Thoughts on the Role of the Social Sector in China

by Angel Lin

What role should the social sector, also commonly called “the third sector”, play in China? In this unprecedented pandemic crisis, it has been laid bare that government and businesses cannot satisfy all market and social needs and that the third sector is indispensable to a functional society. From conversations with several Chinese foundations and observations in Chinese media reports, we have learnt of many examples of social organizations bursting out, showing great resilience and huge potential. Despite the importance of the social sector in China, its evolution and role in China has not been continuously embraced.

Often times, I hear social organization staff describing their jobs in a half-joking way as dealing with the “old, weak, sick and disabled”. This also reflects, to some extent, the general public’s perception of the third sector. It seems that this sector only serves marginalized groups and is insignificant to the rest of mainstream society. Although both NGOs and GONGOs exist in the social sector, we also hear statements that these organizations do what the government and private sector are “unwilling to do, do not do well, or do not often do”. [1]

Formal social organizations in China have developed rapidly in recent decades and are still in a state of flux. During this crisis, social organizations have done a lot more than just “leak check and supplement” (in Chinese terms), defying the common belief about this sector’s role.  Social organizations are operating like sensors and connectors linking various stakeholders—public and private—and they have become a key adhesive for the rebuilding of social structures. We have seen a large number of grassroot organizations, using their keen awareness of social issues, their social capital and credibility to attend to social needs. “Wuhan Ginkgo Action” is an excellent example of this, mobilizing its social resources to raise more than 2,000 oxygen generators for key epidemic areas and organizing an innovative “online doctor diagnosis program”. In addition to support through donations, we have also seen many other examples of nimble grassroot efforts such as the provision of community emergency services, care for special groups, and development of collaborative platforms to match resources and demand.

China still does not have a well-established and systematic infrastructure in the social sector, which limits the potential of scaling up any collaboration. This is partly related to the state’s attitude which remains wary of any type of large-scale collaboration. Over time, the government has vacillated in its approach to social organizations moving back and forth from shunning, to embracing, to coopting. How will the current crisis and the social sector’s response affect the government’s attitude? Will it be willing to allow social organizations to take on a larger role? Can the two sides use their respective strengths and take a step closer to long-term partnerships?

One promising sign is the new “Measures for the Administration of Government Procurement of Services (政府购买服务管理方法)”, issued just a few weeks ago.  It shows that the government may now more fully realize the utility of the social sector and may want to encourage growth. Among other changes, the regulation enlarges the scope of government procurement, and specifies its focus on livelihood services such as social welfare and social assistance, as well as the arena of social governance such as community services, social work and legal aid. This is an opportunity that social organizations should and can seize.

During the pandemic, the social sector has been stepping up and showing great power and potential. With the crisis and the subsequent economic downturn leaving a huge impact on people’s livelihoods, it is urgently necessary for social organizations to be even more proactive and assume more responsibilities. Having witnessed the important role the social sector can play, now is the time for the government and the citizenry of China to embrace this development.

[1] Tang, X. G., & Wang, X. G. (2011, Nov. 24). 王绍光论第三部门在中国的发展及未来[Wang Shaoguang on the development and future of the third sector in China]. Retrieved May 8, 2020 from https://gongyi.qq.com/a/20120111/000019.htm

疫情过后对中国第三部门的几点思考

社会组织，或者在中国常提及的第三部门，应该在社会中发挥怎样的作用？这次前所未有的疫情危机清楚表明，政府和私营部门不能满足所有的市场和社会需求，在一个运行健全的社会体系中，第三部门必不可缺。从对部分中国基金会的访谈和媒体报道的观察中，我们看到了社会组织迸发出来的创造力和巨大的潜力。然而，尽管其重要性似乎毋庸置疑，其发展和定位却颇具曲折。

记得以前接触的社会组织工作人员和志愿者时常会自嘲，自己只是跟“老弱病残”打交道。这也侧面反映了民间对第三部门的认知，似乎这个行业只是服务于边缘人群，在主流商业社会中显得微不足道。虽然第三部门在中国包括官方和民间非营利组织，学术界也有主张将其定位为从事政府和私营企业“不愿做，做不好，或不常做”的事 （清華大學公共管理學院長江講座教授王绍光教授）。

诚然，正式的社会组织在中国的快速发展是中国近几十年来出现的，其定位也在政府的改革和市场的反应中逐步演变。 这次疫情和封城中社会结构和功能的轰然坍塌，正式的社会组织和非正式的自组织所做的绝不仅仅是“查漏补遗“。我们见到了一大批草根组织和社会力量，在危机中运用其对社会问题的敏锐察觉力，其长期积累的社会资本和公信力，成为重建社会结构的一个关键粘合剂。“武汉银杏行动”就是这样的一个绝佳例子，运用其社会资源为疫情重点地区筹集了两千多台制氧机。除了款物捐赠支援，我们还看到了很多例子包括社区自发的应急服务，对特殊群体的关怀，和协作平台的搭建。

尽管疫情当中社会力量参与的例子数量可观，大多数行动却仍是规模有限。社会组织长期缺乏大规模的协作体系。一部分原因在于国家对此的态度–政府对于任何大规模的协助体系一向比较警惕。政府对社会组织的态度一向摇摆不定。经历此次危机和社会力量在此期间发挥的积极作用，政府是否会改变对第三部门的态度吗？是否会对社会组织更加放心放手？双方是否能发挥各自所长，向着伙伴关系迈近一步？

令人欣慰的是，今年三月份中国新出台的《政府购买服务管理方法》显现出政府意识到并愿意促进第三部门发挥的积极作用。《方法》除了扩大购买服务的主体范围，还突出重点在民生保障领域如社会事业，社会福利和社会救助等服务项目，和社会治理领域的社区服务，社会工作，法律援助等。这是社会组织应该并可以抓住的机会。

疫情当中我们看到了社会力量的巨大潜力。疫情过后和经济下行对民生的冲击巨大，急切需要社会组织发挥所长承担更多责任。见证了社会组织在此期间发挥的积极作用，政府和民众是时候拥抱第三部门的蓬勃发展了。