Governance of Biodiversity Conservation in China And Taiwan

tussled with their applicability, given the increase in number of social groups
following industrialization and some political liberalization.^19
In China, there has been a veritable explosion of economic organizations in
the 1980s and 1990s, matched by a proliferation of environmental groups in
the 1990s (discussed in Chapter 7). During the 1980s, as the economy
liberalized, the government created a large number of business associations.
The structure of the non-governmental associations (minjian xiehui)
resembled the corporatist type found in Taiwan at that time, for they were
officially registered and only one organization represented each sector. The
party-state still controlled the structure and personnel of most associations in
the 1990s, but some had demonstrated independence. This prompted a United
Front Department official to opine that ‘the non-public economic sector ... has
started to seek the political means to protect its own interests’.^20 Studies of
labor organizations also pointed to evidence of autonomy in unions.^21
The degree in autonomy of economic organizations vis-à-vis the state is the
crucial issue, and most analysts have cautioned that while the Communist
Party remains in charge of the state, it will continue to monitor social groups,
curbing their independence. In recognition of this, the hybrid concept ‘state
corporatism’ is used by several scholars to capture the growth of social groups
consequent to economic change, within the framework of a Leninist party-
state.^22 This does not satisfy all scholars who seek to explain the state’s
continued domination of labor, through the All-China Federation of Trade
Unions,^23 and state-business relationships in rural areas.^24
Saich summarizes the general applicability of the corporatism concept to
China:

‘[C]orporatism as a theory captures well the top-down nature of control in the

system and how citizens are integrated into vertical structures where elites will

represent their perceived interests. However, such explanations risk obscuring both

important elements of change and oversimplifying the complexities of the dynamics

of the interaction ... New social organizations, for example, can have considerable

impact on the policy-making process by retaining strong linkages to the party and

State, far more than if they were to try to create an organization with complex

operational autonomy ... These social organizations with close government links

often play a more direct role in policy formulation than in other developing

countries as they do not have to compete in social space with other NGOs for

dominance and access to the government’s ear on relevant policy issues.’^25

During this transitional phase of state-society relations in China, perhaps the
most that can be said is tautological: groups with linkages to the state have
new avenues for influence and may embed some of their environmental goals
in policy.
Our question is how economic organizations as major drivers of environ-
mental change (such as loss of biodiversity) are connected to the state. In

140 Governance of biodiversity conservation in China and Taiwan