Sinica Podcast: Mark Sidel on China's Oversight of Foreign NGOs

Episode: Eight Years of the Overseas NGO Law
Host: Kaiser Kuo
Guest: Mark Sidel, Doyle Bascom Professor of Law and Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Date: December 17, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode explores the profound changes in China’s regulatory environment for overseas NGOs, foundations, and nonprofits in the eight years since the implementation of the Overseas NGO Law (2017). Host Kaiser Kuo and guest Mark Sidel dissect how a fragmented oversight system evolved into a tightly managed, security-led regime, examining its motivations, practical mechanisms, impact on both foreign and domestic civil society groups, international comparisons, and ongoing adaptations.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Pre-Law Landscape: Distinctions and Historical Context

• China’s NGO Typologies:

  • Mass organizations (like the All-China Federation of…)
  • Government-organized NGOs (GONGOs)
  • Grassroots service groups & issue advocacy groups
  • Overseas NGOs/foundations
    These operated under "quite different legal and political logics."
    (03:52)

• Reform Era Evolution:

  • "Before the reform era, what we might call the civil society community in China was almost non existent." (04:43, Mark Sidel)
  • Incremental opening began in the 1980s, but advocacy groups always faced suspicion and tighter repression – especially post-1989.
  • 1990s witnessed a loosening, but advocacy groups faced an increasing crackdown post-2010, driven by anxieties around activism and social stability.

2. Drivers for the 2016 Law: Securitization and Centralization

• External Shocks:
  • Color revolutions and the Arab Spring were "absolutely" significant in shaping paranoia about foreign meddling, but not the only factors. (07:07)
• Fragmented Oversight:
  • Prior to the law, responsibility was "all over": Civil Affairs, State Administration of Industry & Commerce, universities, and even ad-hoc arrangements (e.g., the Ford Foundation’s unique agreement with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences). The law consolidated all under Public Security. (08:36)
• Rise of ‘Public Security Intellectuals’:
  • Emerged as a cadre within Chinese academia and security ministries, informing approaches to perceived risks and utilities of foreign NGOs—but final decisions were highly political. (10:09)

3. Core Mechanics of the Law: Double Track System

• Representative Offices:
  • "A representative office can do more... for example, make grants, assuming plans are approved by professional partners and the Public Security Administration." (11:51)
• Temporary Activities:
  • One-year project agreements with Chinese partners, approved by local public security agencies. Managed as “temporary activity permits.”
  • "Those are really the only two channels." (13:22)
• Professional Supervisory Units (PSUs):
  • NGOs need a Chinese supervisory partner to sponsor registration.
  • These PSUs act as gatekeepers, shaping what is possible for foreign NGOs and bearing significant risk—often for little direct benefit. (19:31 - 21:44)

4. From National Security to Gradual Restriction

• Ministry of Public Security’s Reluctant Mandate:
  • Tasked by the National Security Commission, not by their own volition, to oversee the whole sector. (16:50)
• Incremental Implementation:
  • Not an outright ban on advocacy—but advocacy space "became narrower and narrower" through administrative signals and slow bureaucratic friction, not sweeping prohibitions. (22:48)

5. Outcomes and Behavioral Adaptations

• Typologies of NGO Responses:

  • Survivors: Shift to less sensitive, often service roles, adapting their missions and often localizing staff.
  • Hibernators: Ceased operations temporarily, hoping for shifts in the environment.
  • Regionalizers: Relocated operations to neighboring jurisdictions (like Hong Kong).
  • Workarounders: Continued cross-border work (convenings outside China, Zoom, collaborations, etc.).
  • Leavers: Withdrew from China entirely.
    (25:42 - 29:23)

• Success Factors for Survivors:

  • Narrowing scope to permitted areas (social service, disaster relief, health, poverty alleviation)
  • Localizing teams with skilled Chinese staff who bridge both systems
  • Long-standing government relations
  • Operating in non-sensitive fields
    (35:19)

6. Sectoral and Systemic Effects

• Impact on Domestic NGOs:
  • Explicitly rights-related groups have been deprived of foreign funding ("starved"). (40:41)
  • Growth of a professional class of accountants and lawyers who help foreign and domestic NGOs navigate the system—a silver lining but within a generally weakened sector. (42:49 - 43:05)
• Strategic Redirection:
  • Deliberate channeling toward "more third sector, less civil society."
  • "The Public Security Ministry…was to establish 100% information certainty over what the overseas groups are doing… They have come close to achieving that." (29:23)
• Policy Success (from the state view):
  • "Reducing the diffusion of funds for rights related and advocacy activities, while not completely reducing the diffusion for third sector activities." (43:59)

7. Comparisons and Evolving International Models

• Distinctiveness of China’s System:
  • "A to Z soup to nuts comprehensive control," far more thorough than Indian, Russian, or Egyptian counterparts, which often focus on funds rather than organizational presence/activities. (45:54)
• Systemic Adaptation:
  • Authorities monitor attempts to evade regulation through for-profit or consulting models, and now scrutinize the ultimate source of foreign funds. (47:52)
• Others Learning from China:
  • Initially China borrowed from others' experiments, but now "a variety of countries... learning more from the Chinese experience than China is currently learning from them." (49:35)

8. University Partnerships and Article 53

• Original Carve-Outs Fading:
  • Earlier exceptions for academic partnerships (Article 53) have largely evaporated; universities are now integrated into regular strict control structures, with more complex approval chains and stricter Party supervision. (51:05)

9. Dynamics with US Policy & Guidance for Foreign NGOs

• Recent US Turn:
  • US governmental hostility towards globalist NGOs is not seen as a driver for China’s policies, which have developed "independently and are more consistent." (53:52–55:09)
• Advice for New Entrants:
  • China is restrictive but relatively predictable if you stay clear of advocacy or policy reforms.
  • The US, conversely, is now less consistent and predictable in dealing with groups working in China. (55:32–57:07)

Memorable Moments & Notable Quotes

• "This is not simply a story of closing space, though that's clearly a part of it. It is also one of molding the types of work foreign organizations can do, of channeling collaboration in certain arenas that are important to China while shutting down others."
  –Kaiser Kuo (01:32)

• "In China, control over this system is now almost complete."
  –Mark Sidel (13:22)

• "We are seeing more and more implementation of graduated controls where the response from the security authorities is not always to shut everything down, but to decide…what should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed."
  –Mark Sidel (39:11)

• "One of the goals of this process and this system, Kaiser, has been to starve aid to explicitly rights related groups…their resources coming from abroad have been to some degree or largely starved."
  –Mark Sidel (40:41)

• "For me, what's different about the Chinese system is the A to Z soup to nuts comprehensive control of the overseas sector."
  –Mark Sidel (45:54)

• "I think that the Public Security Ministry's evaluation…will be that they were able to fulfill the political objective of gaining control over this fragmented system…while keeping going at least some less political social service and charitable activities."
  –Mark Sidel (44:34)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Landscape before the Law & Evolution of Civil Society: 03:52 – 06:35
• Motivations for the Law, Color Revolutions: 06:35 – 08:25
• Oversight Pre-2016 Law: 08:25 – 09:32
• Development and Impact of Public Security Intellectuals: 09:32 – 11:21
• Law’s Core Mechanisms—Rep Offices & Temp Activities: 11:21 – 13:22
• Political Logic for Public Security Control: 13:22 – 16:28
• Declining Advocacy Space via Bureaucratic Signals: 22:15 – 23:54
• Typology of NGO Adaptations: 25:42 – 29:23
• Data Gaps & Approval Rates for Permits: 29:23 – 31:32
• Indicators of NGO ‘Success’ & Localization: 35:19 – 36:38
• Gradated Control & Workarounds: 37:08 – 40:07
• Domestication of Professional Support: 42:24 – 43:05
• International Comparisons and Learning: 45:22 – 50:19
• University Partnerships and Article 53: 51:05 – 53:10
• US Policy Shifts & Guidance for New Entrants: 53:52 – 57:07

Recommended Readings and Resources (as per Guest)

• Articles & Analysis by Mark Sidel: Available via US Asia Law Institute (NYU), European think tanks, and longer academic publications (links to be provided in show notes).
• Book Recommendation:
  • Everyday Democracy: Civil Society, Youth and the Struggle Against Authoritarian Culture in China by Anthony Spires (Columbia University Press, 2024). (60:35)
• Organization Highlight:
  • Penn Project on the Future of US-China Relations (directed by Neysun Mahbubi).

Tone and Takeaway

The episode is deeply analytical, even-handed, and pragmatic. Mark Sidel consistently warns against both simplistic paranoia and naive optimism: the system has worked from the state’s perspective, but it is not wholly closed. "There is still room for some action. We kind of know where the no-go zones are…but there are still some areas where you can do meaningful work there." (57:07, Kaiser Kuo)

For listeners:
This episode offers an essential and nuanced grounding for anyone seeking to understand the evolving space for foreign and domestic civil society work in China, the bureaucracy involved, and the real-world adaptations NGOs are making to survive and stay effective.