1.
The “amount donated” includes only donated sums of money, not the converted totals for donated goods. For details, see “Statistics Bulletin on Social Services Development, 2009–2012,” issued by the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs. http://www.mca.gov.cn/article/zwgk/tjsj/. (2014/11/10).
2.
2002–2012 annual statistics bulletins on civil administration development, issued by the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs. For the original data, see http://cws.mca.gov.cn/article/tjbg/.(2014/09/08).
3.
Gao (2006: 121).
4.
Wang (2011: 114).
5.
American Association of Fundraising Counsel (2014).
6.
State Statistics Bureau of China. “Report on the Final Results of Verifying the 2012 GDP of China.” http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/zxfb/201401/t20140108_496941.html. (2014/9/8).
7.
Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs. “Statistics Bulletin of Social Services Development in China, 2012.” http://cws.mca.gov.cn/article/tjbg. (2014/11/10).
8.
“In 2012, the total amount of funds and materials China received from donors at home and abroad was about RMB 81.7 billion, accounting for 0.16% of China’s 2012 GDP, and representing a per capita donation of RMB 60.4.” See China Charity Information Center, “2012 Report on Charitable Donations in China.” (http://www.charity.gov.cn/fsm/sites/newmain/preview1.jsp?ColumnID=362&TID=20130925084543284400468). (2014/11/10). Although statistical specifications may vary, the proportion of the total amount of charitable donations relative to GDP is still below 0.2% in China, lower than that of any western developed country.
9.
American Association of Fundraising Counsel (2006).
10.
The 2005 medial exchange rate of the RMB to the USD was 827.65. See State Administration of Foreign Exchange of China, “Table of RMB Medial Exchange Rate.” http://www.safe.gov.cn/wps/portal/sy/tjsj_hlzjj_inquire. (2014/11/10).
11.
It should be noted that the pronounced narrowing of this gap was brought about only partly by the tremendous growth in the amount of charitable donations after 2008. A second factor was the significant appreciation of the RMB over the same period.
12.
American Association of Fundraising Counsel (2008).
13.
Hodgkinson and Weitzman (1996).
14.
Mesch et al. (2006: 565–586).
15.
Schervish and Havens (1998: 237–242).
16.
Hrywna (2008: 18).
17.
Liu et al. (2006: 41).
18.
Charity Coordination Office of the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs, and China Charity Information Center. “Analysis Report on 2007 Charitable Donations in China.” (http://www.donation.gov.cn/jsp/). (2013/12/1).
19.
Gittell and Edinaldo (2006: 721–736).
20.
American Association of Fundraising Counsel (2008).
21.
China Charity Information Center, “2013 Report on China’s Charitable Donations” (http://www.charity.gov.cn/fsm/sites/newmain/preview1.jsp?ColumnID=362&TID=20130925084543284400468). (2014/5/25).
22.
The “Heungkong Charitable Foundation” was established on June 14, 2005 by the Heungkong Group with a contribution of RMB 50 million. Its founder is Zhai Meiqing, president of the Group. It is the first national private foundation in China, with Approval No. 1001, assigned by the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs. Its purpose is to advance the spirit of humanitarianism, assist the needy, and commit itself to the cause of social welfare. Its funds go to assisting education, poverty alleviation, disaster relief, etc. For details, see “http://www.hkf.org.cn/”. (2012/5/6).
23.
China Charity Information Center, “2013 Report on Charitable Donations in China.” (http://www.charity.gov.cn/fsm/sites/newmain/preview1.jsp?ColumnID=362&TID=20130925084543284400468). (2013/9/25).
24.
Charity foundations in the United States are generally divided into private and public foundations. The former can be further divided into independent, corporate, and operating foundations and the latter into community foundations and others. The private foundations are roughly equivalent to non-public fundraising foundations or private fundraising foundations, while public foundations are roughly equivalent to public fundraising foundations.
25.
The Foundation Center, 2008. Foundation Growth and Giving Estimates. http://foundationcenter.org/. (2014/11/10).
26.
Gao (2012: 65).
27.
“2008 Research Report on the Development of Non-Public Fundraising Foundations in China,” issued on July 2, 2009 by the Forum on the Development of Non-Public Fundraising Foundations in China. http://www.cpff.org.cn. (2011/11/15).
28.
“2008 Research Report on the Development of Non-Public Fundraising Foundations in China,” issued on July 2, 2009 by the Forum on the Development of Non-Public Fundraising Foundations in China. http://www.cpff.org.cn. (2011/11/15).
29.
Here, “public affairs” refers generally to activities in the public interest, relating to such aspects as human rights and social movements, community promotion and development, charity and voluntary actions.
30.
The Foundation Center, Foundation Giving Trends, 2010. http://foundationcenter.org/. (2014/11/10).
31.
Gao (2012: 65).
32.
“Guiding Opinion on Promoting the Healthy Development of Philanthropy,” issued by the State Council of China, December 18, 2014.
33.
Silk (2000: 95–96).
34.
Sun et al. (1999: 23).
35.
Gao and Gao (2006: 235–254).
36.
Tian (2004: 64–65).
37.
“Outline for Guiding the Development of Charity in China from 2011 to 2015,” issued by the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs, July 15, 2011.
38.
“Decision on Major Issues Concerning Comprehensively Deepening Reforms.” People’s Daily, November 16, 2013.
39.
“Guiding Opinion on Promoting the Healthy Development of Philanthropy,” issued by the State Council of China, December 18, 2014.
40.
“Outline for Guiding the Development of Charity in China from 2011 to 2015,” issued by the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs, July 15, 2011.
41.
China State NGO Administration (2007: 93).
42.
Deng et al. (2007: 93).
43.
Deng et al. (2007: 94).
44.
It has been pointed out that, since China has its own unique national conditions and since there exist considerable differences between NPOs in China and those overseas, imported evaluation theories and methods should not be mechanically copied and applied in China, but rather should be integrated with the special characteristics of China’s NPOs. There are currently some scholars in China who advocate the direct borrowing of foreign evaluation indicators, but they lack adequate research on the suitability and applicability of these evaluation indicators to the Chinese context. It has thus been advocated that empirical studies should be conducted on evaluation theory and the establishment of a system of evaluation indicators which apply to China’s unique NPOs. (See Guosheng Deng. NPO Evaluation. Social Sciences Academic Press, 2001: 3) In addition, it is inappropriate to set up overly high criteria for the evaluation of NGOs in their early stage of development, or their development will probably be strangled (See Guosheng Deng. et al. The NGO Evaluation System: Theory, Method and the Indicator System. 94).
45.
China Foundation Center Website, Foundation Transparency Index. http://www.foundationcenter.org.cn/ (2014/11/12).
46.
Huang and Yao (2003: 77).
47.
Adler et al. (2007: 105).
48.
For example, according to the provisions of relevant American charity laws, a charity organization is duty-bound to provide duplicated copies of the following to anyone seeking financial information: documents relating to its application for tax-exempt status, its three most recent tax declaration forms, and all related documents except for donor lists. If there is an on-the-spot request for access to information, it must be responded to immediately; if the request is made in written form, a response needs to be forthcoming within thirty days. All documents, except for a small number that, by law, may remain inaccessible to the public, should be made freely available, and cannot be deemed ‘secret.’ Some charity organizations have discovered that providing such information to the public is very complicated, since they have to make available Table 990 and Table 990-PE, which contain all of the information relating to the remunerations and benefits received by the following personnel: the five highest-paid employees, excluding members of the decision-making Board; and the top five major service providers who are not employees of the organization. Despite the cumbersome nature of these procedures, information may not be held back for any reason; it must be fully revealed to the public and subjected to public scrutiny. See Adler et al. (2007, pp. 114–115; 143–213).
49.
Deng. et al. (2007: 186).
50.
He and Chen (2005: 77).
51.
“Outline for Guiding the Development of Charity in China from 2006 to 2010,” issued by the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs, July 15, 2011.
52.
See http://www.donation.gov.cn/jsp/index.html. (2013/08/09).
53.
China Charity Information Center, “2009 Report on Monitoring Information Disclosure by National Charity Organizations in China.” http://www.charity.gov.cn/fsm/html/files/2011-12/30/20111230154211734193395.pdf. (2013/11/10).
54.
China Charity Information Center, (2013).
55.
China Charity Information Center, “2013 Report on Charitable Donations in China.” http://www.charity.gov.cn/fsm/sites/newmain/preview1.jsp?ColumnID=362&TID=20130925084543284400468. (2014/5/25).
56.
Tian (2004: 64).
57.
Chinese Ministry of Civil Administration, “2012 Statistics Bulletin of Social Services Development.” (http://cws.mca.gov.cn/article/tjbg/201306/20130600474746.shtml). (2013/11/10).
58.
Cheng (2006).
59.
Li and Hou (2011).
60.
Ye (2009).
61.
China Charity Information Center, “2013 Report on Charitable Donations in China.” (http://www.charity.gov.cn/fsm/sites/newmain/preview1.jsp?ColumnID=362&TID=20130925084543284400468.) (2014/5/25).
