Editors’ Note: Yongzheng Yang continues HistPhil‘s Inclusive Study of Global Philanthropy forum, with a focus on the study of philanthropy in China.

Although philanthropy is generally defined as voluntary action for the public good, the inherent meaning and understanding of such a concept varies by country or culture. In this post I will share several issues and phenomena relating to the study of philanthropy in China, building upon current literature, as well as my own research and experiences as a scholar working in Beijing.

First, there are several different concepts related to philanthropy in China. In fact, Chinese people often use terms such as gongyi, cishan, xingshan, zuohaoshi, and shanju when talking about philanthropy or charity. Frankly speaking, there are no clear lines between them and different people may prefer to use different terms to refer to the same or similar phenomenon. One thing interesting to note is the similarities and differences between philanthropy and charity in China. Although most empirical studies in China don’t differentiate between the two terms, for many Chinese people, philanthropy and charity tend to have slightly different meanings. It seems that gongyi can be more closely translated into the term philanthropy, while cishan can be translated into charity. Philanthropy or gongyi means public good or welfare for the general public, whereas charity or cishan means benefits to disadvantaged groups. The first Charity Law in China (2016), however, uses the term charity or cishan, but actually refers to philanthropy or gongyi. Ultimately, there is no general consensus on how to apply the terms, and though it is not surprising that researchers tend to use them interchangeably, it does complicate analysis.

Second, especially compared to formal giving, or giving to NGOs, informal giving is quite common in China. Philanthropy in western scholarship tends to be understood as formal giving of money and time to nonprofit organizations. This strongly influences philanthropy research in China. Many Chinese researchers, including me, often regard philanthropy as synonymous with formal giving in their published articles. Nevertheless, the reality is that formal giving is only part of philanthropy in China and there are several other philanthropic behaviors in terms of informal giving. As Xiaoguang Kang, a well-known nonprofit and philanthropy researcher in China, argued in a recent article:

Charitable organizations are not the only subject of philanthropic behavior. Philanthropy can be done via charitable organizations, that is, regarding charitable organizations as an intermediary, but it can also be done without such an intermediary. For example, there are donations between acquaintances such as relatives, friends, colleagues, classmates, and fellow villagers. There are donations in internet platforms such as Waterdrop and EasyPay and it is estimated that by May 2020, a total of 70 billion Chinese yuan and 3 billion donations have occurred in the two platforms in less than five years. These acts of voluntary giving are consistent with the general public’s understanding of philanthropy in China. Obviously, they are not made through charitable organizations, and the beneficiaries are not an “unspecific majority”[1], but they are reasonably identified as philanthropic behaviors. [translated from Chinese by author]

Third, political context matters a great deal in China for how philanthropy is understood and measured. Due to a lack of democratic institutions and the long-term “strong government yet weak society” in the country’s history, the influence of the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese government is substantial for philanthropy. I believe the influence can be found in at least the following four aspects. The first concerns where charitable giving goes. In addition to directly going to the beneficiaries and indirectly going through charitable organizations, a large proportion of charitable donations goes to civil affairs departments, the government agency which is responsible for the registration and supervision of nonprofits in China. The second relates to the extent to which charitable giving is voluntary. In addition to truly voluntary giving, there is suggested giving or coercive giving in China. Chinese Communist Party members or individuals working in governments or state-owned enterprises are more likely to encounter coercive giving. For example, when severe natural disasters occur (e.g., earthquakes and typhoon), Chinese Communist Party members or individuals working in governments or state-owned enterprises are always required to “donate” to the victims. These donations are voluntary on the surface but coercive in practice.

The third concerns the political implication of philanthropy. In addition to viewing philanthropy as an individual behavior, the Chinese government endows philanthropy with political implications. Philanthropy is seen as the tertiary distribution, together with the market as the primary distribution and governmental behavior as redistribution, to adjust income distribution. Specifically, philanthropy is expected to be a governmental tool to reduce income inequality in China. For instance, according to the report from the Fourth Plenary Session of the 19th Chinese Communist Party Central Committee, the Communist Party and Chinese government encourage the development of philanthropic causes to play a role in income distribution. And the last aspect stems from negative connotations of philanthropy for the government. Due to the role of Western nonprofit organizations in Color revolutions in non-Western countries (i.e., anti-regime protest movements and accompanying changes of government in non-democratic countries) and particularly in Hong Kong a few years ago, the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese government have increasingly been on guard against overseas nonprofits and have exerted control on local nonprofits. Charitable giving going to nonprofits therefore has negative connotations for the Chinese government.

I think research on Chinese philanthropy should pay special attention to the above three issues: the various definitions and understandings of philanthropy, the strong role of informal giving and philanthropy’s political context. Regarding the various definitions and understandings of philanthropy, I feel it is acceptable to use different terms interchangeably, but if necessary researchers should take care of those slight differences. As for the strong role of informal giving, if possible, researchers ought to differentiate between formal giving and informal giving in their empirical studies. It also would be better if researchers devote more efforts to explore the different types of informal giving and their antecedents and consequences. In addition, given philanthropy’s political context in China, researchers should always keep this context in mind when studying philanthropic issues or phenomena. For instance, when explaining a phenomenon in China using a Western-based theory, it is important to consider the applicability and boundaries of those theories. Without proper treatment of the unique Chinese context, it is hardly possible to advance research on global philanthropy. This is because, in addition to pursuing common values and prospects, research on global philanthropy also needs to take differing contexts in various countries into account.

However, at least three boundaries limit the voice of Chinese philanthropy in the development of an inclusive global study of philanthropy.

The first relates to China’s unique political context as a non-democratic regime. On the one hand, researchers and the general public in Western countries may not be interested in philanthropy in an authoritarian regime; some might even believe that there is no philanthropy under authoritarianism, so they may not want to devote efforts to understand philanthropy in China. On the other hand, because of the negative connotations of philanthropy and nonprofits for the government in China, the development of philanthropy is under state control and cannot develop freely and smoothly like in democratic countries, which weakens the influence of Chinese philanthropy throughout the world.

Second, there is a lack of high-quality philanthropy data in China. With the development of social science in the country, an increasing number of surveys have included questions on philanthropy. However, too many issues limit the use of these surveys. For example, the nationally representative China Family Panel Study (CFPS) only has a simple question about philanthropy, measuring it as the amount of household donations; the Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) has rich information about philanthropy only in the 2012 wave; the Chinese Social Survey (CSS) only focuses on one form of philanthropic behavior, namely volunteering; all of the social surveys focus primarily on formal giving and neglect the importance of informal philanthropy in China. Perhaps due to the lack of high-quality philanthropy data, researchers often study nonprofit organizations rather than philanthropic behavior in China. In other words, organizational level analyses of nonprofit development are more prevalent than individual level analyses of philanthropic behavior. Although it is important to understand the development and operation of nonprofit organizations in China, it is equally important to understand philanthropic behavior for researchers in the nonprofit sector. From this perspective, more high-quality philanthropy data are needed for future research.

Finally, the language issue cannot be ignored. Frankly speaking, English is the world language and it seems English-speaking countries are more visible in the world. Chinese is different from English in grammars and structures, which makes it difficult for English-speaking individuals to learn Chinese and Chinese-speaking individuals to learn English. So, although there is much Chinese literature about philanthropy, the literature is of little help for people in other countries to understand philanthropy in China and study global philanthropy. In this vein, more communications and English Chinese translations are necessary.

These challenges are significant, but they are essential to meet if a truly inclusive study of global philanthropy is to develop in the years to come.

-Yongzheng Yang

Yongzheng Yang is an assistant professor at the School of Public Administration and Policy, Renmin University of China. His work has been published in Nature Human Behaviour, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Voluntas, Voluntary Sector Review, China Nonprofit Review, Social Science Research, and Social Science Quarterly.

---

[1] The phrase refers to the legal requirement that charity benefits the general public or a wide range of individuals and is not meant to benefit specific individuals.