managed, is not in a position to manage, or actually cannot manage well’,^34 and
he then proceeded to urge an expansion of ‘social intermediary organizations’.
A Typology of Chinese Environmental NGOs
Table 7.3 presents our estimate of the array of environmental non-govern-
mental organizations (ENGOs) of China in the early twenty-first century.
This table is based on several sources: interviews conducted by the authors in
China from February 2004 to May 2005; analysis of reports produced at the
NGO center of Qinghua University; a 2002 research report on Beijing NGOs^35 ;
and estimates by other authors who have studied ENGOs in China.^36 This
typology differs from that of Yang^37 primarily because it does not include
environmentalists aggregated through the Internet, for two reasons. First, our
analysis is of groups of individuals who meet face-to-face to develop strategy,
enlarge resources, and respond to situations, which is not likely through
the Internet. Second, although China has seen an explosion in the use of the
Internet to comment and urge action on social conditions, to the present the
blogs have been posted by individuals and do not represent a group
effort.
The numbers we present are merely estimates. As in so many areas, Chinese
government statistics on NGOs are plentiful. The latest statistics from MOCA
give the number of officially registered NGOs as 283000.^38 The Deputy
Director of Tsinghua University’s NGO research center said ‘Today there are
some 2000 (environmental) NGOs’, but he added that only 100–300 have
serious influence.^39 Ho comments: ‘Basic data on the total number and
ENGOs, civil society and biodiversity conservation 173Table 7.3 China’s ENGOs (2005)
Type Management* Number Membership
(Estimated)
GONGOs Professional 350 1–2 million
Beijing, National Participatory 40–50 3–4000
Student Participatory 120 10–25000
Grassroots, NIMBY Participatory 1–3000 1 million +
INGOs Professional or Mixed 35 250
Note: *This category refers to the distinction in the literature on comparative environmental
politics between associations directed by managers or ‘professionals’ who make the policy
choices and those that emphasize ‘participatory’ decision making, involving most association
members.
Source: Prepared by authors.