Skip to main content

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
NGOs and Accountability in China

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooker, P. (2000). Non-democratic Regimes: Theory, Government and Politics. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bueno de Mesquita, B., Smith, A., Siverson, R. M., & Morrow, J. D. (2003). The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassani, A. (2017). Social services to claim legitimacy: Comparing autocracies’ performance. Journal of Contemporary Politics, 23(3), 348–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Collier, D. (2011). Understanding process tracing. PS: Political Science and Politics, 44(4), 823–830.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornwall, A., & Gaventa, J. (2000). From users and choosers to makers and shapers: Repositioning participation in social policy. IDS Bulletin, 31(4), 50–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L. (2002). Elections without democracy: Thinking about hybrid regimes. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dukalskis, A., & Gerschewski, J. (2017). What autocracies say (and what citizens hear): Proposing four mechanisms of autocratic legitimation. Contemporary Politics, 23(3), 251–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edele, A. (2005). Non-governmental Organizations in China. Geneva: Centre for Applied Studies in International Negotiations (CASIN). Retrieved from http://www.casin.ch/web/pdf/chinafinal.pdf.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gandhi, J. (2008). Political Institutions under Dictatorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • George, A. L. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, J. (2007). Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, XLIV(5), 936–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilhorst, D. (2003). The Real World of NGOs: Discourses, Diversity and Development. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organisations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell, J. (2009). Government-organised nongovernment organisations. In D. Pong (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Modern China. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell, J. (2015). Shall we dance? Welfarist incorporation and the politics of state-labour NGO relations. The China Quarterly, 223, 702–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell, J., & Pearce, J. (2001). Civil Society and Development: A Critical Exploration. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, X. (2015). Four worlds of welfare: Understanding subnational variation in Chinese social health insurance. The China Quarterly, 222, 449–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilby, P. (2006). Accountability for empowerment: Dilemmas facing non-governmental organisations. World Development, 34(6), 951–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (2007). The Management of Non-governmental Development Organisations (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lu, Y. Y. (2009). Non-governmental Organisations in China: The Rise of Dependent Autonomy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, S. (1994). The Chinese discourse on civil society. The China Quarterly, 137, 180–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative Researching. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattei, P. (2009). Restructuring Welfare Organizations in Europe, from Democracy to Good Management? London: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, A. J. (2003). Authoritarian resilience. Journal of Democracy, 14(1), 6–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, A. J. (2009). Authoritarian impermanence. Journal of Democracy, 20(3), 37–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, G. (1979). Modernisation and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism: Studies in South American Politics. Berkeley: California University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlmutter, A. (1981). Modern Authoritarianism: A Comparative Institutional Analysis. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Shang, X., Wu, X., & Wu, Y. (2005). Welfare provision to vulnerable children: The missing role of the state. The China Quarterly, 181, 122–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shier, H. (2010). Children as public actors: Navigating the tensions. Children and Society, 24(1), 24–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unger, J. (Ed.). (2008). Associations and the Chinese State: Contested Spaces. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Evera, S. (1997). Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca: University of Cornell Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, G., Howell, J., & Shang, X. (1996). In Search of Civil Society: Market Reform and Social Change in Contemporary China. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wintrobe, R. (1998). The Political Economy of Dictatorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1998). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Howell, J., Shang, X., Fisher, K.R. (2019). Introduction. In: NGOs and Accountability in China. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90221-0_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics