The study marks a deliberate shift in how scholars examine charitable behavior. Much of the existing philanthropy research focuses on individual donors: why people give, what motives drive them, and how trust or social norms shape their choices. By contrast, the Chinese team treated the donation itself as a tie between organizations, moving the analytic focus from personal giving decisions to observed interorganizational flows of money. This network perspective allowed the researchers to ask structural questions that individual-level studies cannot easily address. Who occupies the center of the philanthropic system? Which foundations act as intermediaries channeling resources to others, and which sit quietly at the edges receiving little attention?

Methodologically, the researchers combed through mandatory annual reports that Chinese foundations are required to file, extracting every recorded donation from one foundation to another. Because the reports cover the entire country and an eight-year span, the dataset captures the philanthropic system at a scale rarely possible in Western studies, where giving data are often fragmented across surveys, tax records, or grant databases. Each donation between a donor and a recipient foundation became an edge in a growing network, with the donation amount attached as a weight. Across the 2016 to 2023 window, the number of ties grew substantially, signaling an increasingly dense web of financial relationships within the foundation sector.

Yet growth in the number of connections did not translate into a more even distribution of money. One of the study’s clearest findings is that financial resources remained highly concentrated throughout the period. Lower-value donation ties became more common over time, suggesting that many foundations now engage in frequent but modest exchanges. However, large and major donations continued to account for nearly all of the annual donation amounts recorded in the network. In other words, the topology of giving broadened while its economic backbone stayed narrow: a small number of heavyweight transfers still carried the overwhelming bulk of philanthropic capital each year.

To make sense of thousands of organizations and tens of thousands of ties, the researchers classified recipient foundations according to two structural dimensions: donor reach, meaning how many distinct donors a foundation attracted, and brokerage, meaning how strongly a foundation served as an intermediary through which donations passed within the network. Combining these dimensions produced four distinct structural positions. Broker hubs combined high donor reach with the strongest brokerage, acting as central crossroads where money from many sources converged and was passed onward. Reach hubs had the broadest donor base but relatively limited brokerage, collecting funds from many donors without serving as major conduits for other organizations’ exchanges.

The remaining two positions rounded out the structural map. Core receivers showed moderate donor reach and limited brokerage, occupying a middle tier of foundations that reliably attract support but do not channel flows between others. Peripheral receivers, finally, had limited donor reach and little brokerage, sitting at the margins of the network with few incoming ties and no meaningful intermediary role. This fourfold typology transforms an abstract network diagram into an organizational sociology of Chinese philanthropy, showing that foundations are not interchangeable recipients of charity but occupy differentiated niches defined by how they connect to the wider system.

What determines whether a foundation climbs into one of the coveted hub positions? The study found that organizational characteristics mattered systematically. Older recipient foundations were more commonly found in broker hub and reach hub positions, reflecting the accumulation of reputation, relationships, and track record over time. Public fundraising qualification, a regulatory status in China that permits foundations to solicit donations from the general public rather than relying on restricted sources, also increased the likelihood of occupying a hub position. Foundations with larger boards and more full-time staff were similarly overrepresented among the hubs, suggesting that organizational capacity and governance structures translate directly into network centrality.

These findings carry significant implications beyond China. The country now hosts one of the world’s largest foundation sectors, yet it remains understudied relative to Western philanthropy, where most theory about charitable giving has been built. By demonstrating that network position, not just donation volume, differentiates organizations, the study provides a template for analyzing philanthropic systems in other large non-Western settings. It also echoes earlier work on nonprofit networks, which has shown that board interlocks and network embeddedness shape grant acquisition and organizational growth. The Chinese evidence extends that tradition with nationwide data, linking structural position to concrete organizational attributes such as staffing and fundraising rights.

The concentration of resources identified in the study raises practical concerns for policymakers and sector leaders. If large and major donations dominate the flow of philanthropic money, then a limited set of well-connected hub foundations effectively controls access to the sector’s financial lifeblood. Peripheral receivers, despite their numbers, may struggle to secure funding regardless of the quality of their programs. At the same time, the rise of lower-value ties suggests a broadening participation in giving that could, over time, diversify the funding base. Whether that broadening eventually dilutes the dominance of major gifts, or merely adds a long tail beneath an unchanged top tier, is a question the coming years of foundation reports may answer.

For now, the study stands as the most comprehensive structural portrait of Chinese philanthropy yet produced, and a demonstration of what large-scale network analysis can reveal about the third sector. By reconstructing 34,325 donation ties across eight years, the researchers showed that an expanding philanthropic network can coexist with persistent inequality in resource distribution, and that four clearly defined organizational positions structure who gives, who receives, and who connects. As charitable giving continues to grow worldwide, the lesson from China is that understanding philanthropy requires looking not only at individual generosity but at the architecture of organizations through which that generosity flows.

Subject of Research: The structure of interorganizational donation networks among Chinese foundations from 2016 to 2023

Article Title: Mapping the donation network in China: evidence of 5,123 foundations from 2016 to 2023

Article References: Mapping the donation network in China: evidence of 5,123 foundations from 2016 to 2023. (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43508-026-00159-7

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s43508-026-00159-7

Keywords: charitable giving, donation network, foundations, social network analysis, philanthropy in China, brokerage, donor reach, resource concentration, nonprofit organizations, third sector research, Mapping, donation

The study arrives at a moment when China has become one of the world’s most fertile laboratories for digitally mediated giving. Internet fundraising platforms, mobile payment ecosystems, and artificial intelligence tools have transformed the way donations flow, allowing even small grassroots organizations to reach millions of potential donors with a single campaign. Yet scholars have struggled to explain precisely how this digital infrastructure translates into greater social impact. Earlier research tended to treat technology as a neutral tool, a cost-saving channel for collecting money, or a marketing megaphone. Yin and Miao argue that this framing misses the essential point: what changes is the information itself, its cost, its granularity, and its dynamism, and those informational properties ripple through every layer of an organization’s operational logic.

To build their argument, the researchers followed three Chinese nonprofit organizations over an extended period, tracing how their digital practices evolved and what consequences followed. Case study research of this kind, grounded in the methodological tradition of inductive theory building, allows scholars to unpack micro-mechanisms that large-scale surveys often obscure. Rather than asking whether digital tools correlate with fundraising success, the authors asked what actually happens inside organizations as they adopt and adapt digital philanthropy, and how those internal changes compound over time into amplified social outcomes.

From this longitudinal analysis the authors propose what they call the Information-Impact theory. The theory conceptualizes digital philanthropy as an information-driven paradigm in which the defining feature of digital technologies is their capacity to generate, transmit, and process information at radically lower cost and higher speed than analog alternatives. Classic information systems scholarship, including the influential DeLone and McLean model of information systems success, has long held that information quality drives user satisfaction and system benefits. Yin and Miao extend that logic into the third sector, arguing that information is not merely an input to nonprofit operations but the substrate from which scale, precision, and legitimacy can be manufactured.

The first of the three mechanisms the study identifies is a scale expansion mechanism. When information can be produced and distributed at near-zero marginal cost, nonprofit organizations can activate what the authors describe as scalable management for cross-boundary resource mobilization. A campaign that once required printed materials, physical events, and labor-intensive donor cultivation can now propagate through social networks at negligible expense, reaching audiences far beyond an organization’s geographic or institutional footprint. Prior field experiments on peer-to-peer solicitation through online social networks have shown how digital channels change the economics of fundraising, and the Chinese cases demonstrate how organizations institutionalize that advantage, building management systems designed from the ground up for mass participation rather than retrofitting traditional structures.

The second mechanism is a precision-deepening mechanism. High-granularity information, meaning data captured at fine levels of detail about beneficiaries, donors, and project conditions, enables algorithmic matching between resources and needs. This is where the study’s technical contribution becomes most visible. Complex social problems, such as poverty alleviation, education access, or disaster relief, are rarely uniform; they vary by household, by region, and over time. Digital platforms collect continuous streams of data that allow nonprofits to segment needs with unprecedented resolution and to direct resources where they will do the most good. Machine learning research on crowdfunding performance and explainable AI for charitable decision-making suggests that such algorithmic matching is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and the Chinese cases show organizations embedding these techniques into their core service delivery rather than treating them as experimental side projects.

The third mechanism, which the authors call an agile reshaping mechanism, concerns the temporal dimension of information. Highly dynamic information flows enable rapid feedback loops between organizations and their stakeholders, and these loops do something subtler than improving efficiency: they generate what the researchers describe as procedural legitimacy and multi-stakeholder trust. Organizational theorists have long argued, following Mark Suchman’s classic work on legitimacy, that nonprofits survive on the credibility granted to them by donors, regulators, and beneficiaries. Digital platforms make an organization’s decision processes visible in near real time. Donors can see where money goes, beneficiaries can report outcomes, and regulators can audit behavior. Transparency ceases to be an annual report and becomes a continuous property of operations, and that procedural visibility builds trust in a way that retrospective reporting cannot.

Individually, each of these three mechanisms would be significant. What makes the study’s argument distinctive is the claim that the mechanisms are synergistic and generate a self-reinforcing flywheel effect. Scale expansion brings in more participants and more data; the growing data stream deepens precision; precision improves outcomes and feedback quality; and agile responses to that feedback strengthen legitimacy, which in turn attracts more resources and further scale. The flywheel metaphor implies that digital philanthropy, once set in motion, tends to compound rather than merely add. Social impact is amplified systematically, not incrementally, because the mechanisms feed one another in a virtuous cycle. For nonprofit leaders, the practical implication is that partial or superficial digital adoption may forfeit these compounding effects: the flywheel only spins when information infrastructure, organizational processes, and stakeholder engagement are transformed together.

The study also carries weighty caveats. A multiple-case design in a single national context, however rich, cannot by itself prove that the Information-Impact theory generalizes to nonprofits in other institutional environments, and the authors position the theory as a contextualization of classic information systems thinking to the third sector rather than a universal law. There are also darker possibilities that the digital lens raises, from surveillance concerns in data-intensive philanthropy to the dependence of nonprofits on powerful platform companies, themes that other scholars of platformization and digital governance have emphasized. Still, the strategic roadmap the authors offer is concrete: nonprofits seeking digital transformation should think less about acquiring tools and more about building the informational properties of scale, granularity, and dynamism into their operational logic. If the flywheel holds, the organizations that succeed will be those that treat information itself as their most renewable resource.

Subject of Research: Digital philanthropy and the amplification of social impact in nonprofit organizations in China

Article Title: How digital philanthropy amplifies the social impact of nonprofit organizations: a multiple-case study from China

Article References: Yin, H., & Miao, Q. (2026). How digital philanthropy amplifies the social impact of nonprofit organizations: a multiple-case study from China. Global Public Policy and Governance. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43508-026-00158-8

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s43508-026-00158-8

Keywords: digital philanthropy, nonprofit organizations, social impact, Information-Impact theory, information systems, China, crowdfunding, algorithmic matching, organizational legitimacy, digital transformation, case study research, third sector

The study, conducted by Azélie Maurice of the Department of Anthropology at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, employed a qualitative design built around five semi-structured interviews with advocates recruited through nonprofit organizations. Rather than evaluating specific programs or prevention campaigns, as much of the earlier literature has done, the research set out to understand the roots and practices of eating disorder advocacy itself. The interviews were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis, a flexible qualitative method in which themes are developed through the researcher’s active engagement with the data rather than through rigid, pre-set coding frameworks. To sharpen the interpretation, Maurice framed the analysis through two conceptual lenses: medicalization, which describes how conditions come to be defined and treated as medical problems, and neo-pluralist interest group theory, which examines how organized groups compete to influence policy within systems where power is unevenly distributed.

Three major themes emerged from the analysis, and together they sketch both the promise and the paradox of eating disorder advocacy. The first theme, stigma as both barrier and motivator, captures a central tension in advocates’ accounts. Stigma surrounding eating disorders, the participants explained, is not merely an unpleasant social attitude; it actively shapes who gets diagnosed, who gets treated, and whose suffering is taken seriously. Stereotypes that eating disorders affect only young, thin, white, affluent women continue to exclude men, people of color, older adults, and people in larger bodies from recognition and care. Advocates reported drawing directly on their own lived experience to challenge these stereotypes, using personal narratives to humanize the illness and push for more inclusive approaches to treatment. In this sense, stigma functioned paradoxically: it was the very obstacle that fueled their commitment, transforming personal pain into public purpose.

The second theme, navigating structural constraints, shifts the focus from social attitudes to institutional architecture. Participants described in striking detail how fragmented and uneven insurance systems restrict access to eating disorder treatment. In the United States, coverage for eating disorder care varies dramatically between insurers, between states, and even between individual policies. Advocates described patients being denied residential or intensive outpatient care, being discharged before recovery because benefits ran out, and being forced into financial ruin to continue treatment. These accounts align with longstanding critiques of managed care, in which utilization review and cost-containment mechanisms can override clinical judgment about the level of care a patient needs. For eating disorders, where early and sustained intervention strongly predicts recovery, such barriers are not merely inconvenient; they can be life-threatening.

The third theme, strategic repertoires, documents the practical toolkit that advocates have developed to work within and around these constraints. Participants described deploying personal storytelling as their most powerful instrument, since narratives of lived experience can shift public opinion in ways that statistics rarely do. Alongside storytelling, advocates reported using cost-based arguments, framing eating disorders not only as a humanitarian crisis but as an economic one, in which untreated illness generates far greater downstream costs than timely treatment. Education formed a third pillar, with advocates working to inform clinicians, schools, families, and policymakers about the realities of these illnesses. Finally, coalition-building emerged as a key strategy: by forming alliances with other advocacy organizations, professional bodies, and policymakers, advocates amplify voices that would otherwise be too small to be heard in the crowded arena of health policy.

Taken together, these themes reveal what Maurice describes as a fundamental paradox at the heart of eating disorder advocacy. The movement exists to challenge stigma and promote inclusion, yet it must operate inside a healthcare system shaped by profit-driven logics and chronic resource scarcity. Advocates are simultaneously critics of the system and participants in it, pressing for reform while negotiating with insurers, providers, and institutions whose incentives may run counter to comprehensive, long-term care. This paradox, the study suggests, is not a sign of failure but a structural condition of advocacy in the American context, where movements for health justice must often fight the system using the system’s own language of cost, evidence, and market logic.

One of the study’s most compelling insights concerns the dual role of lived experience. For advocates, personal history with an eating disorder serves simultaneously as a source of personal healing and as a form of political leverage. Telling one’s story publicly can consolidate recovery, give meaning to suffering, and connect the advocate to a community of others who understand. At the same time, that same story becomes a strategic asset in meetings with legislators, insurance companies, and media outlets, where the authenticity of lived experience can accomplish what clinical data alone cannot. This dual function, however, carries its own risks, including emotional exhaustion and the pressure to repeatedly perform one’s most vulnerable moments for institutional gain, a dynamic familiar from studies of advocacy in HIV/AIDS and breast cancer movements.

The comparison with those earlier movements is instructive. Advocacy for HIV/AIDS and breast cancer has received sustained scholarly attention and is widely credited with transforming research funding, drug approval pathways, and public awareness. Eating disorder advocacy, by contrast, has rarely been studied beyond program evaluation or prevention campaigns, leaving the field without a clear account of its own history, strategies, and internal tensions. By situating eating disorder advocacy within the broader landscape of health social movements, the new research helps correct that gap and provides a framework that future scholars can extend. The findings point to patterns that likely resonate internationally, even as they emphasize how distinctly the U.S. healthcare system and political environment shape what advocates can realistically achieve.

The study also opens several avenues for future research. Maurice suggests examining the relationships between advocates and healthcare practitioners, a dynamic that can range from productive partnership to friction over treatment philosophy and resource allocation. Another promising direction is the transition from patient to advocate, a process through which individuals convert recovery into activism and renegotiate their relationship with the illness. Finally, the evolving role of social media in shaping advocacy strategies deserves close attention, as digital platforms have lowered the barriers to storytelling and coalition-building while introducing new risks around misinformation, harassment, and the commercialization of recovery narratives.

For clinicians, policymakers, and the public, the message of this research is clear. Eating disorder advocacy is not a peripheral activity but a central force in the struggle for fair and effective care, and its effectiveness depends on conditions that society controls: insurance parity, inclusive diagnostic practices, and genuine recognition of who these illnesses affect. The advocates interviewed in this study demonstrate that lived experience, when organized and amplified, can contest stigma and demand accountability from powerful institutions. But their accounts also show that individual courage cannot substitute for structural change. As eating disorders continue to rise as a public health concern in the United States, the voices documented here offer both a roadmap and a warning: progress is possible, but only if the systems that ration care are themselves made the subject of reform.

Subject of Research: A qualitative reflexive thematic analysis of the motivations, strategies, and structural challenges of eating disorder advocacy in the United States.

Article Title: Contesting care, navigating paradoxes: a thematic reflexive analysis of eating disorders advocates voices

Article References: Maurice, A. (2026). Contesting care, navigating paradoxes: a thematic reflexive analysis of eating disorders advocates voices. Journal of Eating Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-025-01521-6

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s40337-025-01521-6

Keywords: eating disorders, advocacy, lived experience, stigma, insurance barriers, reflexive thematic analysis, medicalization, health policy, mental health, qualitative research, nonprofit organizations, United States healthcare

The significance of this comparison lies in its methodology. While many scholars have observed anecdotally that conditions for civil society organizations in China have tightened or loosened over time, few studies have undertaken a systematic, field-by-field comparison of the actual policy texts issued at the national level across these two eras. By treating policy documents as primary evidence, the researchers were able to trace precisely where the state’s posture changed dramatically and where it remained remarkably stable. This document-based approach allows the evolution of government-nonprofit relations to be mapped with a granularity that impressionistic accounts cannot match, and it grounds the analysis in the concrete legal and administrative instruments through which the Chinese state actually exercises authority over organized social life.

The study identified major policy changes across several crucial domains. The first is organizational establishment, the process by which nonprofit groups gain legal recognition. Registration requirements, sponsor oversight arrangements, and the criteria for what may legally exist as a social organization all shifted between the two periods, altering which kinds of groups can form and under whose supervision. A second domain is disciplining and monitoring, where policies governing annual inspections, audits, and enforcement actions became more elaborate and more demanding in the New Era. Related fields include government funding of nonprofits, the rules governing charitable fundraising, and the increasingly consequential regulation of overseas funding, through which foreign grants to Chinese organizations have come under intense scrutiny. Party building, the extension of Communist Party committees and members into nonprofit organizations, emerged as another field transformed almost beyond recognition between the two eras, alongside policy advocacy, the arena in which organizations seek to influence government decisions.

The contrast with earlier decades is striking. During the New Century, the state’s relationship with the nonprofit sector reflected what scholars of Chinese politics have described as consultative or graduated forms of authoritarian governance. Organizations were subject to controls, but the state also experimented with purchasing services from nonprofits, encouraging social organizations to deliver welfare functions, and soliciting their expertise in policy formation. Some analysts characterized this as a period in which many civil societies could bloom, at least within carefully bounded spheres. The policy environment allowed a measure of negotiated autonomy, in which grassroots groups survived through what researchers have called contingent symbiosis with local authorities. The new comparative analysis confirms that this era’s policies embodied a deliberative logic: the state consulted, absorbed, and steered, but it did not yet demand organizational integration into its own political structures.

The New Era policies tell a different story. Since 2013, the party-state has asserted far more direct and directive authority over the sector. Party building requirements, which the study identifies as one of the most transformed policy fields, now extend Communist Party organization deep into social organizations, embedding political supervision within the internal governance of nonprofits themselves. The regulation of overseas funding, formalized through legislation targeting foreign nongovernmental organizations and their domestic partners, has securitized what was once a routine channel of philanthropic and technical support. Charitable fundraising, while legally clarified through the 2016 Charity Law and the subsequent recognition of tens of thousands of certified charitable organizations, has been coupled with heightened disclosure and monitoring obligations. The cumulative effect, according to the researchers, is a strategy of incorporation: organizations are welcomed into the state’s agenda only to the extent that they accept directive oversight and align with party leadership.

Yet the study’s most analytically interesting finding may be what has not changed. In certain policy fields, notably business activities and tax deduction, the researchers found fewer significant shifts between the New Century and the New Era. The rules permitting nonprofits to engage in revenue-generating activities, and the tax incentives that encourage charitable giving, have remained comparatively stable. This continuity matters because it complicates any simple narrative of wholesale repression or liberalization. The state has, in effect, retained and even cultivated the economic and fiscal infrastructure of a functioning philanthropic sector, with more than sixteen thousand certified charitable organizations now operating under the Charity Law framework, while simultaneously transforming the political infrastructure through which those organizations are supervised and integrated. The result is a sector that is institutionally more developed and politically more constrained at the same time.

This dual trajectory sheds light on long-running theoretical debates about state-society relations in authoritarian contexts. Earlier frameworks described China’s approach as administrative absorption of society, in which the state co-opted social organizations to prevent autonomous mobilization, or as fragmented authoritarianism, in which policy authority was dispersed among competing bureaucratic actors. The new evidence suggests that such framings capture the New Century better than the present. The shift toward directive state incorporation implies a recentralization of authority and a clearer command hierarchy, in which the party’s organizational presence substitutes for the looser bargaining that once characterized government-nonprofit encounters. Participation by nonprofits is still possible, and even encouraged in service delivery areas, but it increasingly takes the form of participation without contestation, a formula that recent scholarship on NGO autonomy in China has used to describe advocacy that operates strictly within state-defined limits.

The practical implications for the nonprofit sector itself are substantial. Organizations seeking legal status, government contracts, or fundraising permissions in the New Era must navigate a policy environment in which political conformity is a baseline expectation rather than an occasional demand. Annual inspections have become instruments through which party leadership and standardization are enforced, with authorities explicitly framing inspection regimes as mechanisms to keep social associations on a steady course. Overseas partnerships, once a lifeline for environmental, legal aid, and public health groups, now require registration and reporting under security-oriented regulations. At the same time, organizations aligned with state priorities, particularly in poverty alleviation, elder care, and community services, have found expanded opportunities for government funding and public recognition. The policy landscape thus rewards integration and penalizes autonomy, reshaping the composition of the sector in favor of groups willing to operate inside the incorporation framework.

The researchers conclude by situating their findings within the global comparative literature on government-nonprofit relations, noting that China’s trajectory offers a distinctive model in which a strong state deliberately cultivates a nonprofit sector as an instrument of governance rather than as a counterweight to state power. They argue that future research should track how these policy changes filter down to the local level, where implementation has historically varied widely, and how organizations themselves adapt their strategies, governance structures, and issue portfolios to survive under directive incorporation. For scholars of civil society, authoritarian governance, and comparative public policy, the study provides something the field has lacked: a systematic, evidence-based map of exactly where Chinese nonprofit policy changed, where it endured, and what that pattern reveals about the state’s evolving theory of how organized society should be governed. As China’s social organizations continue to multiply in number while narrowing in permitted purpose, the comparison between the New Century and the New Era offers an essential baseline for understanding one of the world’s most consequential experiments in managing the boundary between state and society.

The findings also resonate with scholarship on the social origins of nonprofit sectors, which holds that the shape and autonomy of civil society depend heavily on the prevailing pattern of state welfare provision. China’s trajectory illustrates a variant in which the nonprofit sector expands not through retreat of the state but through its active orchestration, with government funding and service contracting serving as levers of alignment rather than signs of disengagement.

Historically, the study’s framing benefits from a longer view of Chinese associational life. Charitable halls and benevolent societies flourished in imperial China, often operating in negotiated proximity to officialdom, suggesting that the tension between state authority and organized benevolence is not a modern invention but a recurring feature of Chinese governance that each era resolves differently.

Methodologically, the reliance on document analysis underscores both the strength and the limits of policy-text research. Texts reveal official intent with precision, yet implementation has historically diverged across regions, meaning local enforcement may soften or sharpen the national posture described here. The authors’ call for research tracing these policies to the local level therefore addresses a genuine evidentiary gap.

For comparative scholars, the case suggests that authoritarian states can simultaneously professionalize a philanthropic sector, through legal clarification and fiscal incentives, while narrowing its political space, a combination that standard typologies of government-nonprofit relations, developed largely from liberal democratic contexts, may need to accommodate more explicitly.

Subject of Research: Policy changes in China's national-level governance of nonprofit organizations from the New Century (2002-2012) to the New Era (2013-present)

Article Title: China’s policy changes in managing nonprofit organizations: The comparison between the New Century and the New Era

Article References: Hu, M., & Dong, H. (2026). China’s policy changes in managing nonprofit organizations: The comparison between the New Century and the New Era. Global Public Policy and Governance. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43508-026-00157-9

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s43508-026-00157-9

Keywords: China, nonprofit organizations, civil society, government-nonprofit relations, policy change, state control, party building, charitable fundraising, overseas funding, authoritarian governance, comparative public policy, social organizations