What type of nonprofit organization is preferred in government contracting in China?
Abstract
Government contracting with nonprofit organizations in service delivery has become a widespread practice in the public administration landscape. This research explores what kinds of nonprofits are more likely to receive government funding for service delivery. Viewing nonprofits’ pursuit of government funding as an interorganizational effort, we examine the contextual and organizational factors that influence nonprofits’ receipt of government funding. Using the data collected from a nationwide survey of Chinese nonprofits, we find a close contractual relationship between government and nonprofits. Further analysis suggests that policy advocacy, board co-optation, external competition, and organizational formalization have positive impacts on leveraging government funding, while interorganizational collaboration and organizational professionalization do not appear to play a significant role. To our knowledge, this study represents the first nationwide survey research on government–nonprofit contracting in China. The findings expand the literature by adding new empirical evidence from an authoritarian context. Points for practitioners This study examines the contextual and organizational factors affecting Chinese nonprofit organizations’ receipt of purchase-of-service contracts from government. The results indicate that nonprofit organizations engaging in more policy advocacy activities, having more people with government working experience on governing boards, facing stronger…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Organizations with more formalized and professionalized structures leverage more government funding.
“Supporting these findings, organizations with more formalized and professionalized structures are found to leverage more government funding (Seo, 2016), which may allow them to engage in broader advocacy efforts (Dong & Lu, 2021).”
From Understanding Government-Nonprofit Funding Agreements in Human Service Organizations Using Resource Dependence Theory and Organizational Legitimacy (2026) · cites this paper as Dong & Lu, 2021
Cites
Boundary spanning roles and organization structure
Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/257905 · Cited by 1,518 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How can nonprofit boards innovate for growth? An <scp>integrative‐systematic</scp> review
Richardson, S., Kelly, S. J., & Gillespie, N. (2023) · Nonprofit Management and Leadership · doi:10.1002/nml.21563 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Turpin, A., & Shier, M. (2026) · Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs · doi:10.20899/jpna.far2t327
- Authors
- Dong, Q., & Lu, J.
- Affiliations
- China Agricultural University (CN)
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lu, Jiahuan
- Venue
- International Review of Administrative Sciences
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-09-14
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 328-346
- ISSN
- 0020-8523 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7226
- OpenAlex
- W2972811933
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 4.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Review of Administrative Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Hong Kong Government
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Nonprofit Sector and Volunteering
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Community Development and Social Impact
- Keywords
- nonprofit organizations, public procurement, government funding, service delivery, policy advocacy, organizational formalization, inter-organizational collaboration, authoritarian contexts
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review