本研究從一個具體的現象出發：廣東省在2011年推動「社會管理創新」改革後，NGO出現兩極化的發展方向：社會服務型NGO在登記註冊後，獲得大量購買服務資金，拓展了生存空間；權利議題型的NGO卻遭受較以往更為強硬的打壓，生存空間受到限制。在此矛盾的現象之下，我們該如何理解廣東省政府對NGO的治理策略，以及NGO的發展現況？
本研究以珠三角地區一地級市的兩個NGO為比較案例：一個新成立的社工NGO，與一個運作多年的草根勞工NGO。透過5個月的參與觀察與42場深度訪談，觀察兩個機構在登記註冊、承接政府購買服務項目後，與地方政府的互動關係，及其對機構發展的影響，並以此反映出政府在NGO治理策略上的變化。
本研究發現：「正當性」和「資金」是影響NGO自主性程度的兩個重要變項，因此政府在治理NGO時，也以這兩項變項為標的，分別採取「授與」（軟手段）和「壓縮」（硬手段）兩種手段，來面對不同NGO。「軟／硬」兩種手段具有協作關係：「先軟後硬，以硬強化軟」，在協調運作下，共同塑造了「NGO必須依賴政府始可生存」的制度環境。為確保持續受到政府支持，NGO逐漸改變發展方向和工作內容，放棄對權利議題的關注，專注於社會服務的提供。總體而言，政府對NGO的治理手段由「外在的」、「可視的」管理制度和國家暴力，進化為「內在的」、「無形的」自我審查，表面上看似賦予NGO更寬廣的發展空間，實際上卻是限制NGO的自主性，將其置於國家的宰制之下，形成「由發展來宰制」（Dominating through Facilitation）的治理體系。
在「由發展來宰制」的治理體系下，政府藉由NGO的協助提高了對社會矛盾的監測與防堵能力；但專業能力受到侵蝕的社會服務型NGO，和生存空間受到限制的權利議題型NGO，無法再有效處理社會矛盾的結構性成因，使社會矛盾持續累積蔓延，意外地磨蝕了地方政府與NGO協商共治所帶來的威權韌性(Authoritarian Resilience)。

This study starts from an empirical question: After the “Social Governance Innovation” reform in Guangdong province, 2011, NGOs’ development divided to two different ways: Social work NGOs receive more legal and financial support from the government, however, rights defending NGOs face unprecedented crackdown at the same time. Under this contradictory phenomenon, how could we understand the Guangdong government's governance strategy on NGO issue, and how could we assess the development of NGOs in Guangdong?
The field work has been conducted in a city in Pearl River Delta area, and I choose one new funded social service NGO, and one labor NGOs existing for several years as comparative cases. Through the five-month participatory observation and 42 in-depth interviews, I try to figure out the interaction between government and NGOs, its impact on NGOs’ development, and reflection on a transformation of government’s strategy on NGO governing.
This study suggests that "legitimacy" and "fund" are two important variables that affect the degree of NGO autonomy, and government also take them as tools in governing NGOs. Government takes “soft means” (granting) and “hard means” (restricting) toward social work NGO and labor NGO respectively. And there is collaborative relationship between soft and hard means, present as “soft first and hard later”, “strengthen soft by hard”, and they together create an institutional environment of “NGOs can only survive under the reliance on government” And NGOs change their developmental directions and work content from rights defending to social service, with a view to prolonging the government’s sponsor. In sum, the government’s approach to NGO’s governance has evolved from “external”, “visual” management systems and state violence to “internal”, “invisible” self-examination, which seemed to give broader space to NGOs to develop, but actually restrict the autonomy of NGOs, placed them under the domination of the state, and that is the formation of governance system “Dominating through Facilitation”.

英文文獻

Adams, Paul S., 2002, “Corporatism and Comparative Politics: A New Century of Corporatism?” Pp. 17–44 in New Directions in Comparative Politics, 3rd edition, edited by H. J. Wiarda. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Bachrach, P. and Morton S. Baratz, M. S., 1970, Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dahl, Robert. A., 1957, “The Concept of Power.”. Behavioral Science 2: 201-215.
Lieberthal, Kenneth G. and David M. Lampton, 1992, Bureaucracy Politics, and Decision-Making in Post-Mao China. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lu, Yiyi, 2009, Non-governmental Organizations in China: The Rise of Dependent Autonomy. New York: Routledge.
Mertha, Andrew, 2009, “‘Fragmented Authoritarianism 2.0’: Political Pluralization in the Chinese Policy Process.” The China Quarterly 200: 995-1012.
Migdal, Joel S., 2001, State in Society: Studying How States and Societies Transform and Constitute One Another. Cambridge University Press.
Schmitter, Phillippe C., 1974, “Still the Century of Corporatism?” The Review of Politics 36(1): 85-131.
Spires, Anthony J., 2011, “Contingent Symbiosis and Civil Society in an Authoritarian State: Understanding the Survival of China’s Grassroots NGOs.” American Journal of Sociology 117(1): 1-45.
Unger, Jonathan and Anita Chan, 1995, “China, Corporatism, and the East Asian Model.” The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs 33: 29-53.
White, Gordon, 1996, “The Dynamics of Civil Society in Post-Mao China.” Pp. 196-221 in The Individual and the State in China, edited by Brian Hook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Whyte, Martin K., 1992, “Urban China: A Civil Society in the Making?” Pp. 77-101 in State and society in China: the consequences of reform, edited by Arthur Lewis Rosenbaum.
Wiarda, Howard J., 1996, Corporatism and Comparative Politics: The Other Great “Ism”. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

中文文獻

Lukes, Steven著、林葦芸譯，2011，《權利－基進觀點》。台北：商周出版。（Lukes, Steven, 2005, Power: A Radical View, Second Edition. Palgrave.）
Madsen, Richard，1999，〈五代美國社會學者對中國國家與社會關係之研究〉。頁57-71，收錄於涂肇慶、林益民主編，《改革開放與中國社會：西方社會學文獻述評》。香港：牛津大學出版社。
王名、樂園，2008，〈中國民間組織參與公共服務購買的模式分析〉。《中共浙江省委黨校學報》4: 5-13。
王信賢，2006，〈將社會帶回？中國大陸中介組織的發展與理論省思：以W市商會與行業協會為例〉。《人文及社會科學集刊》18(2): 293-326。
王信賢，2006，《爭辯中的中國社會組織研究：「國家─社會」關係的視角》。台北縣：韋伯文化。
朱健剛、陳安娜，2013，〈嵌入中的專業社會工作與街區權力關係〉。《社會學研究（中國）》1: 1-22。
和經緯、黃慧，2008，〈珠江三角洲地區農民工維權非政府組織描述性分析〉。《香港社會科學學報》35: 41-71。
康曉光、韓恒，2005，〈"分類控制：當前中國大陸國家與社會關係研究"〉。《社會學研究》6: 73-89。
康曉光、韓恒、盧憲英，2010，《行政吸納社會：當代中國大陸國家與社會關係研究》。新加坡：八方文化創作室。
張靜，1998，《法團主義∶及其與多元主義的分歧》。北京：中國社會科學出版社。
陳健民，2010，《走向公民社會：中港經驗與挑戰》。香港：上書局。
趙秀梅，2008，〈基層治理中的國家社會關係：對一個參與社區公共服務的NGO的考察〉。《開放時代（中國）》4: 87-102。
鄧正來，1996，〈國家與社會──中國市民社會研究的研究〉。《中國社會科學季刊》15: 125-173。