Stability is one important keyword in the debate on the future of the PR China. But what is meant by stability and how can it be maintained? There are several theoretical approaches on the question of stability in western political science. Political stability has been said to be determined by the congruence of political culture and polity (Almond/ Verba 1963); it has been defined as a special relation between effectivity of political system and its legitimacy (Lipset 1959, 1981); it has also been defined as being determined by different kinds of political support (Easton 1965; 1975). Most of the theories on stability have been tested empirically on democracies. The idea of stability in autocratic states is a more recent field of study (Geddes 1999, Svolik 2008; Hadenius/Teorell 2006). China seems not to fit into any of these approaches. Nathan tried to explain China’s ‘authoritarian resiliance’ (2003) by regime institutionalization. All of these approaches up to now were not able to explain the puzzling question why the Chinese people themselves should adhere to this system. This paper argues that social engagement is a key factor for social cohesion even in China and therefore is also essential for stability in China. The paper analyses the Chinese ‘third sector’ (not backing from the question if there is any) by examining the role of NGO policy (macro perspective) and of NGO work (micro perspective) for social and political stability in China. Starting out from Bourdieu’s (1983) theory of social capital, touching Putnam’s (1993, 2000) application of this model onto associational life, and acknowledging the critical reactions to them (e.g. Kim 2005, Stalley 2006), the paper gives an up to date overview on the relation between social engagement and social cohesion and with this contributes to current debates on stability in China in social sciences.
