术类组织恢复并蓬勃发展,涌现出各种各样的协会类组织。

第二阶段1988-2001,为社会组织在清理整顿中的曲折发展期,这一时期国家在民政部成立了社团管理司,确立了“双重管理体制”。民政部以限制性管理为主,领导了两次清理整顿和重新登记工作。

第一次重新登记是1988年和1989年分别通过了《基金会管理办法》和《社会团体登记管理条例》之后,1989年下半年基金会和社会团体的复查登记工作在全国范围内展开。随后,从1990年6月到1991年6月开展了第一次全国范围内的清理整顿。这次重新登记没有造成社会团体数量的下降,反而开启了已经存在的大量社会组织陆续登记成为法人的机会。

第二次清理整顿及其造成社会团体数量下降的影响是从1997年持续到2001年。1997年4月8日,国务院转发了民政部关于清理整顿的文件;1998年10月国务院颁布了新的《社会团体登记管理条例》和《民办非企业单位登记管理暂行条例》;2000年,民政部发布了《取缔非法民间组织暂行办法》,对未重新登记注册的各类社会组织进行限制和除名,这导致了社会团体数量的下降。

第三阶段2002-至今,为社会组织持续、稳定增长的发展期。从2002年开始,社会团体的数量开始回升从2003年开始,社会组织在统计上开始按社会团体、基金会和民办非企业单位的分类执行,社会组织的总量一直呈现稳定的上升趋势。

“总的来说,经过1988年到2001年的高速发展和波折之后,从2002年以来的10多年里,登记注册的社会组织的增长已经是一种不可逆的稳健趋势,其中,增长的幅度有减缓的时期,但是多数年份都保持在8%-11%的水平,而2015年比2002年增长了1.7倍。这反映出某种‘常态’,透露了社会的自组织化与政治、经济等宏观因素大致形成了平稳的关系”。

四分法尝试

徐永光和高丙中的公益领域阶段划分,呈现了公益领域的制度环境变迁,侧重政府法规政策、行政干预给公益领域带来的行动空间以及组织数量变化。

但是从1978年开始,国家“让”出空间后,有哪些社会力量以及如何参与进来,我们从他们两位的阶段划分中并不能看到。

本文从一个相对中观的视角,兼顾制度变迁、重要事件,我尝试做一个四阶段划分,跨度40年(1978-2018),着重凸显社会力量的“先后入场”。

第一阶段1978-1992,大约15年,为恢复与整顿期。

国家让出空间后,首先登上公益领域舞台的是政府背景的公益组织,以及(重新)进入国内开展业务的国际NGO,它们之间也开展各种合作。最早一家政府背景公募基金会是中国儿童少年基金会,1981年成立,隶属于全国妇联。

公益组织为何在这时能入场?徐永光先生在书中提到,“在改革开放之初,政府还很穷,公众参与也在一定程度上缓解了政府公共服务投入的不足”。

因为国家的总体主义管理思路,一切包办,民国时期在华活跃的国际NGO1950年代在华绝迹。它们重返中国,是在1980年代,但进入中国的峰值是在1990年代。

环保组织WWF在介绍自己时常提到,其在中国的工作始于1980年的大熊猫及其栖息地保护,“是第一个受中国政府邀请来华开展保护工作的国际非政府组织”;福特基金会在中国设立办公室是1988年,“成为第一个获得在中国特殊运营许可的国际NGO”(国际NGO在中国,作者/谢世宏 柯思林,中国发展简报2012第3期)。当然,也有一些国际NGO尚未有任何法律身份,但已经在华开展一定的工作。

据《国际NGO在中国》一文描述,221家国际NGO,于1978-1991年期间进入中国的有48家,占22%。

第二阶段1993-2003,大约11年,为草根组织的起步期,也有更多国际组织进入中国。

媒体人、知识分子等中产阶层成为这一时期公益领域的新生力量。拿我所经历的环保领域来说,自然之友、绿家园、地球村等第一代草根环保组织在此期间诞生,以1993年为起点,也是因为具有象征意义的自然之友在这一年发起,四位发起者皆是知识分子背景,这不同于以往的公益组织起源。

具有公共关怀的社会人士,在80年代末期风波之后,从环境议题上找到了新的社会切入口,毕竟环境话题最少意识形态色彩。2003年8月,怒江建坝消息公布,成为媒体和环保NGO关注的焦点,民间环保NGO第一次参与到国家重大工程建设的讨论中,完成了自己的整体亮相。

当然,这个阶段不能不提在北京怀柔举办的1995年世界妇女大会,尽管被改到北京郊区举办,远离人群,但这次大会依然发挥了很大的作用,它首次把“NGO”一词带进国内,成为很多中国第一代民间公益人的启蒙课。

1995年世界妇女大会也带来国际NGO进入中国的峰值,据《国际NGO在中国》一文统计,于1996-2001年进入中国的国际NGO有78家,占统计总量(1978-2008)的35%。

第三阶段是2004-2010,大约7年,资本与大众力量在此期间完成公益领域的登场。

2004年6月实施的《基金会管理条例》首次将基金会分为公募基金会和非公募基金会,社会财富可以依据这项法规发起成立非公募基金会,这成为资本进入公益领域的依据。此后,在改革开放中受益良多的企业以及企业家纷纷进入公益领域,到2010年,非公募基金会的数量首次超过公募基金会。

资本带来的不仅仅是资金,还带来了自信的思维方式和信念,以其规模和客观效果的优势,快速弥散入整个公益领域。

大众力量的进场,以2008年南方冰雪灾害、奥运会、汶川地震中的公众大规模参与为标志,该年往往被称为中国公益(或公民社会)元年。

资本与大众力量从外部切入政府背景NGO、境外NGO、社会人士参与构建的公益场域,丰富、重塑该场域的同时也贡献了近年来多数的社会公益热点,如冰桶挑战、99公益日、免费午餐、陈光标式暴力慈善等等。让我们再次认识到,颠覆总是从外部切入,有惊喜也有隐忧。

此时权力、国际、资本、精英与大众等各种背景的社会力量已全部在场,公益领域成为一个精彩纷呈、日新月异的多元复杂场域,但也将进入了调整阶段。

第四阶段是2011-2018,大约也是7年,公益领域进入权力主导的重构阶段,目前仍未结束。

2011年,“公民社会”成为“公民社会陷阱”,进而成为敏感词,基本退出公益领域;话语体系调整之后,公益领域的资源来源结构、法律制度陆续被调整。

2013年9月国务院《关于政府向社会力量购买服务的指导意见》发布,‘政府购买社会组织服务’起来,不再伸手拿走社会的资源,而是发放资源,购买民间的服务,用资源来影响公益。

2015年中共中央办公厅印发《关于加强社会组织党的建设工作的意见(试行)》,要切实加强党对社会组织的领导。

2016年和2017年先后实施的《慈善法》和《境外非政府组织境内活动管理法》彻底从法律制度上重新规制了公益领域,其影响尚在展现之中。

今年8月3日,政府公布了《社会组织登记管理条例(草案征求意见稿)》,征求意见稿合并了现行《社会团体登记管理条例》、《基金会管理条例》和《民办非企业单位登记管理暂行条例》。若新条例正式施行,前述三大条例将同时废止。10月14日北京日报的报道,北京市民政局党委书记、局长李万钧表示,北京所有社会组织已基本实现党的组织“全覆盖”。

重构中的公益领域,充满了不确定性,各类社会力量也在观望中去尝试适应。

“公益市场化”话语之前已零星展现,但真正甚嚣尘上,是在2011年之后,某种程度上是填补了公益领域的话语缺失,成为此间最大的一种声音。这套话语倡导以专业、有效、规模化的方式“解决社会问题”的同时,也放弃或回避了公益组织自主定义社会问题的责任,通过仅仅做“问题解决工具”而在新时代里获取自身存在的合法空间,不知道是真诚的呐喊还是聪明的策略。

除了新话语,公益组织要适应的还很多。考虑“政-社”关系的同时,还要处理“党-社”关系;要调整过往的资源结构,学会在境内获取资金,比如政府购买服务、互联网筹款;要学会论证自身工作的专业性和有效性,放弃独特见解,甚至主体性,努力做一个有用的工具。

在这个四分法里,我们看到,各种社会力量都有自己的入场时段,之后留在场域中,生长、起伏,以各自的基因塑造着这个领域。

而今公益领域处于权力主导的重构期,制度空间、各方关系、行动方法与行业文化等等都在调整,行动主体也在带着不同的心情去尽力适应,新结构呼之欲出。

Translated by Serena Chang, Yin Qian, Chunzi

No related content found.

Share: