文献类型：期刊文献

中文题名：理事会能够提升社会组织绩效?——基于全国691家社会服务类组织的实证研究

英文题名：Can a Social Organization Board Improve its Performance?--An Empirical Study Based on 691 Social Service Organizations in China

作者：叶士华[1];何雪松[2]

机构：[1]南开大学周恩来政府管理学院;[2]华东理工大学社会与公共管理学院

年份：2021

卷号：14

期号：1

起止页码：132

中文期刊名：公共行政评论

外文期刊名：Journal of Public Administration

收录：CSTPCD;;国家哲学社会科学学术期刊数据库;北大核心:【北大核心2020】；CSSCI:【CSSCI2021_2022】；

基金：社会治理背景下我国社会工作行动本土化理论框架与实践体系研究(国家社会科学基金重大项目16ZDA084);慈善组织声誉影响机制及对捐赠意向的影响研究(博士后科学基金BS6619038);乡村振兴战略背景下流动人口“反哺式”捐赠与激励机制研究(天津市哲学社会科学规划基金一般项目TJSR20-005)的阶段性成果。

语种：中文

中文关键词：社会服务类组织;内部治理;理事会;财务指标;公共输出;制度环境

外文关键词：Social Service Organization;Internal Governance;Board Financial Indicators;Public Output;Institutional Environment

摘要：【问题】社会组织内部治理是其有序、有效参与社会治理的基本前提。针对社会组织内部治理的实证研究并不多,且存在中观与宏观割裂的问题。社会组织内部治理机制究竟如何,内部治理主体多大程度上影响组织目标达成,又如何受到宏观制度环境的影响?【方法】论文使用稳健回归分析数据。数据来自于2019年实施的全国性社会服务类组织调查,该数据采用简单随机抽样方法,涵盖56个规模不等的城市。【发现】(1)理事会治理能力与治理表现既能影响社会组织的财务指标,也显著影响其公共输出。(2)制度环境能够显著调节理事会与组织绩效间的关系。在支持性制度环境中,理事会治理能力、治理表现对组织财务指标和公共输出影响效应被强化。在消极制度环境下,组织自身的成长韧性可能是一种重要的替代机制。【贡献】即使成长于“强制性制度变迁”背景下的社会组织,内部治理结构仍然具备组织共性,核心治理主体能够显著影响组织绩效,尽管这种自主性受到宏观制度环境的塑造。这质疑了关于中国社会组织内部治理结构缺乏规范性、理事会形同虚设的研究结论,也为“依附式”自主这一概念提供了经验支持,增进国家与社会组织关系的整体性理解。
Motivation:The Internal governance of a social organization is the basic prerequisite for its orderly and effective participation in social governance.Yet this has been largely neglected by empirical studies.Several key questions remained unanswered:What is the internal governance mechanism of social organizations?To what extent does the internal governance body affect the achievement of organizational goals,and how are they affected by the macro-institutional environment?Methodology:The data for this study comes from the China Social Work Dynamics Survey conducted in 2019.Gathered through a simple random sampling,it covers 56 cities of varying sizes across the country.Robust regression analysess of the data led to several findings.Findings:(1)A board's governance capacity and performance can not only affect the organization's financial performance,but also significantly affect its public output.(2)The institutional environment can significantly moderate the relationship between the board and the organization's performance.In a supportive institutional environment,the impact of governance capacity and governance performance on financial indicators and public output is strengthened.In a non-supportive institutional environment,the growth resilience of the organization itself might be an important alternative mechanism.Contribution:The internal governance structures of social organizations going through“mandatory institutional change”share organizational commonalities.The board can significantly affect the organization's performance,but this autonomy is shaped by the macro institutional environment.Our findings question the conclusion that the internal governance structure of Chinese social organizations lacks standardization and the board's work is in vain.It also provides empirical support for the concept of“dependent autonomy”,and enhances our overall understanding of the relationship between the state and social organizations.