The Safety Tether: How China Manages Civil Society Through Lawfare

ABSTRACT How do authoritarian regimes benefit from civil society organizations' expertise and capacity while mitigating the potential risks they pose? Using machine learning and interrupted time series modeling of an original custom‐annotated dataset of all historical NGO registrations in China, we find that NGO policy is unevenly implemented. This unevenness, however, is not random. China uses NGO registration policies to facilitate local risk utility tradeoffs in line with threat perceptions and governance needs. This, we argue, is a form of lawfare—using legal means to achieve political or repressive ends. Examining a 2013 policy shift, we find local governments relax sponsorship requirements more in policy domains with low state capacity and less where civil society poses a threat, tailoring national mandates to shape local conditions. We show how lawfare is a complex instrument providing local flexibility in repression and cooptation of civil society, under the guise of routine legal and administrative procedures.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Governance
Published
2026-06-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.70137
Primary Topic
China's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Safety Tether: How China Manages Civil Society Through Lawfare

Timothy Hildebrandt, Blake Miller
Governance
China's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
article

The Safety Tether: How China Manages Civil Society Through Lawfare

Timothy Hildebrandt, Blake Miller
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT How do authoritarian regimes benefit from civil society organizations' expertise and capacity while mitigating the potential risks they pose? Using machine learning and interrupted time series modeling of an original custom‐annotated dataset of all historical NGO registrations in China, we find that NGO policy is unevenly implemented. This unevenness, however, is not random. China uses NGO registration policies to facilitate local risk utility tradeoffs in line with threat perceptions and governance needs. This, we argue, is a form of lawfare—using legal means to achieve political or repressive ends. Examining a 2013 policy shift, we find local governments relax sponsorship requirements more in policy domains with low state capacity and less where civil society poses a threat, tailoring national mandates to shape local conditions. We show how lawfare is a complex instrument providing local flexibility in repression and cooptation of civil society, under the guise of routine legal and administrative procedures.

GovernanceVol. 39(3)
University of Pennsylvania (US), London School of Economics and Political Science (GB), Philadelphia University (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
China's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.