Government Purchase of Services in China: Similar Intentions, Different Policy Designs

Abstract

China has adopted purchase of services to facilitate the development of the societal sector, including social organisations, the social work profession and social services. Project-based and post-based purchases are two typical policy designs. Why do the local states develop two different designs to serve similar intentions? The answers to this question contribute to the broader discussion of policymaking and social development in China. Using the intention-capacity analytic framework, this study systemically compares Guangzhou's project-based model and Shenzhen's post-based model by drawing upon an extensive review of policy and archive documents, key informant interviews and field observations. The comparative study suggests that a pro-market ideology and incomplete analytical capacity in policy learning directed the design thinking towards market mechanism and purchase of services. Without the organisational conditions of social organisation and social work in Guangzhou, rapid growth in the social work workforce became the top priority in Shenzhen. Meanwhile, the trustworthiness of newly developing social organisations is another concern. All of these concerns underpinned the post-based design. Both models, with substantial fiscal support, succeed in expanding the societal sectors. But the mix of market and hierarchy tools, for the post-based model in particular, is an obstacle in further enabling social organisation and the social work profession.

Social service purchasing in China: Rationale, features, and risks

“…In exploring the features of social service purchasing models and their associated issues and risks, we note that few prior empirical studies on government procurement in China have directly focused on child welfare services. Most empirical studies have focused on the features of purchasing arrangements in particular regions (Cho, ; Jing & Chen, ; Qi & Guo, ; Wen, ); interactions between government and NGOs (Hasmath & Hsu, ; Huang & Yang, ; Zhao et al., ); and the development of government procurement as a public administrative strategy (Tuan et al., ). In‐depth explorations of particular social services have covered community‐based services (Kwan Chan & Lei, ), labor NGOs (Howell, ), and elderly care (Lin, ).…”

“…In‐depth explorations of particular social services have covered community‐based services (Kwan Chan & Lei, ), labor NGOs (Howell, ), and elderly care (Lin, ). Except for studies by Teets () and Wen (), which each examined government purchasing of education services, and research by Fang and Tang () on children's welfare institutes, little empirical research is available to inform how purchasing arrangements are operating in child welfare. For this reason, our analysis of models draws more widely.…”

“…Case studies have documented the use of direct purchasing for services in the context of child welfare services. Wen () explored the direct contracting of services in Guangzhou, as an example of project‐based approaches. Specifically, direct contracting of services in Guangzhou was understood to be adopted following visits of officials from Hong Kong and Singapore, which led to the government's decision that social organizations should operate “Integrated Family Service Centres.” Establishing these centres rapidly increased the number of social organizations and the social services workforce (Wen, ).…”

“…This is focused on developing capacity through government purchasing of staff to fill “posts,” that is, covering the costs of employing individual social service professionals from nongovernment organizations in particular public service roles. Purchasing of “posts” contrasts with the “project‐based” models, which follow more standard approaches to direct contracting premised on purchaser–provider relations between state and nongovernment organizations (Cho, ; Wen, ).…”

“…As Wen () and Cho () explore, in contrast to the service purchasing model evident in Guangzhou, in Shenzhen, the object of purchasing was not the “service” as such, but the positions of social workers delivering family services. This “post‐based” model of purchasing involved social organizations signing 3‐year contracts to place social workers in public institutions such as schools and hospitals, rather than to deliver services or projects.…”