Journal of Chinese Governance

ISSN: 2381-2346 (Print) 2381-2354 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rgov20

Coproduction of community public service:

evidence from china’s community foundations

Shihong Weng & Yunxiang Zhang

To cite this article: Shihong Weng & Yunxiang Zhang (2020) Coproduction of community public
service: evidence from china’s community foundations, Journal of Chinese Governance, 5:1,
90-109, DOI: 10.1080/23812346.2019.1710048

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23812346.2019.1710048

Published online: 19 Feb 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rgov20
JOURNAL OF CHINESE GOVERNANCE
2020, VOL. 5, NO. 1, 90–109
https://doi.org/10.1080/23812346.2019.1710048

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Coproduction of community public service: evidence from

china’s community foundations
Shihong Wenga and Yunxiang Zhangb
a
Department of Public Management, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China; bCollege of
Philosophy and Political Sciences, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai, China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

With the resurgence of interest in community foundation (CF), Received 24 April 2019
questions arise around how do CFs produce and deliver commu- Accepted 24 December 2019
nity public services. Although the CF has a long history, the rapid
development of CFs around world became the significant institu- KEYWORDS
tional change in local public affairs, the functions of CFs have Community foundation;
movement; cross-sector
received little attention in the literature. The existing literature collaboration; coproduction;
about CFs usually be dichotomy: model or movement. This article public service
presents a new theoretical framework, according to whether there
are individual or collective coproduction and they participate top-
down or bottom-up, to explain the function of China’s CFs.
Coproduction advocates intensive engagement and collaboration
of citizens in community public service delivery. And coproduc-
tion seems to play an important role in both instrumental and
symbolic terms in the production and delivery of public goods or
services by joining-up government, for-profit and non-profit
organizations. The findings show how the CFs provide public
services in China through the lens of coproduction that involves
sharing information, resources, activities, risks and decision-mak-
ing in a bid to achieve an agreed public outcome. In the new
governance, many governments are moving away from agency-
centric bureaucracy and towards citizen-centric mission to deliver-
ing public services.

Introduction
The booming development of the community foundation (CF) has become a signifi-
cant symbol of the governance reform of local public affairs in the world, which has
been paid more and more attention by the academic scholars. It is argued that the CF
may play a significant role in philanthropy1by providing many resources of funds,2
supporting the capacity-building of community organizations and social movements,3
keeping in line with social change,4 and helping to expand the field of community
activities.5 However, in the current literature on the national or international study of
community foundations (CFs), scholars from the Anglo-Saxon countries often debate

CONTACT Shihong Weng wssh10888@sina.com Department of Public Management, East China Normal
University, Room 1412C, School of Public Management, Like Building, 3663 North Zhongshan Road, Shanghai
200062, China
ß 2020 Zhejiang University
 JOURNAL OF CHINESE GOVERNANCE 91

on the dichotomy of the model6 and movement7 of CFs. In this article, our focus is
empirical and pays more attention to the explanation of the movement of Chinese
CFs. We will point out that this distinction ignores the governance essence of CFs in
providing local public goods and solving local public affairs issues, and lacks a power-
ful explanation about the internal logic of global community foundations. In light of
the theory debate and the complex reality, the following research questions should be
formally addressed: how can CFs produce and deliver community public services more
efficiently in china, in terms of their forms and functions?
In the practice, since the first community foundation was created in America in the
beginning of 20 Century, the rapid development of community foundations around
world became the significant institutional change in local public affairs. Over the past
years, there have been emerged many studies of cross-sector collaborations (CSCs) in
the Anglo-Saxon countries.8 The CSCs is viewed as a new form of public service deliv-
ery, which relies on an interconnected network of public, private, and nonprofit actors
working together across boundaries.9 In specific, in the recent years, public manage-
ment academia has paid increasing attention to coproduction as a new model for
community service delivery. However, we still know little about coproduction in China
where there is a great amount public sector reforms. Therefore, this paper examines
to understand how the CFs develop and provide public services in China through cop-
roduction. In order to inquire this research question and understand CFs in a more
comprehensive way from a global perspective, this paper will go beyond the dichot-
omy of model and movement, and propose a theoretical framework of coproduction
to explain the form and function of CFs in community public services in China. In par-
ticular, this study will focus on explain the new phenomena of CFs with different cases
of coproduction.

The development of community foundations around world

The community foundation (CF) was originated in the United States, then was grad-
ually matured in other Anglo-Saxon countries, such as the United Kingdom, and con-
tinental Europe such as Germany, and sprouted and grew in other countries around
the world. The development of CFs in the world has experienced with four import-
ant stages.
The first stage. In 1914, Frederick Goff established the Cleveland Foundation in
Cleveland City. It is the first community foundation in the world and also the oldest
community non-profit organization (NPO) in the United States. When the Cleveland
Foundation was formed, it had been declared its purpose to be ‘that of enhancing the
quality of life for all citizens of Greater Cleveland’.10 Goff at the time wanted to create
a community-oriented foundation where philanthropists could establish permanent
endowment funds to meet community needs. A year later, other American cities such
as Chicago, Detroit, California, Milwaukee, Minneapolis and Boston also established
some CFs. After that, many American communities created similar CFs with Cleveland’s
example in their own communities.11 Canada established its first CF in 1921 which
was the first one except for the United States. Since then, the number and assets of
92 SHIHONG WENG AND YUNXIANG ZHANG

CFs have continued to grow with reaching 22 in 1930, until many people experienced
massive loss of wealth and income during the Great Depression.
The second stage. In the United States, some CFs tried to take advantage of the
patriotism and community awareness shown after the Second World War, and to
strengthen the ability of local communities to cope with the challenges of rapid
urbanization. The important feature of this stage is that the CFs have begun to stabil-
ize and legalize the public welfare fund of the local community by providing a large
amount of financial resources.12 After nearly 20 years of development, the CF move-
ment started another stagnation period in the mid–1960s. It was mainly because the
government’s tax regulations changed the altruistic donation motive on which the
community foundation originally relied, and the public debate over whether the com-
munity needed homogeneous residents or the inclusive and diverse community con-
sciousness emphasized by the civil rights and women’s liberation movement.
The third stage. In 1976, the U.S. Department of Treasury promulgated the Tax
Reform Act, which provides the best tax incentives for CFs and their donors. Since
1980s, the assets and numbers of CFs in the United States have increased significantly
due to the introduction of new tax incentives. The third generation of CFs became
one of the fastest growing philanthropy at the end of the 20th century. By 2002, there
were more than 300 CFs with assets of more than 5 million US dollars each in the
United States.13 An important manifestation of this stage is that the concept of CF has
gradually expanded from the United States to other countries. In the past few deca-
des, CFs have emerged and developed in many other parts of the world. For example,
in the 1980s, the UK established the first CF outside North America that was the
Community Foundation for Northern Ireland. In Asia, the oldest registered CF is the
Osaka Community Foundation, which was formed in Japan in 1991.14 It is estimated
that the number of global CFs was less than 440 in 1990 and reached 905 in 2000.15
The forth stage. Since the 21st century, especially in the last 10 years, the global
growth of CFs have developed rapidly. The CFs gradually extended to different coun-
tries of the world.16 Outside the United States, the number of CFs grew by an average
of 15% a year between 2000 and 2008, with the fast growth in Asia and the Pacific
(56%), Europe and the Middle East (46%).17 CFs become a global phenomenon.
According to the statistics from Charles Stewart Mott Foundation (2012), there were
more than 1750 CFs worldwide in 2012, including approximately 700 in the United
States, 259 in Germany, 187 in Canada, and 54 in the UK, and more than 550 distrib-
uted in more than 50 other countries around the world. The CF has become a major
part of the family of non-profit organizations.
However, since the definition of community foundation is vague in itself, the
debate over the CFs has existed for a long time in the academic and practical sectors.
At the practice, CFs are reshaping the relationship between the government, the
enterprises and the society, and these need to be explained in theory. The rapid
development of the global CFs indicates that the governance changes of local public
affairs are taking place worldwide, therefore a systematic theoretical framework needs
to be formed to explain this new phenomena. This article will take the rapid develop-
ment of the CFs as the background to present the theoretical framework of this evolu-
tionary logic.
 JOURNAL OF CHINESE GOVERNANCE 93

Community foundations in China

China’s community foundations learning from community foundations in other parts
of the world, especially the U.S. The development of CFs in China was an important
part in the forth stage of the development of CFs in the world. China’s CFs has often
been introduced the idea of a CF from the American counterpart.18 Both of the CFs in
China and in other parts of the world are community-based foundations.
Since the late 2000s, many local governments of large cities in mainland China
have launched many different reforms of public service delivery to adapt to the new
needs of citizens arising from social change. Among these reforms, CF has been used
to improve the efficiency of public goods provision by metropolitan governments in
China. CFs is an emerging form of philanthropy in China because the decline of public
trust in government-affiliated NPOs and the government’s new experiments to explore
new forms of community development.19 The city governments of Shanghai,
Shenzhen, Beijing, Tianjin, Chongqing, Nanjing and Guangzhou have made efforts to
introduce CFs to explore appropriate innovative forms of coproduction.
There are a big number of CFs in China. It was not until late 2008 that the concept
of CFs appeared on Chinese practitioners. Shenzhen Metropolitan, in Guangdong
Province established China’s first CF in November of 2008—the Taoyuanju Community
Development Foundation (MYTYJ). It was registered a philanthropic foundation with
the Ministry of Civil Affairs by a real estate company, Taoyuanju, based in Shenzhen.
The mission of the foundation is to improve community construction and developing
community organizations. It is supported by private foundations. In September of
2009, a group of business elites and intellectuals from Guangdong Province founded
the Guangdong Qianhe Community Philanthropic Foundation (QH, it is also called
Harmony Foundation). This foundation is considered by many to be China’s first com-
munity foundation in a real sense.20 Both of the two foundations were registered as
nonpublic fundraising foundations and therefore ineligible for public fundraising.
In the nine years since the MYTYJ was established, it has received more than 20
million RMB yuan in donations, and dozens of CFs supported by MYTYJ have been
established in Shenzhen, Shanghai, Beijing, Tianjin, and Chongqing. Since then, many
governors at the community level in metropolitan cities have launched CFs. For
instance, in January of 2016, the Shnaghai Yanji Community Philanthropic Foundation
(Yji) was founded by MYTYJ, Shnaghai Yanji District government and some businesses.
The first public fundraising foundations–Yangjing Community Philanthropic
Foundation (YJ)–was launched in 2013 by the grass roots government of Yiangjing
District in Shanghai City and enterprises located in that region, and therefore it is ineli-
gible for public fundraising. In the practical perspective in China, it is called commu-
nity foundation in Shenzhen, community philanthropic foundation in Shanghai, and
community development foundation in Nanjing and other places. Based on these, in
order to keep the same concept, we use the word community foundation (CF) in
this paper.
To date (April, 2018), around 148 CFs have been established in China, including 29
in Shenzhen, 72 in Shanghai, 10 in Nanjing, 3 in Tianjin, 5 in Chongqing, 4 in Beijing,
3 in Guangzhou and others in Hangzhou, Chengdu and other big cities. The total reg-
istered capital has reached at least RMB 240 million Yuan. In China, the NPOs
94 SHIHONG WENG AND YUNXIANG ZHANG

regulation system classified foundations into two types: nonpublic fundraising founda-
tions and public fundraising foundations. Yangjing Community Philanthropic
Foundation (YJ) in Shanghai and Jinjiang Community Development Foundation (JJ) are
the only two public fundraising foundations, all of others are nonpublic fundraising
foundations. CFs become one of important meanings of the public service provision in
the local governance.

A coproduction perspective on community foundations

In the existing literature, public management academia has paid increasing attention
to coproduction as a new phenomenon for community service delivery. Coproduction
is ‘the voluntary or involuntary involvement of public service users in any of the
design, management, delivery and/or evaluation of public services’).21 As the end users
of community service, citizens’ engagement in coproduction might contribute to com-
munity service quality and/or performance22 and substitute public expenditure with
citizens’ investment of their own resources, time and capacity.23 Hence, eliciting copro-
duction could be an attractive strategy for community service providers.24
In fact, since the reform and opening up in China, non-profit organizations and the
government formed a relationship of ‘coproduction’25 in many public services and
public goods supply processes, such as compulsory education, which is a co-supply of
educational products.26 They engage in coproduction with an improved collaborative
relationship between NPOs and government.27 This cooperative production relation-
ship is not only different from the pluralistic civil society, but also different from the
control structure of corporatism. Not only is it an internal action strategy of non-profit
organizations, but also it is not only the one-way empowerment of the government,
but the two-way empowerment and interdependence of both sides. In the process of
public service delivery, NPOs and the public are not only consulted and served, but
also part of the design, guidance and management of services, and also participate in
the formulation of public policies and the innovation of public services.
Coproduction studies originate from workshops of Indiana University in 1970s.28 It
was proposed to advocate for citizens’ active roles, rather than passive recipients in
public service delivery.29 Coproduction scholars believe that citizens could be at least
equally important participants in public service as the public sector actors. In the past
decade, coproduction studies have even diffused worldwide30 and explore various
types of government-citizen partnership in community service delivery and innov-
ation practice.31
In the literature on CFs, which is an important actor for producing and delivering
community public services, the hybrid nature of CFs draws attention to ongoing
debates as to whether they are a model or a movement.32 The basic question
reflected in the model dispute is that the difference between concepts and standards
about CFs.
The concept of the community foundation is an umbrella term, although it has
been rapid growth.33 Although there are great differences in the concepts of CF
among academy in various countries, they also agree that CFs share six main charac-
teristics. That are, they make grants to others to address a wide variety of needs in
 JOURNAL OF CHINESE GOVERNANCE 95

the community; have a very wide range of tasks such as improve the quality of life of
residents in the community; provide services in a defined geographic area, such as
city, state, town, county or region; seek to build a collection of endowed funds from a
wide range of donors, include private and public organizations; are governed by a
board of citizens broadly reflective of communities they serve; help donors achieve
their philanthropic and charitable goals.34 Compared with general non-profit organiza-
tions, the core factors of these CFs are two points: The first is to emphasize the local
geographical area, includes the local resources, local stakeholders and local solutions;
the second is to emphasize the role and function of cross-sector collaboration (CSC),
includes advocates of community issues and promoters of CSC.35 Based on the above
discussion, and combined with China’s development practice, the CF is conceptualize
as one that inspires and gives support to community public services provided through
an independent foundation created by business, non-profit and government organiza-
tions.36 This concept is rooted in the real community foundation. In the rest of this
article, we use this definition to analyze the function of CFs in China.
The model of CFs labelled by scholars are not uniformed. Although the CFs have
increased rapidly in the world, there is still no unified model for the development of
CFs globally. In general, donor-focused model and community-focused model are used
to distinguish different CPF types.37 These two different models have guided the diver-
gent focuses and practices among CFs, thereby leading to differing views on under-
standing and assessing the performance of CFs.38 However, such two different modes
of operation may be adopted by the same CF at different stages of development.
Some data about American CFs indicated that their function actually influenced form.
Many of these younger (less than 10 years) CFs spent their infancy aggressively seek-
ing growth by attracting many different types of funds, while, these same CFs in their
adolescence were struggling to define a clear role for themselves in their commun-
ities.39 Then another typology appeared. Based on three sets of variables–organiza-
tional characteristics, community characteristics, and external forces, other scholars
distinguished three types of CFs model, donor services, matchmaker, and community
leader.40 When it comes to in China, scholars analyzed a new typology of Chinese
CPFs. Taking whether the foundation has the public fundraising status and is affiliated
with the government, two CPF types be taken into account, independent vs. govern-
ment-affiliated.41 While it reflects the more opaque characteristic of CFs as a move-
ment.42 But the model theory is not necessary for a good theoretical framework for
explaining the CFs, because the model theory only focuses on the typology and have
nothing to do with the development of CFs.
Other scholars viewed the new phenomena of China’s CF as a movement.43 The
academy seem to have changed from conceptualizing CFs as a concrete model to
reshaping CFs more broadly as a movement focusing on social justice, expressing
opinions and redefining positions.44 The movement view of CFs was developed and
reinterpreted in a non–U.S. context, preferring values, vision, voice and cross-sectorial
organizational flexibility.45 Of course, CFs place more emphasis on cooperation with
the government than on conflicting with the later. The growth of a multi-faceted phil-
anthropic delivery form of CFs, at some odds with the substance of private founda-
tions. It means that CFs be regarded collectively as a social movement, in which this
96 SHIHONG WENG AND YUNXIANG ZHANG

orientation is a strong central theme in the literature of practitioners and leadership in

NPOs field.46 In the World Bank’s Assessment Report on Community Foundation
Initiatives, it is also considered the global CFs as a movement, but it is too early to
fully understand its contribution. The discussion of the meaning of the global CF
movement is mainly reflected in different aspects.
The existing literature also shows that CFs should not be perceived as either model
or movement, instead they cover a spectrum that incorporates characteristics of both
perceptions of model and movement, and ranges from a functionalist organizational
blueprint to a social movement.47 It be argued that model and movement are not
very well to explain the new phenomena of CFs. Literature on coproduction offers a
promising alternative for understanding this issue. Coproduction view is an important
theoretical framework for understanding citizens’ involvement in public service delivery48
which include in the community level. And the coproduction was originated from the
treatment as an alternative mechanism for public service delivery. With coproduction, the
cost-effectiveness and quality of local community public services could be improved. The
coproduction perspective might be better for explaining the functions of CFs than model,
the latter only explain the stationary of CFs. Researches showed that at both the individ-
ual and organizational levels, coproduction serve as a significant role in the phases of
public service.49 Following such a perspective, we can see the value of the coproduction
framework to explain the forms and functions of CFs.

Community coproduction of public service in china

Scholars have explored at least two types of coproduction in extant literature. One is
client coproduction.50 Client engagement is essential phase to transit instrumental
resources that are offered by service providers into value-in-use.51 Their engagement
in coproduction serves to mitigate distance between their diversified demands and
public service that targets to majority population interests.52 Through contributing to
the input, process and outcome of public service, client coproduction could signifi-
cantly add to public service efficiency and effectiveness.53
Besides client coproduction where citizens coproduce service that benefits are
mainly personal, citizens could also participate in collective coproduction, which pro-
duces ‘goods whose benefits may be enjoyed by the entire community’.54 In one type
of community coproduction that ‘the public sector and citizens making better use of
each other’s assets and resources to achieve better outcomes or improved efficiency’,
citizens’ involvement goes beyond creation of their individual value but attaches more
collaboration and reciprocity towards community service provision.55
The features of client coproduction is that: the contribution of time and effort to
the delivery of public services by clients and citizens, prompted by or in concert with
Public Sector Organizations (PSOs).56 It is also ‘client focuses’ in the public sector. In
the client coproduction, citizens or ‘clients’ (who want to be transformed by the ser-
vice into safer, better educated, or healthier persons), can play an active role in pro-
ducing public goods and services of consequence to them.57 In these service systems,
the client appears twice, once as a customer and again as part of the service delivery
 JOURNAL OF CHINESE GOVERNANCE 97

The form of civic participation

Individual Collective

a. Top-down b. Top-down
individual collective
coproduction coproduction
Top-down CFs (LJZ, NXJL, WZ, CFs (JP, YJ, JJ)
GM, MT, CYM, TP, ZR,

The orientation JSW, HHW, FH,

of civic ZJG……)
participation c. Bottom-up d. Bottom-up
individual collective
Bottom-up coproduction coproduction
CFs (MYTYJ, TYJ, YP, CFs (YJi, SK, NK, QH)
YQ, BM, XSXQ, DS,
CTYJ, TTYJ)

Figure 1. Types of community coproduction.

Source. Compiled by authors

system.58 The public then works as partner with the government to jointly produce
services that governments previously produced on their own.59
The features of collective coproduction is that: the citizens face a set of problems
of producing a collective benefit, or the organization of citizens and their fulfillment
of promises to undertake collective action which is the social capital outside the gov-
ernment.60 Coproduction leads to the co-creation of value for the service user and can
contribute to collective co-creation of value for other service users.61
In China’s political system, local governments are motivated to operate their polit-
ical authority and to govern public services top-down.62 For instance, according to the
Charity Law, the Ministry of Civil Affairs (MOCA) is in charge of NPO registration and
supervision. Then whether CFs can integrate the top and bottom is also very import-
ant factor to explain the function of CFs in China.
For these reasons, we combine the orientation and the form of civic participation in
public services delivery. We suggest that citizens have a choice of whether there are
individual or collective coproduction and they participate top-down or bottom-up.
That leading to four types of coproduction (see Figure 1): top-down individual copro-
duction, top-down collective coproduction, bottom-up individual coproduction, and
bottom-up collective coproduction. This typology should add new knowledge to the
Chinese philanthropy research.
Coproduction occurs both with individuals and with groups or collective agents.63 At
the level of individuals, the success of public information campaigns depends on people
partnering by doing whatever a campaign might advocate. At the group level or collect-
ive agents, many local governments depend heavily on partnerships with community
organizations, as theses collective agents share responsibility for running a recreation
center.64 It be kept in mind is that these actors and agents might be moved, and more
important, the services that they provide also can be changed. For instance, it may shift
from individual coproduction to collective coproduction. And then, based on the case of
Chinese CFs, the coproduction of public services will be texted in the following part.
98 SHIHONG WENG AND YUNXIANG ZHANG

In the following, we illustrate four typical types of coproduction using evidence from
field research conducted into CFs in China. Our comparative case studies also
include four main themes for each case: the CFS’ leadership, structure, behavior.

Top-down individual coproduction

We will take Shanghai Lujiazui Community Philanthropic Foundation (LJZ) as an example.
LJZ was established in 2015 by Shanghai Lujiazui Street Office (the government of
Lujiazui community) which funded it with 1 million RMB yuan. It represents a pilot pro-
ject of Shanghai grassroots government to explore urban community governance. There
are more than 160,000 citizens in Lujiazui community with 31 neighborhood committees,
45 kindergartens, primary and secondary schools and vocational schools. LJZ Foundation
was established and organized top-down, and it delivered public services for individuals,
it hoped to use resources for subsidizing public welfare projects and carrying out charity
relief, for instance, aid poor students and disabled elderly. Its birth was driven by the
local government to acquire and allocate resources in its community. It means LJZ
Foundation was top-down individual coproduction of public services. At LJZ, around its
leadership, building the foundation’s organizational capacity is very important while also
a big challenge. ‘The leadership change quickly with different directors in the street gov-
ernment affects our work and resource operation.’ (CF ID: 21). The structure of founda-
tions mainly differed in their board governance. At LJZ, in its board governance practices,
there are 11 board members which include two nonprofit representatives, five business
members, one community resident, and three government officials. The chair of LJZ’s
board of directors is a business member but his organization belonged to the state
owned government. And the board of LJZ is controlled relatively tight by the local street
government. The basic source of its funding was the government itself. The behavior of
YCF seems to be more public organizations, because although it was registered as a non-
public fundraising foundation, it shares a strong government background with the
Lujiazui Street Government which was funded by the local government.

Top-down collective coproduction

We will take Shanghai Jiangpu Community Philanthropic Foundation (JP) as an
example. JP CF was established with donations from the private enterprise Shanghai
Wentong Potassium Salt Group Co. Ltd and other 3 companies. In March of 2015, JP
Foundation was set up in Shanghai Jiangpu Community by the 4 companies, which
provided services for this community. However, it is changed quickly to be organized
top-down such as LJZ Foundation. Interestingly though, this construction did not stop
JP CF from changing alternative orientation of public participation. As the Shanghai
municipal government hopes more and more that the CFs will assume the public
function of community governance through government guidance, many CFs in
Shanghai rely primarily on the local government’s support from the community. JP CF
is the same case, it becomes a top-down collective coproduction of public services
quickly. Then, the leading actor and funder is not the enterprise funder, but the local
government (CF ID: 41). Its main functions are as similar with LJZ Foundation’s in
 JOURNAL OF CHINESE GOVERNANCE 99

which it delivered public services for residents, it hoped to use resources for subsidiz-
ing public welfare projects and carrying out charity relief. The full-time staffs of JP
were not affiliated independently itself, instead were hired by the local street govern-
ment. From the community leadership building, JP was vulnerable to interference
from the local street-level government. At JP, around its board governance, there are
7 board members which include four business members, one lawyer, one community
resident, and one government official without nonprofit representatives. Although the
chair of JP’s board of directors is a retired business member but he is the former
leader of the state owned government. The lack of flexibility constrained the capacity
building of JP to engage in community leadership activities, because its board is con-
strained by the local government. It was registered as a nonpublic fundraising founda-
tion, but its fundraising was supported by the local street government, therefore the
behavior of JP became overly dependent on the local street government.
Another two public fundraising CFs-, Shanghai Yangjing Community Philanthropic
Foundation (YJ) and Chengdu Jinjiang Community Development Foundation (JJ), are
also top-down collective coproduction.

Bottom-up individual coproduction

In this pattern, funding is donated by enterprises or private providers. Shenzhen
Taoyuan Community Development Foundation (TYJ) is a special example. It was
launched with donations from the private enterprise the Taoyuanju Group, a real
estate company based in Shenzhen. It is organized by a non-profit organization, enter-
prise or even as a joint effort. In 2013, TYJ Foundation was set up in Shenzhen
Taoyuanju Community by the Taoyuanju Group, which provided services for this com-
munity. Its main functions are funding the social organizations of the Taoyuanju
Community and promoting the development of community welfare. TYJ Foundation
focused on the community it was located. Its leading actor and funder is the enter-
prise funder; also government oversight is limited, because enterprises are more likely
to follow market mechanisms than bureaucratic ones. All of the 6 million registered
capital of TYJ foundation was donated by the Taoyuanju Group and its affiliated units
(CF ID: 51). As the TYJ fund resources are sufficient, it does not need to raise funds
from other enterprises or residents. TYJ is an independent community foundation, and
the birth of it was driven by demand from the community. TYJ was able to make its
community leadership efforts beyond capacity building, and also helped grassroots
nonprofits from communities in other cities in response to the changing issues. In
TYJ’s board governance, the open board recruitment process made a board with
strong commitment to the CF. Its board members usually mobilize various kinds of
external fundraising resources for the CF. from the behavior perspective, the lack of a
public fundraising status made TYJ creates different ways of raising money.

Bottom-up collective coproduction

In this type, the CFs did not confine their works in any specific geographic community.
For example, Shanghai Yanji Community Philanthropic Foundation (YJi) was launched
100 SHIHONG WENG AND YUNXIANG ZHANG

by Yanji Street Office of Yangpu District Government in Shanghai City. The higher lev-
els of government in the city and the district encouraged grassroots government to
promote the establishment of CFs. In January 2016, YJi Street Office in Shanghai City
raised 5 million RMB yuan in funding—part of which was donated by enterprises,
including 2 million from Taoyuanju Community Development Foundation (MYTYJ), and
some others from 12 enterprises located in YJi—to set up this CF (CF ID: 31). It
focused on aiding poor students and disabled elderly. Since 2018, the main mission of
YJi is subsidizing and supporting public welfare projects that are conducive to the
improvement of community pension, education, sports, autonomy, environmental sani-
tation, etc.; funding and developing community volunteer services. For instance, the
YJi Foundation’s primary mission is to meet public needs. Its current major services
include: (1) Participatory funding. The non-directional donations received each year
are mainly derived from day-to-day donations. The YJi regularly publicizes philan-
thropic projects that meet community needs through residents’ participation, and pro-
vides assistance and capacity building for these projects. It also monitors and
evaluates these projects together with donors. (2) Community participation platform.
The YJi Foundation has launched several community participation platforms for teen-
agers, students, elderly and volunteers in the Yanji area. It also cultivates the social
capital by linking those lonely old people together. (3) The cultivator of grassroots
NPOs. ‘Our organization is outside the area and our volunteer managers are profes-
sional, one of our important work is in order to create some leaders of grassroots
NPOs in this community’ (CPF ID: 31). It is easy to find, that is bottom-up collective
coproduction of public services.
YJi makes a great effort to its community leadership building. ‘Our grant-making
programs usually emphasis on for grassroots nonprofit organizations’ capacity
building’ (CF ID: 31). The structure of foundations mainly differed in their board
governance. In YJi’s board governance practices, there are 13 board members which
include three nonprofit representatives, eight business members, one university
professor from academia, and one government official. The chair of its board of
directors is a business member. The Executive Director of YJi is nonprofit represen-
tative. The behavior of YJi is also special, it was registered as a nonpublic fundrais-
ing foundation, but it developed a new strategy that make some collaborative
philanthropic programs with community partnerships and collaborative leadership
from other communities even as other cities. Obviously, this is a collective
coproduction.
Shenzhen Shekou Community Foundation (SK) and Guangdong Qianhe Community
Philanthropic Foundation (QH, or Harmony Foundation) are also such foundations. SK
was originally established in Shenzhen Metropolitan in 2014 by 89 people with 1000
yuan per person. It is the first entirely resident-sponsored CPF in China. They elected
the members of the council by democratic electoral methods. QH Foundation was
founded by a group of intellectuals and business elites from Guangdong Province in
September of 2009. It provides small grants to grassroots nonprofits and positions
itself with idea of as a community foundation that served the community as similar as
the US community foundations.65 Both of the two foundations are keep its way with
bottom-up collective coproduction.
 JOURNAL OF CHINESE GOVERNANCE 101

An important finding of this research is that this theoretical framework holds in

community public service subsectors. The results of the multilevel analysis presented
above suggest that CFs are more likely to collaborate with local governments for
delivering community public service through coproduction. Our findings show that dif-
ferent CFs develop with different paths according to whether there are individual or
collective coproduction and they participate top-down or bottom-up. We also find
that when CFs are stable in their coproductive spaces, especially when local govern-
ments have enough resource, they seem difficult to go beyond existing patterns of
coproduction. This typology contributes to answering these research questions and
adds new knowledge to study about Chinese philanthropy.

Conclusion and discussion: a new framework of public service

This article seeks to build an understanding of how the CFs provide community public
services in China through the lens of coproduction. Community coproduction could
be beneficial for both service provision and social development in communities. In
terms of service provision, community coproduction could enhance citizens’ impacts
in community service commissioning, designing, delivery and assessment.66 As citizens
know better about their own demands, community coproduction could strengthen
the responsiveness of community service.67 Meanwhile, citizens’ contribution in service
provision could also complement to community service providers’ investment, which
potential promotes community service efficiency.68 In this sense, community copro-
duction offers a promising approach to provide community service through collabor-
ation with the public.
Insofar as social development, community coproduction could also help to cultivate
social interconnectedness and social capital within community.69 Community copro-
duction could serve to mobilize those less organized groups of citizens in traditional
political participation.70 It helps to transit individual responsibilities into collective
ones71 and promote positive-sum as well as service-focused relationship72 in commun-
ities. Community coproduction could also cultivate mutual understandings between
service providers, public sectors and the public.73 Hence, this coproductive partnership
could be extended beyond community service provision to wider range of public gov-
ernance74 and help to provide ‘a missing piece of the puzzle for reforming democracy
and the welfare state’.75
Citizen organizations in the communities are also essential to promote community
coproduction. They could serve to mobilize and motivate their members to participate
in community coproduction76 and play their roles as intermedium between public sec-
tors and individual citizens.77 With the existence of citizen organizations, possibilities
to coproduce collective goods might increase (Percy, 1987). While citizen organizations
themselves could also strengthen their status in the community through participation
in coproduction.78
It is easy to find that there are differences between the CFs in China and those in
major Western countries. Firstly, almost all of Chinese CFs provide public services on
various scales, and most of them are largely self-directed or comprise multiple stake-
holders, but not both. The most important point is that they lack an independent
102 SHIHONG WENG AND YUNXIANG ZHANG

organization that combines government, non-profit and for-profit actors.79 In Western

countries, the original concept of CFs refers to an independent, publicly accountable
grantmaking body that is controlled by community members.80 Many countries have
moved from hierarchical modes of public service delivery to the integration
of markets.
This paper is aiming to propose a new framework to explain the logical nature of the
forms and functions of CFs in Chin. Then we need to justify the contribution of the new
framework to existing literature. First, contrary to the static patterns found in the literature
on coproduction,81 our findings suggest that the CFs could move from one type to
another type of coproduction. Second, another extension of this research is the applicabil-
ity of the new framework developed from Chinese context for CFs in other countries, espe-
cially in some developing countries. Even for more developed Asian countries, such as
Japan and South Korea, the development of CFs with coproduction is not as prevalent
compared with other developed western countries. Further studies should be paid close
attention to this trend of CFs diffusing through coproduction in the phases of local public
service provision in the community level. That might have different meanings for different
countries, such as countries in Africa, Asia and South America. Third, this study contributes
to the philanthropic literature by bridging such a new framework and by exploring the
conditions under which CFs diffuse from one type to another type of coproduction. It also
suggests that the NPOs-governments relationships are different when NPOs coproducing
with local government in the public service provision.82
In sum, coproduction studies offer us an inspiring perspective to understand how
community service are provided in reality. As community services are all more or less
coproduced together with the public, the approach that community foundations are
adopted and develop should not simply be the consequence of norm model or social
movement. It should be incubated within the continual coproductive relationship
between public sector, social organizations and the public. Hence, coproduction the-
ory implies for a new model to explain the functions of community foundations.
Finally, this article extends the existing research discourse on public services and
NPOs. In this article, we have attempted to develop a typology for examining the
forms and functions of Chinese CFs with the perspective of coproduction of public
services in the cross-sector collaboration governing process. Based on the coproduc-
tion theory, we conclude that in China, the coproduction of CFs can be mainly classi-
fied as four types: the top-down individual coproduction, top-down collective
coproduction, bottom-up individual coproduction and bottom-up collective coproduc-
tion. Especially, most of these CFs closely linked to the involvement of government. It
means the CFs could integrate top and down civic participation to coproduce public
services in China. These CFs are attempting to meet unfulfilled public needs.
According to this, we can conclude that this might be very important for the future
development of Chinese NPOs in this biggest non-western country in the world.

Notes
1. Harrow and Jung, “Philanthropy and Community Development,” 132–152.
2. Defourny and Nyssens, “Social Enterprise in Europe,” 230–242.
3. Martinez-Cosio and Bussell, “Private foundations and community development,” 416–429.
 JOURNAL OF CHINESE GOVERNANCE 103

4. Doctor, “Philanthropy’s Role,” 220–226.

5. Bird and Barnes, “Scaling Up Community Activism,” 208–221.
6. Graddy and Morgan, “Community Foundations, Organizational Strategy, and Public Policy,”
599–614; Walkenhorst, Building Philanthropic and Social Capital; Wang, Graddy, and
Morgan, “The Development of Community-based Foundations in East Asia,” 1155–1178;
Harrow, Jung, and Phillips, “Community Foundations,” 308–321; Guo and Lai, “Community
Foundations in China,” 1–17.
7. Sacks, The Growth of Community Foundations around the World; Lowe, “Community
Foundations,” 221–240; Hodgson, Knight, and Mathie, The New Generation of Community
Foundations, 1–24; Harrow and Jung, see note 1 above.
8. Forrer, Kee, and Boyer, Governing Cross-sector Collaboration; Bryson, Crosby, and Stone,
“Designing and Implementing Cross-Sector Collaborations,” 647–663.
9. See note 1 above.
10. Tittle, Rebuilding Cleveland, 6.
11. Guo and Lai, see note 6 above.
12. Lowe, see note 7 above.
13. Foundation Center, The foundation directory, 21.
14. Wang, Graddy, and Morgan, see note 6 above.
15. Sacks, Community Foundation Global Status Report, 30.
16. Harrow, Jung, and Phillips, see note 6 above, 380.
17. See note 15 above, 30.
18. See note 11 above.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. Osborne, Radnor, and Strokosch, “Co-Production and the Co-Creation of Value in Public
Services,”639–653.
22. Brudney, “Local Coproduction of Services and the Analysis of Municipal
Productivity,” 465–484.
23. Rosentraub and Warren, “Citizen Participation in the Production of Urban Services,” 75–89.
24. Alford, Engaging Public Sector Clients, 2009.
25. Ostrom, “Crossing the Great Divide: Coproduction, Synergy, and Development,” 1073–1087.
26. Weng, “The Association of NPOs and Compulsory Education Aid in China,” 34–55.
27. Gazley, “Why Not Partner with Local Government,” 51–76.
28. Parks et al., “Consumers as Coproducers of Public Services: Some Economic and
Institutional Considerations,” 1001–1011.
29. See note 25 above; Pestoff, “Citizens and Co-production of Welfare Services,” 503–519.
30. Ackerman, “From Co-Production to Co-Governance,” 101–126; Bovaird, “Beyond
Engagement and Participation,” 846–860; Brandsen and Helderman, “The Conditions for
Successful Co-Production in Housing,” 1–12; Chatfield, Scholl, and Brajawidagda, “T
Tsunami Early Warnings via Twitter in Government,” 377–386; Mitlin, “With and Beyond the
State,” 339–360; Needham, “Realising the Potential of Co-Production,” 221–231; Pestoff,
Democratic Architecture for the Welfare State; Thomas, Citizen, Customer, Partner, 2012.
31. Brandsen and Honingh, “Distinguishing Different Types of Coproduction,” 427–435.
32. See note 16 above.
33. Ibid; See note 11 above.
34. Sacks, see note 7 above, 16–18.
35. Walkenhorst, see note 6 above.
36. Weng and Christensen. “The Community Philanthropic Foundation,” 10–235.
37. See note 11 above.
38. Guo and Brown,. “Community Foundation Performance,” 267–287.
39. Millesen and Martin, Community Foundation Strategy, 832–849.
40. Gradd and Morgan, see note 6 above.
41. See note 11 above.
104 SHIHONG WENG AND YUNXIANG ZHANG

42. Jung, Harrow, and Phillips, “Developing a Better Understanding of Community Foundations in
the UK’s Localisms,” 409–427.
43. See note 11 above.
44. See note 42 above.
45. See note 16 above.
46. Ibid.
47. See note 42 above.
48. Cheng, “Exploring the Role of Nonprofits in Public Service Provision Moving from
Coproduction to Cogovernance,” 203–214.
49. Brandsen, Steen, and Verschuere, Co-production and Co-creation.
50. See note 24 above.
51. Etgar, “A Descriptive Model of the Consumer Co-production Process,” 97–108; Vargo and
Lusch,” 1–10.
52. Schneider, “Coproduction of Public and Private Safety,” 611.
53. See note 24 above.
54. Brudney and England, “Toward a Definition of the Coproduction Concept,” 59–65.
55. Bovaird and Loeffler, “User and Community Co-Production of Public Services,” 1006–1019.
56. Alford, “Co-production, Interdependence and Publicness,”673–691.
57. See note 25 above.
58. See note 55 above.
59. Thomas, See note 30 above.
60. See note 25 above.
61. See note 21 above.
62. Lei, “Freeing the Press,” 1–48.
63. See note 30 above.
64. Ibid.
65. See note 11 above.
66. See note 55 above; Nabatchi, Sancino, and Sicilia, “Varieties of Participation in Public
Services,” 766–776.
67. Percy, Citizen Participation in the Co-Production of Urban Services, 431–446.
68. See note 22 above; Jakobsen and Andersen, “Coproduction and Equity in Public Service
Delivery,” 704–713; See note 23 above.
69. Fledderus, Brandsen, and Honingh, “Restoring Trust Through the Co-Production of Public
Services,” 424–443; Levine and Fisher, “Citizenship and Public Administration,” 178–189.
70. Bovaird, see note 30 above; Ventriss, “Emerging Perspectives on Citizen
Participation,” 433–440.
71. Eriksson, “Co-production as a Political Form,” 151–160.
72. Needham, see note 30 above.
73. Mitlin, see note 30 above.
74. Ibid.
75. Pestoff, see note 26 above.
76. Marschall, “Citizen Participation and the Neighborhood Context,” 231–244.
77. Rich, “Interaction of the Voluntary and Governmental Sectors,” 59–76; Bovaird, see note
30 above.
78. See note 30 above.
79. See note 36 above.
80. See note 16 above, 308.
81. See note 56 above; See note 54 above; See note 49 above.
82. See note 48 above.
 JOURNAL OF CHINESE GOVERNANCE 105

Acknowledgments
We thank Beth Gazley, Chao Guo, Yuan (Daniel) Cheng, Huafang Li, Yondong Shen, and partici-
pants of the 2018 Coproduction Workshop at Zhejiang University for helpful comments and
suggestions. All remaining errors are our own.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Shihong Weng is an Associate Professor of Public Administration in the School of Public
Management, East China Normal University, and also senior researcher at Fudan University. His
research interests include studies of public governance, NPOs in public service, in particular in
public policy areas, internet political participation. His recent publications include: The
Community Philanthropic Foundation: A New Form of Independent Public Service Provider for
China?; Internet Political Participation and Public Agenda-setting; The Association of NPOs and
Compulsory Education Aid in China, Chinese Public Administration Review, et al.
Yunxiang Zhang is an Assistant Professor of Public Administration and Policy at the College of
Philosophy and Political Sciences, Shanghai Normal University.

ORCID
Yunxiang Zhang http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3345-5848

References
Ackerman, J. “From Co-Production to Co-Governance.” In New Public Governance, the Third Sector
and Co-Production, edited by V. Pestoff, T. Brandsen, and B. Verschuere, 101–126. New York:
Routledge, 2012.
Alford, J. Engaging Public Sector Clients: From Service-Delivery to Co-production. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
Alford, J. “Co-Production, Interdependence and Publicness: Extending Public Service-Dominant
Logic.” Public Management Review 18, no. 5 (2016): 673–691. doi:10.1080/14719037.2015.
1111659.
Bird, C., and J. Barnes. “Scaling up Community Activism: The Role of Intermediaries in Collective
Approaches to Community Energy.” People, Place and Policy Online 8, no. 3 (2014): 208–221.
doi:10.3351/ppp.0008.0003.0006.
Bovaird, T. “Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Coproduction of Public
Services.” Public Administration Review 67, no. 5 (2007): 846–860. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.
00773.x.
Bovaird, T., and E. Loeffler. “From Engagement to Co-Production: The Contribution of Users and
Communities to Outcomes and Public Value.” VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary
and Nonprofit Organizations 23, no. 4 (2012): 1119–1138. doi:10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6.
Bovaird, T., and E. Loeffler. “User and Community Co-Production of Public Services: What Does
the Evidence Tell Us?” International Journal of Public Administration 39, no. 13 (2016):
1006–1019. doi:10.1080/01900692.2016.1250559.
Brandsen, T., and M. Honingh. “Distinguishing Different Types of Coproduction: A Conceptual
Analysis Based on the Classical Definitions.” Public Administration Review 76, no. 3 (2016):
427–435. doi:10.1111/puar.12465.
106 SHIHONG WENG AND YUNXIANG ZHANG

Brandsen, T., and J. Helderman. “The Conditions for Successful Co-Production in Housing: A Case
Study of German Housing Cooperatives.” In New Public Governance, The Third Sector and Co-
Production, edited by V. Pestoff, T. Brandsen and B. Verschuere, 1–12. New York: Routledge,
2012.
Brandsen, T., T. Steen, and B. Verschuere. eds. Co-production and Co-creation: Engaging Citizens
in Public Services. New York: Routledge, 2018.
Brudney, J. “Local Coproduction of Services and the Analysis of Municipal Productivity.” Urban
Affairs Quarterly 19, no. 4 (1984): 465–484. doi:10.1177/004208168401900405.
Brudney, J., and R. E. England. “Toward a Definition of the Coproduction Concept.” Public
Administration Review 43, no. 1 (1983): 59–65. doi:10.2307/975300.
Bryson, J. M., F. Ackermann, and C. Eden. “Discovering Collaborative Advantage: The
Contributions of Goal Categories and Visual Strategy Mapping: Theory to Practice.” Public
Administration Review 76, no. 6 (2016): 912–925. doi:10.1111/puar.12608.
Bryson, John M., B. C. Crosby, and M. M. Stone. “Designing and Implementing Cross-Sector
Collaborations: Needed\r, and\r, Challenging.” Public Administration Review 75, no. 5 (2015):
647–663. doi:10.1111/puar.12432.
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. “Annual Report, Community Foundations: Rooted locally,
Growing globally.” 2012. Accessed May 18, 2018. http://www.mott.org/files/publications/
AR2012.pdf
Chatfield, A. T., H. J. Scholl, and U. Brajawidagda. “T Tsunami Early Warnings via Twitter in
Government: Net-Savvy Citizens’ Co-Production of Time-Critical Public Information Services.”
Government Information Quarterly 30, no. 4 (2013): 377–386. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.021.
Cheng, Y. D. “Exploring the Role of Nonprofits in Public Service Provision Moving from
Coproduction to Cogovernance.” Public Administration Review 79, no. 2 (2019): 203–214. doi:
10.1111/puar.12970.
Defourny, J., and M. Nyssens. “Social Enterprise in Europe: At the Crossroads of Market, Public
Policies and Third Sector.” Policy and Society 29, no. 3 (2010): 231–242. doi:10.1016/j.polsoc.
2010.07.002.
Doctor, L. J. “Philanthropy’s Role: Working Alongside Communities to Support Social Change.”
Community Development 45, no. 3 (2014): 220–226. doi:10.1080/15575330.2014.901400.
Eom, T. H., H. Bae, and S. Kim. “Moving beyond the Influence of Neighbors on Policy Diffusion:
Local Influences on Decisions to Conduct Property Tax Reassessment in New York.” The
American Review of Public Administration 47, no. 5 (2017): 599–614. doi:10.1177/
0275074017706754.
Eriksson, K. “Co-Production as a Political Form.” World Political Science 7, no. 1 (2011): 151–160.
doi:10.2202/1935-6226.1107.
Etgar, M. “A Descriptive Model of the Consumer Co-Production Process.” Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science 36, no. 1 (2008): 97–108. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0061-1.
Fledderus, J., T. Brandsen, and M. Honingh. “Restoring Trust through the Co-Production of Public
Services: A Theoretical Elaboration.” Public Management Review 16, no. 3 (2014): 424–443. doi:
10.1080/14719037.2013.848920.
Forrer, J. F., J. E. Kee, and E. Boyer. Governing Cross-sector Collaboration. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass, 2014.
Foundation Center. The Foundation Directory. 2002 ed. New York: The Foundation Center, 2002.
Gazley, B. “Beyond the Contract: The Scope and Nature of Informal Government-Nonprofit
Partnerships.” Public Administration Review 68, no. 1 (2008): 141–154. doi:10.2307/25145584.
Gazley, B. “Why Not Partner with Local Government? Nonprofit Managerial Perceptions of
Collaborative Disadvantage.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 39, no. 1 (2010): 51–76.
doi:10.1177/0899764008327196.
Graddy, E., and L. “Wang. “Community Foundation Development and Social Capital.” Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 38, no. 3 (2009): 392–412. doi:10.1177/0899764008318609.
Graddy, E., and D. Morgan. “Community Foundations, Organizational Strategy, and Public
Policy.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 35, no. 4 (2006): 605–614. doi:10.5465/
AMBPP.2005.18783336.
 JOURNAL OF CHINESE GOVERNANCE 107

Guo, C., and W. A. Brown. “Community Foundation Performance: Bridging Community Resources
and Needs.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 35, no. 2 (2006): 267–287. doi:10.1177/
0899764006287216.
Guo, C., and W. Lai. Community Foundations in China: In Search of Identity? International
Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 46, no. 3 (2017): 1–17. doi:10.1007/s11266-
017-9932-3.
Harrow, J., and T. Jung. Philanthropy and Community Development: The Vital Signs of
Community Foundation? Community Development Journal 51, no. 1 (2016): 132–152. doi:10.
1093/cdj/bsv056.
Harrow, J., T. Jung, and S.D. Phillips. “Community Foundations: Agility in the Duality of
Foundation and Community.” In The Routledge Companion to Philanthropy, edited by T. Jung,
S. D. Phillips, and J. Harrow, 308–321. London: Routledge, 2016.
Hodgson, J., B. Knight, and A. Mathie. The New Generation of Community Foundations.
Antigonish, Canada: The Global Fund for Community Foundations, 2012.
Jing, Y., and T. Gong. “Managed Social Innovation: The Case of Government-Sponsored Venture
Philanthropy in Shanghai.” Public Administration & Policy Review 71, no. 2 (2012): 233–245.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.2012.00767.x.
Jung, T., J. Harrow, and S. D. Phillips. “Developing a Better Understanding of Community
Foundations in the UK’s Localisms.” Policy & Politics 41, no. 3 (2013): 409–427. doi:10.1332/
030557312X655594.
Jakobsen, M., and S. C. Andersen. “Coproduction and Equity in Public Service Delivery.” Public
Administration Review 73, no. 5 (2013): 704–713. doi:10.1111/puar.12094.
Lecy, J. D., and D. M. Van Slyke. “Nonprofit Sector Growth and Density: Testing Theories of
Government Support.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23, no. 1 (2013):
189–214. doi:10.1093/jopart/mus010.
Lei, Y. W. “Freeing the Press: How Field Environment Explains Critical News Reporting in China.”
American Journal of Sociology 122, no. 1 (2016): 1–48. doi:10.1086/686697.
Levine, C. H., and G. Fisher. “Special Issue: Citizenship and Public Administration jj Citizenship
and Service Delivery: The Promise of Coproduction.” Public Administration Review 44, no. 1
(1984): 178–189. doi:10.2307/975559.
Lowe, J. S. “Community Foundations: What Do They Offer Community Development?” Journal of
Urban Affairs 26, no. 2 (2004): 221–240. doi:10.1111/j.0735-2166.2004.00198.x.
Marschall, M. J. “Citizen Participation and the Neighborhood Context: A New Look at the
Coproduction of Local Public Goods.” Political Research Quarterly 57, no. 2 (2004): 231–244.
doi:10.2307/3219867.
Martinez-Cosio, M., and M. R. Bussell. “Private Foundations and Community Development: differ-
ing Approaches to Community Empowerment.” Community Development 43, no. 4 (2012):
416–429. doi:10.1080/15575330.2012.705869.
Millesen, J. L., and E. C. Martin. “Community Foundation Strategy: Doing Good and the
Moderating Effects of Fear, Tradition, and Serendipity.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly 43, no. 5 (2014): 832–849. doi:10.1177/0899764013486195.
Mitlin, D. “With and Beyond the State—Co-Production as a Route to Political Influence, Power
and Transformation for Grassroots Organizations.” Environment and Urbanization 20, no. 2
(2008): 339–360. doi:10.1177/0956247808096117.
Nabatchi, T., A. Sancino, and M. Sicilia. “Varieties of Participation in Public Services: The Who,
When, and What of Coproduction.” Public Administration Review 77, no. 5 (2017): 766–776.
doi:10.1111/puar.12765.
Needham, C. “Realising the Potential of Co-Production: Negotiating Improvements in Public
Services.” Social Policy and Society 7, no. 2 (2008): 221–231. doi:10.1017/S1474746407004174.
Osborne, S. P., Z. Radnor, and K. Strokosch. “Co-Production and the Co-Creation of Value in
Public Services: A Suitable Case for Treatment?” Public Management Review 18, no. 5 (2016):
639–653. doi:10.1080/14719037.2015.1111927.
Ostrom, E. “Crossing the Great Divide: Coproduction, Synergy, and Development.” World
Development 24, no. 6 (1996): 1073–1087. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X.
108 SHIHONG WENG AND YUNXIANG ZHANG

Parks, Roger B., Paula C. Baker, Larry Kiser, Ronald Oakerson, Elinor Ostrom, Vincent Ostrom,
Stephen L. Percy, Martha B. Vandivort, Gordon P. Whitaker, and Rick Wilson. “Consumers as
Coproducers of Public Services: Some Economic and Institutional Considerations.” Policy
Studies Journal 9, no. 7 (1981): 1001–1011. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1981.tb01208.x.
Percy, S. L. “Citizen Participation in the Co-Production of Urban Services.” Urban Affairs Quarterly
19, no. 4 (1984): 431–446. doi:10.1177/004208168401900403.
Percy, S. L. “Citizen Involvement in Coproducing Safety and Security in the Community.” Public
Productivity Review 10, no. 4 (1987): 83–93. doi:10.2307/3380252.
Pestoff, V. “Citizens and Co-Production of Welfare Services.”Public Management Review 8, no. 4
(2006): 503–519. doi:10.1080/14719030601022882.
Pestoff, V. A Democratic Architecture for the Welfare State. New York: Routledge, 2009.
Pestoff, V., T. Brandsen, and B. Verschuere. New Public Governance, the Third Sector, and Co-
Production. New York: Routledge, 2012.
Rich, R. C. “Interaction of the Voluntary and Governmental Sectors: Toward an Understanding of
the Coproduction of Municipal Services.” Administration & Society 13, no. 1 (1981): 59–76. doi:
10.1177/009539978101300104.
Rosentraub, M., and R. Warren. “Citizen Participation in the Production of Urban Services.” Public
Productivity Review 10, no. 3 (1987): 75–89. doi:10.2307/3380088.
Sacks, W. The Growth of Community Foundations Around the World: An Examination of the Vitality
of the Community Foundation Movement. Washington, DC: Council on Foundations, 2000.
Sacks, E. W. Community Foundation Global Status Report. Quezon City, Philippines: Wings, 2008.
Schneider, A. L. “Coproduction of Public and Private Safety: An Analysis of Bystander
Intervention, ’Protective Neighboring,’ and Personal Protection.” The Western Political Quarterly
40, no. 4 (1987): 611. doi:10.2307/448252.
Shapp, E. B. “Toward a New Understanding of Urban Services and Citizen Participation: The
Coproduction Concept.” The American Review of Public Administration 14, no. 2 (1980):
105–118. doi:10.1177/027507408001400203.
Siddiki, S., J. Kim, and W. D. Leach. “Diversity, Trust, and Social Learning in Collaborative
Governance.” Public Administration Review 77, no. 6 (2017): 863–874. doi:10.1111/puar.12800.
Thomas, J C. Citizen, Customer, Partner: Engaging the Public in Public Management. Armonk, NY:
ME Sharpe, 2012.
Tittle, D. Rebuilding Cleveland: The Cleveland Foundation and Its Evolving Urban Strategy.
Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1992.
Toshkov, D. “Policy-Making beyond Political Ideology: The Adoption of Smoking Bans in
Europe.” Public Administration 91, no. 2 (2013): 448–468. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2012.02075.x.
Vargo, S. L., and R. F. Lusch. “Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution.” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 36, no. 1 (2008): 1–10. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6.
Ventriss, Curtis, Benjamin Barber, Harry C. Boyte, Matthew A. Crenson, Guy Gran, Lawrence
Susskind, and Michael Elliott. “Emerging Perspectives on Citizen Participation.” Public
Administration Review 45, no. 3 (1985): 433–440. doi:10.2307/3109973.
Voorberg, W., V. Bekkers, and L. Tummers. “Co-creation and Co-production in Social Innovation:
A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda.” Paper presented at EGPA Conference
(Vol. 320090), Edinburgh, 2014.
Voorberg, W., V. J. J. M. Bekkers, and L. G. Tummers. “A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and
Co-Production: Embarking on the Social Innovation Journey.” Public Management Review 17,
no. 9 (2015): 1333–1357. doi:10.1080/14719037.2014.930505.
Walkenhorst, P. Building Philanthropic and Social Capital: The Work of Community Foundations.
Gutersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2008.
Wang, L., E. Graddy, and D. Morgan. “The Development of Community-Based Foundations in
East Asia.” Public Management Review 13, no. 8 (2011): 1155–1178. doi:10.1080/14719037.
2011.619068.
Weng, S. “The Association of NPOs and Compulsory Education Aid in China.” Chinese Public
Administration Review 9, no. 1 (2018): 34–55. doi:10.22140/cpar.v9i1.139.
 JOURNAL OF CHINESE GOVERNANCE 109

Weng, S., and T. Christensen. “The Community Philanthropic Foundation: A New Form of
Independent Public Service Provider for China?” Public Policy and Administration 34, no. 2
(2019): 210–235. doi:10.1177/0952076718784642.
Yang, L. “Collaborative Knowledge-Driven Governance: Types and Mechanisms of Collaboration
between Science, Social Science, and Local Knowledge.” Science & Public Policy 45, no. 1
(2017): 1–21. doi:10.1093/scipol/scx047.
Zhang, Y. “The City Manager’s Role in Policy-Making: A Perspective beyond Substitution and
Collaboration Models.” The American Review of Public Administration 44, no. 3 (2014): 358–372.
doi:10.1177/0275074012467494.
Zhang, F., and M. K. Feeney. “Managerial Ambivalence and Electronic Civic Engagement: The
Role of Public Manager Beliefs and Perceived Needs.” Public Administration Review 78, no. 1
(2018): 58–70. doi:10.1111/puar.12853.
Zhu, X., and H. Zhao. “Recognition of Innovation and Diffusion of Welfare Policy: Alleviating
Urban Poverty in Chinese Cities during Fiscal Recentralization.” Governance 31, no. 4 (2018):
721–739. doi:10.1111/gove.12332.