• Jude Howell
  • Xiaoyuan Shang
  • Karen R. Fisher


Chapter one opens the book by setting the general context of NGOs in China, an authoritarian state and child welfare. It introduces the theme of the book, the politics of crafting accountability and legitimacy in NGOs in China, illustrated through the case of child welfare organisations. It clears the conceptual path by defining accountability and introduces our novel framework of analysis around second-order accountability and the accumulation of stocks of accountability capital. It outlines key research questions around how NGOs build accountability and legitimacy, the hierarchies of accountability this leads to and the politics of these processes. It explains why we choose China and child welfare groups to explore this. It describes the methods and structure of the book.


NGOs Child welfare Authoritarianism Accountability Legitimacy Institutional change Politics 


  1. Bebbington, A., Hickey, S., & Mitlin, D. (2008). Introduction: Can NGOs make a difference? The challenge of development alternatives. In A. Bebbington, S. Hickey, & D. Mitlin (Eds.), Can NGOs Make a Difference? The Challenge of Development Alternatives (pp. 3–37). London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, A. (2010). Process tracing and causal inference. In H. E. Brady & D. Collier (Eds.), Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards (2nd ed., pp. 207–219). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  3. Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooker, P. (2000). Non-democratic Regimes: Theory, Government and Politics. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bueno de Mesquita, B., Smith, A., Siverson, R. M., & Morrow, J. D. (2003). The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cassani, A. (2017). Social services to claim legitimacy: Comparing autocracies’ performance. Journal of Contemporary Politics, 23(3), 348–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cavet, J., & Sloper, P. (2004). The participation of children and young people in decisions about UK service development. Child: Care, Health and Development, 30(6), 613–621.Google Scholar
  8. China Youth Newspaper. (2013, January 1). Mass media reporting the death of seven orphans in Henan: Abandoned when they were alive, and death because of neglect.Google Scholar
  9. Collier, D. (2011). Understanding process tracing. PS: Political Science and Politics, 44(4), 823–830.Google Scholar
  10. Cornwall, A., & Gaventa, J. (2000). From users and choosers to makers and shapers: Repositioning participation in social policy. IDS Bulletin, 31(4), 50–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diamond, L. (2002). Elections without democracy: Thinking about hybrid regimes. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Douthwaite, M., Hammer, M., & Mayhew, S. (2006). Balancing protection and pragmatism: A framework for NGO accountability in rights-based approaches. Health and Human Rights, 9(2), 180–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dukalskis, A., & Gerschewski, J. (2017). What autocracies say (and what citizens hear): Proposing four mechanisms of autocratic legitimation. Contemporary Politics, 23(3), 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edele, A. (2005). Non-governmental Organizations in China. Geneva: Centre for Applied Studies in International Negotiations (CASIN). Retrieved from
  15. Fisher, K. R., Li, J., & Fan, L. (2011). Barriers to the supply of nongovernment disability services in China. Journal of Social Policy, 41(1), 161–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gandhi, J. (2008). Political Institutions under Dictatorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. George, A. L. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gerring, J. (2007). Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, XLIV(5), 936–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hilhorst, D. (2003). The Real World of NGOs: Discourses, Diversity and Development. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  21. Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organisations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Howell, J. (2009). Government-organised nongovernment organisations. In D. Pong (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Modern China. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
  23. Howell, J. (2015). Shall we dance? Welfarist incorporation and the politics of state-labour NGO relations. The China Quarterly, 223, 702–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Howell, J., & Pearce, J. (2001). Civil Society and Development: A Critical Exploration. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  25. Huang, X. (2015). Four worlds of welfare: Understanding subnational variation in Chinese social health insurance. The China Quarterly, 222, 449–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kilby, P. (2006). Accountability for empowerment: Dilemmas facing non-governmental organisations. World Development, 34(6), 951–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lewis, D. (2007). The Management of Non-governmental Development Organisations (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Linz, J. (1970). An authoritarian regime: Spain. In E. Allardt & S. Rokkan (Eds.), Mass Politics: Studies in Political Sociology. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lu, Y. Y. (2009). Non-governmental Organisations in China: The Rise of Dependent Autonomy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Ma, S. (1994). The Chinese discourse on civil society. The China Quarterly, 137, 180–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative Researching. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Mattei, P. (2009). Restructuring Welfare Organizations in Europe, from Democracy to Good Management? London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nathan, A. J. (2003). Authoritarian resilience. Journal of Democracy, 14(1), 6–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nathan, A. J. (2009). Authoritarian impermanence. Journal of Democracy, 20(3), 37–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. O’Donnell, G. (1979). Modernisation and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism: Studies in South American Politics. Berkeley: California University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Perlmutter, A. (1981). Modern Authoritarianism: A Comparative Institutional Analysis. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Salamon, L., & Anheier, H. (1992). In search of the non-profit sector, I: The question of definitions. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 13(2), 125–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Samuel, P. Huntington., & Clement, H. Moore, eds. (1970). Authoritarian Politics in Modern Society: The Dynamics of Established One-Party Systems. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  40. Shang, X., Wu, X., & Wu, Y. (2005). Welfare provision to vulnerable children: The missing role of the state. The China Quarterly, 181, 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shier, H. (2010). Children as public actors: Navigating the tensions. Children and Society, 24(1), 24–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Unger, J. (Ed.). (2008). Associations and the Chinese State: Contested Spaces. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  43. Van Evera, S. (1997). Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca: University of Cornell Press.Google Scholar
  44. White, G., Howell, J., & Shang, X. (1996). In Search of Civil Society: Market Reform and Social Change in Contemporary China. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wintrobe, R. (1998). The Political Economy of Dictatorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yin, R. K. (1998). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Zhong, L., & Fisher, K. R. (2017). Participation and Chinese non-government organization accountability. International Journal of Sociology and Social policy, 37(13/14), 743–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jude Howell
    • 1
  • Xiaoyuan Shang
    • 2
  • Karen R. Fisher
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of International DevelopmentLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonUK
  2. 2.Social Policy Research CentreUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Social Policy Research CentreUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations