NZLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Otago Law Review

University of Otago
You are here:  NZLII >> Databases >> Otago Law Review >> 2019 >> [2019] OtaLawRw 13

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Park, Young Sun --- "Book review - Non-governmental orphan relief in China by Anna High" [2019] OtaLawRw 13; (2019) 16 Otago LR 241

Last Updated: 20 November 2022

Non-Governmental Orphan Relief in China

241

BOOK REVIEWS

Non-Governmental Orphan Relief in China

(By Anna High Routledge, 2020)

Orphans have existed in every society throughout history; however, the specific treatment of orphans has varied greatly across time and space. In the West, the institutionalisation of orphans, in places such as orphanages, has been largely replaced with foster care models. Conversely, most East Asian societies today continue to send orphans to orphanages or similar institutions. Popular images of these orphanages in East Asia – particularly those in China – are overwhelmingly negative, with dark images of malfunctioning facilities depicted in documentary films, such as: The Dying Room: China’s Deepest Secret (1995) and Death by Default: A Policy of Fatal Neglect in China’s State Orphanages (1996). Particularly in the 1990s, Chinese state orphanages gained a negative international reputation as “unsafe and potentially lethal places” with Western media portrayals focusing on their high mortality rates.1 These negative images were interconnected with political issues, such as criticisms of birth-planning policies, welfare gaps, and charges of state neglect in supervising orphanages. Considering recent Chinese state policy shifts in favour of non-governmental facilities for orphaned and abandoned children, Anna High’s book is a timely work that explores the non-governmental terrain of care for China’s most vulnerable children.

High conducted field studies in China over the course of several years, visiting and engaging at orphan-care facilities in both rural and urban settings. She conducted in-depth interviews with many workers at the facilities and with local government officers. High also relies on numerous in-depth case studies to draw a more complete picture of orphan care in China than has previously been undertaken. Instead of blaming the lack of staff or resources and painting the facilities in a negative light, she takes a more holistic view of the situation, showing empathy and understanding by connecting Chinese orphan care to the country’s history and context, thus refuting Orientalist portrayals of China. For instance, she shows how the fear of western imperialism connected to religious missionaries in the nineteenth century led both the Chinese government and Chinese society to be suspicious of faith-based non-governmental organisations (NGOs) operating in China. Because many private orphanages were established by Christians or related groups, they failed to gain traction within Chinese society. However, over time, these facilities gained trust and support from both local society and local governments.

  1. Anna High Non-Governmental Orphan Relief in China (Routledge, London, 2020) at 39.

What High accentuates is the legitimacy that these private organisations gained in Chinese society despite occupying a questionable legal status. As a communist state, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has claimed a monopoly over the welfare system. Welfare programmes were indeed key for the newly ruling Communist Party in establishing its legitimacy. Thus, it became the state’s right and responsibility to take care of vulnerable children, which meant that private orphanages held no official legal status. In theory, the State monopolised institutional care for orphaned and abandoned children, however, the reality was incongruous with this communist vision. State orphanages alone were never equipped to provide adequate care for all the orphans and abandoned children, particularly in rural areas. To make matters worse, following the reforms of the 1980s, the system of local rural communes that had provided care for many vulnerable children was dismantled. In response, grassroots organisations sprang up organically and became crucial in caring for vulnerable children across China. High argues that these NGOs “comprised an alternative and often unacknowledged system of care of one of China’s most vulnerable populations”.2 While local governments tolerated these grassroots organisations and some state orphanages actively cooperated with these facilities – particularly in cases involving children with special medical needs – these private organisations could not acquire legal status, and thus most of them have continued operating as illegal NGOs. On the other hand, their lack of legal status does not mean illegitimacy. Rather, having acquired social legitimacy based on their sincere activities, these private organisations prospered and expanded their operations. The peculiar position of non- governmental orphan relief organisations, illegal but legitimate, created specific issues in relation to supervision, funding, and transparency. This situation forces non-governmental caregivers working in private orphanages and foster homes to negotiate changing laws, policies, and practices. High’s investigation into this legal grey zone is both detailed and effective.

One of the book’s major strengths stems from the clear definitions provided at the outset for terms that are stacked with multi-layered context-specific meanings. One example is the very term, orphan. The Chinese word for orphan, gu’er, literally means a “lonely child.” In this context, even children with living parents can be categorised as orphans. High states that “[lonely child] is a simple and poignant way to refer to children who are no longer cared for by their parents”.3 She also points out a prevalent feature of Chinese gu’er placed in private organisations: the vast majority have special medical needs or disabilities. High offers a vivid depiction of the lives of these Chinese gu’er in private orphanages and foster cares organisations.

The study itself is divided into four body chapters, in addition to the introduction and conclusion. The first body chapter introduces the

  1. At 5.
  2. At 4.

demographics and life experiences of gu’er, with a focus on the two main factors for abandonment: sex and disability. Girls and children with disabilities have a much higher risk of being abandoned by their birth parents. These patterns of relinquishment can be connected to notoriously restrictive birth-control policies and inadequate welfare systems for the disabled, especially in rural areas. Since the early 2000s when birth restrictions eased, the relinquishment rate for healthy girls declined, however disability remained a major reason for placement in orphan- care institutions. For parents facing economic insecurity, abandonment to institutions could offer their children a chance of survival. These broader structural constraints should be considered in order to understand the discursive silence around the issue of child relinquishment, a politically sensitive topic in China because welfare has been seen as the state’s prerogative. The dire plights of orphans can therefore be seen as evidence of the State’s failure to protect its most vulnerable citizens. Because state orphanages are almost always located in urban areas and can only care for a fraction of the total orphan population, the situation of Chinese gu’er represents the “rural-urban duality” and highlights the pervasive inequality experienced within the socialist state.

The second chapter examines private orphanages by providing an in-depth study of two Catholic orphanages. There are hundreds of private orphanages in rural China and many are Christian-affiliated and operated by nuns. According to a 2014 survey, “there were almost ten thousand children being cared for in 878 ‘locally-run adopting groups’”,4 and High’s research states that most of these are unofficial and unregistered. High explains the Chinese “one-eye open, one eye closed” approach to “illegal” activities by faith-based groups engaged in the care of orphans. The majority of NGOs in China are unregistered, which is technically illegal but, as discussed above, they are generally tolerated and allowed to operate. High explains that being legitimate (heli) in the eyes of the people was more important than being lawful (hefu). The private orphanages generally relied on cultivating legitimacy over time through trust in order to get unofficial support for their work. While this approach can allow civil society to create space and enjoy flexibility as unregistered organisations, it can also result in a problematic supervision gap. As High states: “In short, there was no clear legal or political authorisation for independent, grassroots parties to deliver services that had always been monopolised by the state.”5 They are also not permitted to organise any public fund-raising campaigns, thus local donations have been key to their survival. Therefore, there is a climate of uncertainty for both state and non-state actors regarding the regulation of unauthorised orphanages. This illegality also results in issues of standards and transparency, as the nuns, who work without pay, training, or vacations at the Catholic orphanages, suffer from a lack organisational management, particularly in terms of staffing and

4 At 62.

5 At 66.

resources. The state has failed to adequately supervise, regulate, and facilitate these informal orphanages.

The third body chapter introduces “foster homes,” which in this context differ greatly from conventional foster families, wherein a small number of children are brought into a family unit. In China, foster homes represent another form of institutionalisation, where salaried caregivers provide care to a larger number of children than one household could usually offer. Most of the prominent foster homes were established by Christian-affiliated foreigners. These foster homes differ from private orphanages because their children are formally under the guardianship of the state, though they do not live in state orphanages. The partnership with local state orphanages is a crucial and distinctive feature of these foster homes. The children placed in these homes typically have “individual surgical or medical needs”.6 According to High, the exact number of Christian-run foster homes operating in China is unknown. She demonstrates that the “one-eye open, one eye closed” approach is also applied to foster homes, which are unable to register as NGOs and, thus, face many of the same uncertainties as private orphanages. In this way, many of China’s institutions that care for orphans operate within a legal grey zone. High’s interviewees described this uncertainty as “lines that are moving constantly−it’s a moving target. What is acceptable one day is not OK the next”7 yet “as long as everything is OK, [the government] turn[s] their eyes”.8

While the changing nature of state oversight is a theme throughout the book, the last body chapter focuses specifically on China’s recent policy changes. This chapter ponders the impact of recent law and policy changes on private orphanages and foster homes. These changes began with a fire in 2013 in Lankao county, Henan province, which killed seven orphans in a private institution. According to High, “[m]any private orphanages had been shut down”9 since this incident. Foster homes faced even more challenges and uncertainties with the new registration of a “Charity Law” in 2016 and a “Foreign NGO Management Law” in 2017. These legal changes are indications that the “one eye closed” approach is being replaced with formal regulations and increased financial support from the government. High admits that “the transition from ‘one eye closed’ to ‘two eyes opening’”10 does not guarantee the best for gu’er in China generally, because it is still uncertain whether individual children in private organisations will immediately be affected. What is certain, according to High, is that the implementation of new laws and policies will be mediated and negotiated by the locations and actors involved. Thus, she emphasises that the process of negotiating status will continue to be local and variable.

6 At 90.

7 At 8.

8 At 107.

9 At 18.

10 At 132.

In this way, High highlights the complicated and messy nature in understanding civil society in China using the case of orphan relief. She illustrates the unequal, uncoordinated, and fragmented way that private orphanages and foster homes are operating in China despite the best intentions of the practitioners. At the same time, the research cases show that the relationship between faith-based organisations and local authorities has “evolved into something relatively non-confrontational and non-contentious”.11 Because these same arguments can be applied to NGOs in China generally, High’s research contributes to our overall understanding of how NGOs’ operate in China. Indeed, the legal ambiguity combined with China’s political climate has shaped the overall operations and agendas of NGOs in China to generally favour politically safe fields and politically prudent approaches.

Several additional questions arise from this book. One is around the Chinese government’s slogan: “Small government and big society,” which was adopted in the 1990s as the government implemented various policies and programmes aimed at increasing non-governmental welfare and charitable projects. High seems to buy into this idea, arguing that this policy shift was “a move from welfare statism to welfare pluralism, with more openness on the part of the state to facilitating private/non- governmental financial support of welfare programmes and initiatives”.12 She further states that informal orphanages were able to develop “symbiotic relationships with the state”13 as they generally enjoyed a great deal of autonomy. It is true that the private sector fills “the missing role of the state”14 by providing care for vulnerable children in China. But not everything can be done by the State, and hence we find “missing roles” within every single state. Therefore, it is unclear whether the state’s slogan of “small government and big society” reflects the reality on the ground. This slogan sounds their ideal, but is not depicting the reality. It is arguable whether the Chinese government is indeed “small”, especially when we consider its authoritarian nature. Furthermore, the recent changes in Chinese laws and policies, aimed at tightening the supervision of NGOs, begs more questions about the future and direction of welfare pluralism. The legal limbo status of these private welfare providers may be changing already or will, at least, change significantly in the near future.

Secondly, High’s research implies that legitimacy has been more important than legality, emphasising the coexistence of non- governmental orphan care with state orphanages. As she argues, legitimacy definitely created opportunities for NGOs to contribute to orphan welfare. However, the legality issue and the “illegal status” of most of NGOs involved in orphan relief cannot be underestimated. While they are operating now, as many of the caregivers voiced, who

11 At 78.

12 At 7.

13 At 80.

14 At 78.

knows what will happen next? In other words, the lack of legal status of these organisations can both severely weaken their current operational activities and their future prospects. For instance, when the new “Foreign NGO Management Law” came into effect in 2017, it required foreign NGOs operating in China to find an official Chinese sponsor and register with the police ministry. This granted the police the power to oversee private organisations, raising more uncertainties for the future of private orphanages and foster homes, as most of them are funded by overseas charities and foundations. Because China is undergoing multiple changes, including in its laws related to orphan care, the legality issue might require more caution.

In addition, there is minimal discussion of Chinese state orphanages, despite the fact that they remain important actors in child welfare. Questions about their programmes and initiatives are left unexplored. This might be more challenging due to the restrictions faced by a foreign scholar attempting to visit and engage with state orphanages. However, offering more background on this topic would provide readers with a comparative perspective through which they could better assess the strengths and weaknesses of private institutions.

Lastly, High brings attention to the international adoption of Chinese gu’er. She generally depicts this positively for its creation of new families, which makes sense given the limited prospects faced by these children if they remained in China. That being said, international adoption is extremely complex and multiple actors are involved in the process. A more nuanced treatment of this issue might have enriched the research since NGOs involved in Chinese orphan care are active and significant players in today’s international adoption industry. The connection between NGOs, international adoption agencies, and western Christian families, for instance, is a crucial point for us to understand the life experiences of Chinese gu’er and adoptees. International adoption is also important in predicting the future direction of state policies. While putting children in orphanages is a form of institutionalisation, promoting the placement of children in adoptive families through international adoption is a step towards the deinstitutionalisation of orphaned children. In treating orphaned and abandoned children, will China continue to institutionalise children or move toward deinstitutionalisation?

That being said, these minor criticisms in no way minimise High’s achievement. High’s research is down to earth and nuanced rather than focusing on metanarratives such as nationalism, globalisation, modernisation, or economic development. This book is a welcome contribution for the students and scholars of Asian, East Asian, and Chinese studies, legal studies, NGO studies, and child welfare studies.

Young Sun Park, Assistant Professor,

Department of History and Social Sciences, Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota.


NZLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/OtaLawRw/2019/13.html