Inspired by the concept of the regulatory welfare state, this article identifies four primary modes of governance in regulating contract processes and contract implementation (market-based, hierarchical, professional, and relational), and compares contract governance modes in Shanghai and Chongqing. We find that the governments in these two localities prioritize and integrate the hierarchical and relational modes, relying less on the market-based and professional modes of governance. The emphasis on the hierarchical-relational mode advances the values and mechanisms of trust, adaptation, and alignment with top-down priorities, but may hinder public and legal accountability. We argue that the dynamics of political context and market condition affect the formation and effectiveness of hybrid modes of contract governance, and we advise that regulators in different countries should factor in such dynamics when designing contract governance modes in the regulation of social services.
BenishAvishai. 2010. Re-bureaucratizing welfare administration. Social Service ReviewMarch:77–101.
2.
BenishAvishai. 2014. The public accountability of privatized activation-The case of Israel. Social Policy & Administration48 (2): 262–77.
3.
BenishAvishaiLevi-FaurDavid. 2012. New forms of administrative law in the age of third-party government. Public Administration90 (4): 886–900.
4.
BenishAvishaiLevi-FaurDavid. 2020. The expansion of regulation in welfare governance. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (this volume).
5.
BenishAvishaiMatteiParola. 29November2019. Accountability and hybridity in welfare governance. Public Administration.
6.
BenishAvishaiHaberHananEliahouRotem. 2017. The regulatory welfare state in pension markets: Mitigating high charges for low-income savers in the United Kingdom and Israel. Journal of Social Policy46 (2): 313–30.
7.
BertelliAnthony M.SmithCraig R.2010. Relational contracting and network management. Journal of Public Administration: Research and TheoryJanuary: i21–i40.
8.
BirneyMayling. 2013. Decentralization and veiled corruption under China’s “rule of mandates.”World DevelopmentJune:1–43.
9.
BraithwaiteJohn. 1999. Accountability and governance under the new regulatory state. Australian Journal of Public Administration58 (1): 90–97.
10.
BraithwaiteJohn. 2020. Meta governance of path dependencies: Regulation, welfare, markets. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (this volume).
11.
BrownTrevor L.PotoskiMatthewVan SlykeDavid M.2006. Managing public service contracts: Aligning values, institutions, and markets. Public Administration Review66 (3): 323–31.
12.
CaiYongshunZhouTiti. 2019. Online political participation in China: Local government and differentiated response. The China Quarterly 238 (June): 331–52.
13.
China Communist Party Central Committee (CCPCC). 2019. Opinions to strengthen and improve street-level Party building work in cities (in Chinese). Available from http://www.gov.cn (accessed 21 March 2020).
14.
ChanChak Kwan. 2018. Introduction: Contracting out social services in China. In China’s social welfare revolution: Contracting out social services, eds. LeiJieChanChak Kwan, 1–11. New York, NY: Routledge.
15.
Chongqing Daily. 22May2017. Chongqing: Innovating social governance by mobilising social workers and social organizations to strengthen community services (in Chinese). Available from http://www.xinhuanet.com (accessed 10 April 2019).
16.
Chongqing People’s Government. 2014. Temporary measures of government purchasing services (in Chinese). Document No. 159. Available from http://www.jbczhx.com (accessed 3 September 2020).
17.
Chongqing Civil Affairs Bureau. 2018. Management guidelines for government purchasing services from social organizations (in Chinese). Document No. 1. Available from http://www.cqwomen.org.cn (accessed 8 August 2019).
18.
ChristensenRachel A.EbrahimAlnoor. 2006. How does accountability affect mission? The case of a nonprofit serving immigrants and refugees. Nonprofit Management & Leadership17 (2): 195–209.
19.
ClarkeJohn. 2008. Performance paradoxes: The politics of evaluation in public services. In: Public services inspection in the UK. research highlights in social work, eds. DavisHowardSteveMartin, 120–34. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
20.
CollinsHugh. 2002. Regulating contracts. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
21.
CorbinJulietStraussAnselm. 2008. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
22.
GazleyBeth. 2008. Beyond the contract: The scope and nature of informal government-nonprofit Partnership. Public Administration Review January/February:142–54.
23.
GuanXinping. 2005. China’s social policy: Reform and development in the context of marketization and globalization. In Transforming the developmental welfare state in East Asia, ed. KwonHuck-ju, 231–57. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillian.
24.
HaberHanan. 2011. Regulating-for-welfare: a comparative study of “regulatory welfare regimes” in the Israeli, British, and Swedish electricity sectors. Law & Policy33 (1): 116–47.
25.
JantzBastianKlenkTanjaLarsenFlemmingWigganJay. 2018. Marketization and varieties of accountability relationships in employment services: Comparing Denmark, Germany, and Great Britain. Administration & Society50 (3): 321–45.
26.
JingYijiaSavasE.S.2009. Managing collaborative service delivery: Comparing China and the United States. Public Administration ReviewDecember:S101–S106.
27.
KimS.2005. Balancing competing accountability requirements: Challenges in performance improvement of the nonprofit human services agency. Public Performance & Management Review29 (2): 145–63.
28.
LahatLihiTalitGal. 2015. Regulation of personal social services—The Israeli experience. Social Policy & Administration49 (3): 335–55.
29.
LaneJ. E.2001. From long-term to short-term contracting. Public Administration79 (1): 29–47.
30.
LeungJoe C.B.XuYuebin. 2015. China’s social welfare: The third turning point. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
31.
Levi-FaurDavid. 2005. The global diffusion of regulatory capitalism. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science598:33–51.
32.
Levi-FaurDavid. 2014a. The welfare state: A regulatory perspective. Public Administration92 (3): 599–614.
33.
Levi-FaurDavid, ed. 2014b. From “big government” to “big governance”? In Oxford handbook of governance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
34.
LoCarlos Wing-HungYipTo Kwong PlatoCheungKai Chee. 2000. The regulatory style of environmental governance in China: The case of EIA regulation in Shanghai. Public Administration and Development20:305–18.
35.
LiBingqin. 2017. Housing welfare policies in urban China. In Handbook of welfare in China, eds. CarrilloBeatrizHoodJohannaKadetzPaul, 123–43. Cheltenham, Gloucestershire: Edward Elgar.
36.
LiWeiWeibleChristopher M.2019. China’s policy processes and the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal. Early View.
37.
Lynch-CerulloKristenCooneyKate. 2011. Moving from outputs to outcomes: A review of the evolution of performance measurement in the human service nonprofit sector. Administration in Social Work35:364–88.
38.
Ministry of Civil Affairs. 2016. Notice to carry out Party work when registering social organizations (in Chinese). Document No. 257. Available from http://www.mca.gov.cn (accessed 18 August 2020).
39.
Ministry of Civil Affairs. 2017. China civil affairs statistical yearbook-Statistics of China social services (in Chinese).Available from https://www.yearbookchina.com/ (accessed 18 August 2020).
40.
Ministry of Finance. 2018. Government purchasing service administrative measures (Consultation Document) (in Chinese).Available from http://www.gongyishibao.com (accessed 9 August 2019).
41.
PeerenboomRandall. 2010. Introduction. In Judicial Independence in China: Lessons for global rule of law promotion, ed. RandallPeerenboom. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
42.
RatiganKerry. 2017. Disaggregating the developing welfare state: Provincial social policy regimes in China. World Development98:467–84.
43.
RomzekBarbara. S.JohnstonJocelyn M.2005. State social services contracting: Exploring the determinants of effective contract accountability. Public Administration Review65 (4): 436–49.
44.
RooijBenjamin vanSternRachel E.FürstKathinka. 2014. The authoritarian logic of regulatory pluralism: Understanding China’s new environmental actors. Regulation & Governance10 (1): 3–13.
45.
SaldanaJohnny. 2009. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
46.
SchwabenlandChristinaHirstAlison. 2017. Hybrid accountabilities and managerial agency in the third sector. Public Administration, 1–15.
47.
SeawrightJasonGerringJohn. 2008. Case selection techniques in case study research. Political Research Quarterly61 (2): 294–308.
48.
Shanghai Civil Affairs Bureau. 2017. Notice about budgeting for Shanghai tendering and bidding community philanthropy programs in 2018 (in Chinese). Document No. 59. Available from http://static.mzj.sh.gov.cn (accessed on 18 August 2020).
49.
Shanghai People’s Government. 2015. Opinions to establish and improve government purchasing service system (in Chinese). Document No. 21. Available from http://www.shanghai.gov.cn (accessed 21 March 2020).
50.
Shanghai Quality Supervision Bureau. 2012. Community philanthropy service program performance evaluation guideline (in Chinese). Document No 107. Available from http://www.ssfcn.com (accessed 18 August 2020).
51.
Shanghai Social Organization Bureau. 2017. Shanghai social organisation development annual report (in Chinese). Personal communication with the bureau official.
52.
State Council. 2013. Guiding opinions about government purchasing services from social forces (in Chinese). Document No. 96. Available from http://www.gov.cn. (accessed 17 March 2020).
53.
TianXuZhangXiaohengZhouYinghengYuXiaohua. 2016. Regional income inequality in China revisited: A perspective from club convergence. Economic Modelling56:50–58.
54.
UngerJonathanChanAnita. 2008. Association in a bind: The emergence of political corporatism. In Association and the Chinese state: Contested spaces, ed. UngerJonathan, 48–68. Armonk,UK: Taylor and Francis.
55.
Van SlykeDavid M.2009. Collaboration and relational contracting. In The collaborative public manager: New ideas for the Twenty-first century, eds. O’LearyRosemaryBinghamLisa Blomgren, 137–56. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
56.
WindholzEricHodgeGraeme A.2012. Conceptualising social and economic regulation: Implications for modern regulators and regulatory activity. Monash University Law Review38 (2): 212.
57.
YinRobert. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
ZhengYin Lily. 2009. It’s not what is on paper, but what is in practice: China’s new labor contract law and the enforcement problem. Washington University Global Studies Law Review8:595–617.
