In his book, The Role of American NGOs in China's Modernization: Invited Influence, Norton Wheeler argues that Chinese policy makers have “invited” policy and technical advice from several US-based non-profit organizations. Through case studies of Johns Hopkins University (JHU), the National Committee on US–China Relations (NCUSCR) and the 1990 Institute, he traces the cooperation between these three organizations and their Chinese counterparts to illustrate the influence that they had on respective policy areas – education, foreign policy and tax policy. As in the case of the 1990 Institute's advocacy, Wheeler finds that Chinese policy makers “learn from the experience of other countries and make comparative studies, to see which is good for us and which is bad. We can find scholars and experts that make suggestions to use, and we will adopt the useful ones to improve our own tax system” (p. 86). This is an important addition to the study of how international factors influence Chinese policy, and I agree with Wheeler that Chinese officials often invite the participation of US organizations to provide best practices and technical resources. This openness to policy learning is arguably one of the keys to successful Chinese economic reform and authoritarian adaptation. However, despite Wheeler's well-researched case studies, I found the title of the volume to be slightly misleading in that the book really is neither about NGOs nor a well-supported argument of Chinese officials “inviting” influence. A more robust discussion of Chinese policy makers' motivations in working with these organizations, and more evidence for the outcomes of this influence would have strengthened this book.

Wheeler calls all the three organizations selected for this analysis – JHU, NCUSCR and the 1990 Institute – non-governmental organizations (NGOs). While it is technically true that these organizations are “non-governmental,” this label disguises the large variation in organization type. For example, the NCUSCR is a self-described “nonprofit educational organization that encourages understanding of China and the United States between citizens of both countries.” Johns Hopkins is a university focused on providing education for a fee (tuition), and the 1990 Institute is the closest to the type of organization most would classify as a NGO. The 1990 Institute focuses on intercultural exchanges similar to NCUSCR, but also operates several poverty alleviation programmes and advocates for policy change. The organizations have different motivations and goals, ranging from profit to policy advocacy. I believe the differences between these groups to be larger than simply a label – non-profit or NGO – which draws into question the author's ability to compare these organizations.

In this comparative analysis, Wheeler traces the interactions of these three organizations through interviews and archives, and has excellent coverage of their intended and actual outcomes. However, his analysis is not as strong when it comes to the Chinese partners. It is unclear what the motivations of the Chinese universities, local governments and ministries were for partnering with the US non-profit organizations, and what influence, if any, the US organizations had on the Chinese partners. For example, Wheeler contends that the Hopkins–Nanjing Center created a model of university autonomy; however, the effect on Nanjing University is unclear. Did the process of designing the Hopkins–Nanjing Center with JHU initiate any change in the structure or operations of Nanjing University itself? Was this outcome even a possibility on the part of Nanjing University or was the partnership simply a way to increase revenue and prestige? Although the author notes that “evidence of American influence is typically more suggestive than definitive,” tracing out these points of evidence with the Chinese partners through policy change, organizational change, and unintended effects would have helped provide more evidence of influence (p. 72). As the quotation about the policy influence of the 1990 Institute in the first paragraph illustrates, what is still missing from this account of international influence is how Chinese policy makers use the inputs to design the output of policy change. What is the weight of the international influence and how do Chinese policy makers use this information – to shore up their existing positions, learn about new policies or persuade resistant colleagues? Studies like this one must interview more Chinese policy makers to learn about this missing piece of the analysis – what occurs in between the international input and the policy output?

Despite these issues, the international influence on Chinese policy making is a fascinating topic, and this book helps scholars understand some of the factors impacting policy makers in such an opaque environment. I would recommend this book to diplomatic historians, faculty teaching Chinese politics courses, and especially any non-profit organization or university considering launching new initiatives in China. Wheeler offers an invaluable history of best practices for establishing these educational initiatives with Chinese partners.