充分发挥群团组织在我国社会建设中的作用——以工会组织为例

群团组织是党联系群众的桥梁和纽带，在推进社会建设中发挥着重要而独特的作用。党的十八 大以来，以习近平同志为核心的党中央高度重视社会建设。本研究以工会组织为例分析指出，群团组织参与社 会建设有利于发挥党在推进社会建设中的统领作用，有利于落实以人民为中心的社会建设理念，有利于贯彻依 法治国方略、提高社会建设的法治化水平。群团组织参与社会建设的主要任务，包括在保障和改善民生中发挥 补充作用、促进共同富裕的实现，在维权和化解矛盾中发挥协商协调作用、推进社会公平正义等。基于此，研 究建议要以改革创新精神提升群团组织参与社会建设的能力：强化维权服务职责，增强参与的主动性和时效性； 加快智慧工会建设，创新参与方式；努力维护劳动领域政治安全，牢牢把握住工会参与的底线；加强基层工会 建设，壮大参与力量。     

Stay or exit: How do international nongovernmental organizations respond to institutional pressures under authoritarianism?

International nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) are increasingly important players in global politics and development. However, they are undergoing significant adaptations as governments worldwide have instituted restrictions to regulate their activities. What explains the various ways in which they respond to these institutional pressures? In our study of INGO responses to a new restrictive law in China, we identify four strategic responses with varying levels of compliance: legal registration, provisional strategy, localization, and exit. The institutional pressures—strategic responses link is influenced by INGOs' adaptive capacity, which is in turn shaped by an organization's issue sensitivity, value-add, government ties, and reputational authority. The integrated framework we develop for INGO strategic responses can shed light on state-INGO relations in other countries, many of which are subject to increasingly stringent regulations and a closing political environment.     

Civil society and democratization: The role of service-providing organizations amid closing civic spaces

This article argues that current democracy promotion strategies relying on rights-claiming advocacy NGOs are falling short of their democratization goals, as authoritarian regimes are closing the space through restrictions on the NGOs that attempt to carry them out. In response, we suggest a reexamination of earlier approaches to involving civil society in democratization efforts by shifting the focus back on service-providing civil society organizations that have largely become side-lined in democracy-building agendas. Specifically, service providers tend to be more capable of functioning “under the radar” thus contributing to democracy in both direct and indirect ways, and thus escaping closing space restrictions. The key concerns about their independence from the state, as well as under what conditions the state may be less successful in coopting the independent service-providers, however, remain unresolved and warrant future research.