논문

Globalization is often defined in terms of the new era of rapid development of the
multinational corporation. Additionally, political globalization is often
conceptualized as a playing field not limited to a discrete unit (such as a nation-
state) but rather open to complex, multi-level actors, above and within a
particular state. There is a growing body of scholarship addressing the affects of
globalization on local governance and state sovereignty. Only recently have
researchers begun to examine the third sector of society to better understand the
role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in today's global society. Clearly
changes have been profound, raising a number of question for policy-makers as
they address issues concerning social welfare responsibilities, global poverty,
and development. This paper begins by employing the social origins model to
explain the changes in NGO development, method of operation, and role in
governance brought about by globalization.

Finally, the paper concludes by presenting possible future trends in NGO
development and suggesting constructive roles for policy actors. Throughout the
paper focuses on the environmental subsector and environmental NGOs in both
China and the U.S. as an illustrative example.

Author: Peter L. Gess, International Center for Democratic Governance, University
of Georgia Athens, Georgia, USA

The truth is that government and the nonprofit sector have entered into a Faustian
bargain, and either (or both) may lose its soul in the process.
H. Brinton Milward(1996, 88)

Even though volunteers and the spirit of volunteerism have around for centuries, it
has only been during the past one or two decades that volunteers' role in society
has emerged as a field of study. Often voluntary organizations are said to form
the third sector, in contrast to government and business, which make up the first
two sectors. This third sector, also often referred to as civil society, is comprised
of not-for-profit or non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which carry out a
variety of functions and activities. Furthermore, in the most recent years, scholars
have come to realize that the third sector is not unique to the United States;
NGOs can be found in every country, in every corner of the globe.

As the third sector plays an increasingly important role in the delivery of public
services thought traditionally the responsibility of the state, various issues facing
both the theory and practice of public administration need to be examined, and
hopefully resolved. As Milward, Provan and Else(1993) states, both the effects of
state funding on nonprofit organizations and the insulation form citizen control
that such arrangements create need normative and empirical attention (322). They
define hollowness ad the degree to which government agencies are separated
from their outputs, and suggest that we “construct a model that relates the
characteristics of 'hollowness' to a set of dependent variables (efficiency,
effectiveness, responsiveness, accountability and equity) that are used to judge
governmental performance” (322).

Many of these issues are most salient for today's public administrators who
manage the interactions between the sectors, and will continue to be as we
head into the new millennium and more and more governmental responsibilities
are devolved to third parties. In fact, even twenty years ago Musolf (1980) and
others were concerned about the meaning of accountability for organizations half
in, half out of the public sector: “Suspicion exists that the nonprofits are likely to
be vehicles for private entrepreneurs who are pursuing, if not a partisan or
private interest, at least a highly personal vision of the public good” (124).
Indeed, the accountability issue seems paramount, and Estelle James (1989)
presents a nice summary of such concerns as how the government holds NGOs
accountable, what strings are attached to public funds, do governmental
regulations alter the nature of third sector service delivery, and do public funds
cause voluntary organizations to lose their autonomous nature and become mere
extensions of the state.

Jeffrey Brudney (199), in his examination of government agency reliance on
volunteers, stresses that such involvement makes public organizations
dependent on their citizen participants for both quality and responsiveness of
government services. Volunteers may even play a role in defining the goals of
public organizations (75-89). According to Sullivan (1987), by turning production
of public services over to private groups, governments can effectively waive
constitutional restraints, creating a serious threat to constitutional rights and
democracy. Donald Kettl (1988) is concerned about the implications for theory as
the involvement of the third sector upsets traditional and hierarchy, as well as
neutral competence (25-26). Finally, Lipsky and Smith (1989-90) maintain that
nonprofit service organizations weigh equity and responsiveness differently from
government as they focus on serving those clients compatible with the nonprofit's
mission (632).

With all of these overwhelming concerns, there must be some justification for
government-third sector partnerships. Of course in this day of constricted
governmental agency resources and a growing distrust of bureaucracy, the
voluntary sector has stepped into a void. But are there other, more positive
reasons for the involvement of nonprofits? Anheier and Seibel identify six
justifications for the state to delegate some of its responsibilities: 1) to create a
buffer to protect some services from political influence; 2) to escape from some
known weakness; 3) to put the activity where the real talent exists; 4) to spread

power according to participation theory; 5) to provide government with delivery
structures not found internally; and 6) to extend activities without adding
employees (144). Brian O'Connell (1996) suggests that the largest contribution
the sector has to offer is the independence they provide for innovation, advocacy,
criticism, and where necessary, reform. He is quick to add, additionally, that
“Efforts by all Americans, including the President and Congress, should be
devoted to building upon that uniqueness without exaggerating what the sector
can do or what government should not do” (225).

Recent scholarship has found it difficult to discuss the new roles and growth of
NGOs without addressing globalization effects. Of course much attention has
been given to economic globalization and governance at the international,
national, regional, and local levels, and this globalization has greatly affected
relationships among the sectors. However, it is also important speak in terms of
“political globalization,” which Cerny (1997, 253) defines as politics being
increasing shaped not within insulated units (such as a particular state) but
rather by complex multi-level actors, acting in multi-layered networks, above and
across as well as within state bounds. Such political globalization has catalyzed
rapid third sector growth, and has cause an evolution of state-NGO relationships.

This paper analyzes an interesting and under-reported manifestation of political
globalization: the new, emerging role of the nonprofit or non-governmental
organization in governance at all levels. I begin by first defining the third sector,
which is in itself no simple task. Next I will launch into a discussion of the
various concepts which attempt to describe the development of NGOs and their
relationship with the state in various countries. Next I will present some of the
challenges of a “globalized third sector,” on governance, offering advice for
policy makers. Finally, I will apply these concepts to a specific third “subsector”
in a specific country: environmental NGOs in China.