Exploring Factors that Influence Voluntary Disclosure by Chinese Foundations

Original Paper

Abstract

In the context of government regulation and social demand, Chinese foundations have increasingly faced pressure to make their organizations more transparent. Our paper explores the factors associated with voluntary disclosure by foundations in China. Building on the literature on transparency and foundation development in China, we explore how the public (donations) and the government (funding and control) might influence the voluntary transparent behaviors of Chinese foundations. Using the database of the China Foundation Center, we perform regression analysis of N = 2074 Chinese foundations. Controlling for organization size, age, and other characteristics, we find that foundations that depend more on donations, collect more restricted funds, receive fewer government funds, and operate with less government control have a higher probability of offering voluntary disclosure. We then discuss organizational strategies and policy implications for building a healthy and transparent foundation sector in China.

Keywords

Voluntary disclosure Foundation Transparency China 

Résumé

Dans un contexte de règlementation gouvernementale et de demande sociale, les fondations chinoises font de plus en plus face à des pressions pour rendre leurs organisations plus transparentes. Notre article étudie les facteurs associés à la communication d’informations volontaire par des fondations en Chine. S’appuyant sur les publications traitant de la transparence et du développement des fondations en Chine, nous explorons la façon dont le public (dons) et l’État (financement et contrôle) peuvent influencer les comportements volontaires de transparence des fondations chinoises. En utilisant la base de données de la China Foundation Center (Centre des fondations de Chine), nous effectuons une analyse de régression de N = 2074 fondations chinoises. Après avoir contrôlé la taille, l’âge et les autres caractéristiques des organisations, nous constatons que les fondations qui dépendent le plus des dons recueillent des fonds plus limités, reçoivent moins de fonds publics et exercent leurs activités avec moins de contrôle étatique sont plus susceptibles de communiquer volontairement des informations. Nous examinons ensuite les stratégies des organisations et les implications politiques pour créer un secteur des fondations sain et transparent en Chine.

Zusammenfassung

Im Zusammenhang mit staatlichen Regulierungen und der gesellschaftlichen Forderung stehen chinesische Stiftungen vermehrt unter Druck, ihre Organisationen transparenter zu machen. Unsere Abandlung untersucht die Faktoren in Verbindung mit freiwilligen Offenlegungen von Stiftungen in China. Wir stützen uns auf die Literatur zum Thema Transparenz und Entwicklung von Stiftungen in China und erforschen, wie die Öffentlichkeit (Spenden) und die Regierung (Finanzierung und Kontrolle) unter Umständen Einfluss auf die freiwillige Transparenz chinesischer Stiftungen nehmen. Wir führen mit Hilfe der Datenbank des Stiftungsverbands China Foundation Center eine Regressionsanalyse von chinesischen Stiftungen mit N = 2074 durch. Bei einer Kontrolle der Organisationsgröße, des Alters der Organisation und anderer Merkmale kommen wir zu dem Ergebnis, dass Stiftungen, die vermehrt auf Spenden angewiesen sind, begrenzte Mittel und weniger staatliche Finanzierungen erhalten und einer geringeren staatlichen Kontrolle unterliegen, eher dazu neigen, Offenlegungen freiwillig vorzunehmen. Anschließend diskutieren wir die Organisationsstrategien und politischen Implikationen für die Entwicklung eines soliden und transparenten Stiftungssektors in China.

Resumen

En el contexto de la reglamentación gubernamental y la demanda social, las fundaciones chinas se han enfrentado cada vez más a la presión para que sus organizaciones sean más transparentes. Nuestro documento explora los factores asociados a la divulgación voluntaria por parte de las fundaciones en China. Basándonos en el material publicado sobre la transparencia y el desarrollo de las fundaciones en China, exploramos cómo el público (donaciones) y el gobierno (financiación y control) pueden influir en los comportamientos transparentes voluntarios de las fundaciones chinas. Utilizando la base de datos del Centro de Fundaciones de China, realizamos un análisis de regresión de N = 2074 fundaciones chinas. Controlando el tamaño, la antigüedad de la organización y otras características, encontramos que las fundaciones que dependen más de las donaciones, recaudan más fondos restringidos, reciben menos fondos del gobierno, y operan con menos control gubernamental tienen una mayor probabilidad de ofrecer una divulgación voluntaria. Después, tratamos las estrategias organizativas y las implicaciones de las políticas para construir un sector fundacional sano y transparente en China.

摘要

在政府监管与社会需求的背景下,及 促进其组织更加透明化,中国基金面临着越来越大的压力。本论文探究中国基金会自愿披露相关的各种因素。在研究透明度及基金会在中国的发展相关的文献的基础上,我们探究了公众(捐献)与政府(资助与控制)是如何影响中国基金会的自愿透明化行为。利用中国基金会中心的数据库,我们对中国基金会进行了回归分析(N = 2074)。通过控制组织规模、成立時間以及其它 特性,我们发现,如果更加依赖捐献、接收較多的受限资金、接收政府资助较少、运营受政府控制較小,其提供自愿披露的可能性更高。接着,我们讨论在中国建设健康与透明基金会行业的策略与政策意义。

要約

中国の財団法人は、政府の規制と社会の要請においてより透明を持とうとするプレッシャーに直面している。本論文では、中国の財団法人における自主的な公開に関連する要因をについて説明する。中国における財団法人の進展と透明性の資料を構築して、公共(寄付)、政府(資金と制御) が中国の組織がどのように自発的な透明性に影響を与えるかを調査する。中国財団センターのデータベースを用いて、中国の財団法人N = 2074の回帰分析を実施する。寄付金に依存して、制限された資金を集めて、政府の資金の受領が少なく、政府の圧力が少ない組織では、自主的な公開を提供する確率が高いことがわかった。中国における健全かつ透明な財団セクターを構築するための政策的含意と組織戦略について説明する。

ملخص

في سياق التنظيم الحكومي والطلب الإجتماعي، المؤسسات الصينية تواجه ضغوطا” متزايدة لجعل منظماتهم أكثر شفافية. يستكشف بحثنا العوامل المرتبطة بالكشف التطوعي من قبل المؤسسات في الصين. بناءا”على ما كتب حول الشفافية و التنمية المؤسسية في الصين، نحن نستكشف كيف الجمهور (التبرعات) والحكومة (التمويل والسيطرة) قد يؤثرون على السلوكيات التطوعية الشفافة للمؤسسات الصينية. بإستخدام قاعدة بيانات مركز مؤسسة الصين، نحن نؤدي تحليل الإنحدار من (N = 2074) مؤسسات صينية. السيطرة على حجم المنظمة، العمر، وغيرها من الخصائص، نجد أن المؤسسات التي تعتمد أكثر على التبرعات، تجمع أموال أكثر تقييدا”، تتلقي تمويل حكومي قليل، وتعمل مع أقل سيطرة من الحكومة لديها إحتمال أكبر لتقديم الكشف التطوعي. ثم نناقش الإستراتيجيات التنظيمية والآثار المترتبة على السياسات لبناء قطاع مؤسسي صحي وشفاف في الصين.

References

  1. Anheier, H. K. (2005). Nonprofit organizations: Theory, management, policy. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Backer, T. E. (2000). Strengthening nonprofits: Capacity-building and philanthropy. Encino, CA: Human Interaction Research Institute.Google Scholar
  3. Barako, D. G., Hancock, P., & Izan, H. Y. (2006). Factors influencing voluntary corporate disclosure by Kenyan companies. Corporate Governance, 14(2), 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beckert, J. (2010). Institutional isomorphism revisited: Convergence and divergence in institutional change. Sociological Theory, 28(2), 150–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Behn, B. K., DeVries, D. D., & Lin, J. (2010). The determinants of transparency in nonprofit organizations: An exploratory study. Advances in Accounting, 26(1), 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birkinshaw, P. (2006). Transparency as a human right. In C. Hood & D. Heald (Eds.), Transparency: The key to better governance? (pp. 47–58). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brody, E. (2003). Accountability and public trust. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The state of nonprofit America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bujaki, M., & McConomy, B. J. (2010). Corporate governance: Factors influencing voluntary disclosure by publicly traded Canadian firms. Canadian Accounting Perspectives, 1(2), 105–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calabrese, T. D. (2011). Public mandates, market monitoring, and nonprofit financial disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 30, 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carman, J. G., & Fredericks, K. A. (2010). Evaluation capacity and nonprofit organizations: Is the glass half-empty or half-full? American Journal of Evaluation, 31(1), 84–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chatterjee, S., & Hadi, A. (2006). The use of regression analysis by example (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chow, C. W., & Wong-Boren, A. (1987). Voluntary financial disclosure by Mexican corporations. The Accounting Review, 62(3), 533–541.Google Scholar
  13. Cormier, D., Aerts, W., Ledoux, M. J., & Magnan, M. (2010). Web-based disclosure about value creation processes: A monitoring perspective. A Journal of Accounting, Finance, and Business Studies, 46(3), 320–347.Google Scholar
  14. Dainelli, F., Manetti, G., & Sibilio, B. (2013). Web-based accountability practices in non-profit organizations: The case of national museums. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24, 649–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elbers, W., & Arts, B. (2011). Keeping body and soul together: Southern NGOs’ strategic responses to donor constraints. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(4), 713–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fernandez, K. M., & Hager, M. A. (2014). Public and private dimensions of grantmaking foundations. Public Administration Quarterly, 38(3), 405–439.Google Scholar
  18. Forman, C. (2005). The corporate digital divide: Determinants of internet adoption. Management Science, 51(4), 641–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Froelich, K. A. (1999). Diversification of revenue strategies: Evolving resource dependence in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(3), 246–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frumkin, P., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fung, A., Graham, M., & Weil, D. (2007). Full disclosure: The perils and promise of transparency. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gandía, J. L. (2009). Internet disclosure by nonprofit organizations: Empirical evidence of nongovernmental organizations for development in Spain. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 57–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Guo, C. (2007). When government becomes the principal philanthropist: The effects of public funding on patterns of nonprofit governance. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 458–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guo, C., & Brown, W. A. (2006). Community foundation performance: Bridging community resources and needs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(2), 267–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heald, D. (2006). Varieties of transparency. In C. Hood & D. Heald (Eds.), Transparency: The key to better governance? (pp. 25–46). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. G. (2001). Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: A review of the empirical disclosure literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31, 405–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hillman, A. J. (2005). Politicians on the board of directors: Do connections affect the bottom line? Journal of Management, 31(3), 464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hood, C. (2007). What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance? Public Management Review, 9(2), 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hoole, E., & Patterson, T. E. (2008). Voices from the field: Evaluation as part of a learning culture. In J. G. Carman & K. A. Fredericks (Eds.), Nonprofits and evaluation. New directions for evaluation (pp. 93–113). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  31. Khanna, T., Palepu, K. G., & Srinivasan, S. (2004). Disclosure practices of foreign companies interacting with U.S. markets. Journal of Accounting Research, 42(2), 475–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lang, M., & Lundholm, R. (1993). Cross-sectional determinants of analyst ratings of corporate disclosures. Journal of Accounting Research, 31(2), 246–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lenkowsky, L. (2003). Foundations and corporate philanthropy. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The state of nonprofit America (pp. 355–386). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lester, R. H., Hillman, A., Zardkoohi, A., & Cannella, A. A, Jr. (2008). Former government officials as outside directors: The role of human and social capital. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5), 999–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liu, Y., & Liu, X. (2004). Realistic thinking on the transparency of governmental information in China. China Soft Science, 9, 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Liu, Z., Zhang, X., & You, Y. (2013). Determining factors in online information disclosure of NGOs: A Chinese foundation case study. Chinese Public Administration, 11, 46–51.Google Scholar
  37. Ma, Q. (2002). The governance of NGOs in China since 1978: How much autonomy? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(3), 305–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McGinnis, J. J., & Ni, N. (2015). The impact of political connections on donations to Chinese NGO’s. International Public Management Journal, 18(4), 514–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structures as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mosley, J. E., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2015). The relationship between philanthropic foundation funding and state-level policy in the era of welfare reform. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(6), 1225–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nah, S., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Modeling the adoption and use of social media by nonprofit organizations. New Media & Society, 15(2), 294–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Okten, C., & Weisbrod, B. A. (2000). Determinants of donations in private nonprofit markets. Journal of Public Economics, 75(2), 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ostrander, S. A. (2007). The growth of donor control: Revisiting the social relations of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 356–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Papenfuß, U., & Schaefer, C. (2010). Improving public accountability by aligning reporting to organizational changes in public service provision—An empirical internet study of all Austrian, German and Swiss towns and states from an agency-theory perspective. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76(3), 555–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pfeffer, J. A., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Phillips, S. D. (2013). Shining light on charities or looking in the wrong place? Regulation-by-transparency in Canada. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24, 881–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Prewitt, K. (2006). Foundations. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 355–377). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Rodriguez, M. M. G., Caba Perez, M. C., & Lopez Godoy, M. (2012). Determining factors in online transparency of NGOs: A Spanish case study. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23, 661–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Saxton, G. D., & Guo, C. (2011). Accountability online: Understanding the web-based accountability practices of nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(2), 270–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Saxton, G. D., Kuo, J. S., & Ho, Y. C. (2012). The determinants of voluntary financial disclosure by nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 1051–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Scott, W. R. (2003). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  53. Sidel, M. (2010). The promise and limits of collective action for nonprofit self-regulation: Evidence from Asia. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(6), 1039–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith, S. R. (1999). Government financing of nonprofit activity. In E. T. Boris & C. E. Steuerle (Eds.), Nonprofits & government: Collaboration & conflict. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  55. Sun, C. (2013). On problems of local government information disclosure: Content defect and improvement measures. Chinese Public Administration, 12, 80–83.Google Scholar
  56. Szper, R., & Prakash, A. (2011). Charity watchdogs and the limits of information-based regulation. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22, 112–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tremblay-Boire, J., & Prakash, A. (2015). Accountability.org: Online disclosures by U.S. nonprofits. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(2), 693–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Trussel, J. M., & Parsons, L. M. (2007). Financial reporting factors affecting donations to charitable organizations. Advances in Accounting, 23, 263–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Verbruggen, S., Christiaens, J., & Milis, K. (2011). Can resource dependence and coercive isomorphism explain nonprofit organizations’ compliance with reporting standards? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Verschuere, B., Beddeleem, E., & Verlet, D. (2014). Determinants of innovative behaviour in Flemish nonprofit organizations: An empirical research. Public Management Review, 16(2), 173–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wang, M., & Jia, X. (2002). An analysis of China’s NGO. Management World, 8, 30–43.Google Scholar
  62. Wang, M., & Xu, Y. (2008). An outline of a theory of foundations. China Nonprofit Review, 1, 16–54.Google Scholar
  63. Zhuang, J., Saxton, G. D., & Wu, H. (2014). Publicity vs. impact in nonprofit disclosures and donor preferences: A sequential game with one nonprofit organization and N donors. Annals of Operations Research, 221(1), 469–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of Hong KongHong KongChina
  2. 2.Tsinghua UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations