Developing social organizations requires clarifying four types of relationships

According to the central government's requirement for "social management innovation," social organizations refer to various associations, societies, public service organizations, foundations, or other groups voluntarily formed by civilians. Due to the complexity of social organizations in China and the constraints imposed by the political and economic management systems, there are many problems in the development and management of social organizations, as well as some irreconcilable conflicts, and even obvious unfair policies. The phenomenon of "privileges" is ubiquitous. If these issues are not resolved, developing social organizations and establishing a civil society will remain an unattainable goal. I believe that currently, four relationships must be clarified in the development of social organizations in our country.
1. Clarify the relationship between public welfare organizations and mutual benefit organizations
　Public welfare social organizations mainly include various foundations, social charity organizations, and environmental protection organizations. Their main characteristic is that their work belongs to the public welfare category, and the organizations themselves have no funding sources, mainly relying on social sponsorship, individual donations, and angel investments to raise funds for public welfare causes. Mutual benefit social organizations are also non-profit social organizations, but their main funding does not come from social or individual donations; instead, they obtain corresponding income through contractual service relationships between the organization and its members. Currently, representatives of mutual benefit social organizations are industry associations and chambers of commerce. Enterprises joining industry associations or chambers of commerce must pay certain membership fees according to the bylaws, but the fees collected are completely insufficient to support the existence and development of these associations. To fulfill their duties, form their core competitiveness, and gain the rightful voice, industry associations and chambers of commerce must carry out a large number of service innovation activities, obtaining necessary income through services and innovation to support industry management work and attract essential talent. This is the foundation for the existence and development of mutual benefit social organizations and distinguishes them from public welfare social organizations.
2. Clarify the relationship between government management behavior and social organization behavior
The fundamental law governing government management behavior is the "Administrative Licensing Law." According to laws and regulations, the registration and admission of social organizations require government approval. Once registered, they must comply with the "Regulations on the Administration of Social Organizations." Social organizations should autonomously carry out activities within the scope permitted by the constitution and laws according to their own "bylaws." However, in reality, illegal administrative actions by competent departments are common. Some departments arbitrarily formulate policies and management methods that violate the "Regulations on the Administration of Social Organizations." Some management methods directly stipulate matters that should be decided by the social organization's "board of directors." Such practices severely restrict and constrain the development of social organizations, adversely affecting the establishment of civil society and seriously contradicting the spirit of the central government's "social management innovation." If this is not politically incorrect, then what is?
　China's dual-department management of social organizations is a legacy of the "planned economy" system and a temporary measure in the gradual reform of the socialist market economy system. Now, this outdated government management behavior shows signs of "solidification." The internationally accepted "registration system" has become a thoroughly Chinese characteristic in our country, becoming a "stumbling block" to promoting innovation in social organization development. Fortunately, no one has yet summarized this as a self-admiring "Chinese model," and the eventual abolition of the "competent departments" has become a reform consensus among scholars, industry practitioners, and government officials; it is only a matter of "when."
　We obviously look forward to the early arrival of this day, but the impact of unfair policies in reality still causes feelings of indignation and helplessness. Some time ago, the China Listed Companies Association was established, and Guo Shuqing, representing the China Securities Regulatory Commission as the competent department, gave a speech. Obviously, the "China Listed Companies Association" has the function of requiring listed companies to "self-regulate," but it does not exclude the responsibility of lobbying for interest groups. However, whether the vast number of Chinese shareholders can establish a "China Shareholders Association" to represent shareholders has become an unattainable matter because the majority of shareholders cannot find a competent department.
　During this year's Two Sessions, Guangdong Provincial Party Secretary Wang Yang, as a representative of the National People's Congress, participated in the Guangdong delegation's discussion and stated that Guangdong Province encountered some "legal" obstacles in establishing a civil society and expressed willingness to "petition" together with relevant representatives to resolve the registration and admission issues of social organizations. Hopefully, his "petition" will succeed and play a leading and exemplary role in truly resolving some long-standing problems in the development of social organizations.
3. Clarify the relationship between industry self-discipline and corporate self-discipline
In recent years, while China's social organizations have developed rapidly and played an increasingly important role, some problems have also emerged during development, namely the "violation of laws and regulations" by some social organizations. A representative incident is last year's "Guo Meimei incident" involving the China Red Cross. The details of the incident are quite clear, and it has both positive and negative impacts on the development of social organizations. Each social organization and individual should look beyond the surface, strive to compare in practical work, and absorb valuable lessons for criticism and reference. From the long-term development perspective of social organizations, it is still necessary to carefully clarify the relationship between industry self-discipline and corporate self-discipline.
　What is industry self-discipline? It means that enterprises (members) within an industry voluntarily and spontaneously form common self-regulatory actions (including conventions and behaviors) through certain organizations (associations or chambers of commerce) that must be followed. For example, if an association establishes an industry self-discipline convention, member enterprises of that association must comply with it. If a member does not comply or violates it, they will be "sanctioned" or urged to withdraw from the association.
　What is corporate self-discipline? It means that a company voluntarily publicly announces self-regulatory actions (including public declarations and behaviors) that must be followed. In fact, it is a commitment by the company to society and consumers, and if the company violates the "commitment," it must bear legal consequences. For example, if a food company promises that the shelf life of its products is six months, then if a food safety issue occurs within six months, the company must compensate doubly.
　From this, it can be seen that industry self-discipline and corporate self-discipline differ not only in concept but also in positioning and function. Industry self-discipline cannot replace corporate self-discipline, nor can it replace government administrative work; it does not have administrative authority over what can or cannot be done but only guidance on what should or should not be done. Of course, according to the concept and requirements of industry self-discipline, it only has "binding" behavior under certain conditions and within a certain scope, that is, limited authority on what can or cannot be done. It follows the organization's "self-discipline convention" or imposes "sanctions" or "urges withdrawal." If a primary social organization, such as an industry association, makes a "self-discipline" commitment to society, it has the nature of "corporate self-discipline," which must be honored and carries legal responsibility.
　Recently, I saw a report from a university research center on the "industry self-discipline" behavior triggered by the "Sanlu milk powder" incident, which mistakenly believed that the incident was caused by insufficient industry association self-discipline. Obviously, the essence of the incident was a major food safety event caused by "failure to abide by the law, lax law enforcement, deliberate violations, and knowing violations." Simply blaming the industry association's lack of self-discipline cannot find the true solution to the problem.
4. Clarify the relationship between the constitution, laws, and policies and regulations
　According to the current constitution of China, social organizations have the freedom of "speech and association," but precisely on this fundamental issue, existing policies and regulations are in irreconcilable conflict with our country's fundamental law. At present, the biggest practical problem in the development of social organizations in our country is that the basic rights granted to citizens by the constitution cannot be exercised, and the biggest obstacle to exercising these rights is the "privilege" blocking the way. Here, I would like to quote a passage from the famous economist Zhang Weiying.
　"Establishing a non-profit organization is a privilege, not a right. For example, if you want to set up a foundation, no matter how much money you have, you must first find a supervisory unit, and the supervisory unit must be a government or government-affiliated agency. Whether they agree to be your 'supervisor' is entirely their privilege. If you cannot find a supervisory unit, or even if you do, the administrative department may not approve your application, and the best intentions cannot be carried out. So it's not that you can do good just because you want to."
　This is the current policy and environmental status of the development and innovation of social organizations in China. One might ask, how meaningful is it to talk about innovation under such development conditions? It's like trying to sell weight loss pills to a starving person—completely pointless.
　Currently, I am still part of the professional staff of social organizations. Years of practical work in social organizations have told me that the problems existing more than ten years ago still have not been resolved. Isn't our country currently facing insufficient domestic demand? Isn't the service industry underdeveloped? I dare to guarantee that if the registration and access policies for industry associations and professional publications were relaxed, the work I am currently engaged in could at least solve employment for more than 20 university graduates. Isn't that a great thing? Isn't that helping to ease the government's burden?