This paper sheds light on the long-distance politics of a small and rather young diaspora—the Acehnese overseas—which proved to be very influential on homeland politics despite its relatively small size, especially with regard to the separatist conflict in Aceh, Indonesia. Special attention is therefore given to the close connections between the politicized migrant population overseas and their involvement back home. Born out of the suffering of people in Aceh and in Malaysia—the main destiny for refugees—the Acehnese overseas started to organize informal associations and networks to foster mutual support. During the almost 30-year-long conflict, material, financial, and other forms of support were directed not only to members of the diaspora, but also to people in Aceh, as well as the separatists, which enabled them to continue their struggle for Aceh's independence from Indonesia. Unlike larger conflict-generated diasporas that can afford to send home large sums of money, the Acehnese diaspora's greatest strength was the ideological and moral support they provided to people back in Aceh. The evolution of the diaspora and its activities were closely linked to developments in the homeland. By emphasizing the dependence of diasporas on homeland developments, which dictates the level of their political engagement, this paper draws attention to the diaspora's support for both the perpetuation of conflict and conflict resolution. After the end of the conflict in 2005, the diaspora lost its prominent role, and became involved in rudimentary forms of long-distance engagement.

This paper critiques current academic usage of the analytic category of ‘civil society’ in recent studies of contemporary China. The problem is not the lack of good empirical work (which abounds), but rather the way in which understandings of ‘civil society’ as applied to China have remained insulated from wider theoretical debates emerging from other parts of the world which have queried the productive utility of these understandings. Specifically, recent studies of China continue to define civil society through its alleged autonomy from the state. This definition has led to unsettling discrepancies between theory and empirical knowledge about Chinese society. Moreover, it has caused researchers to pay little attention to the equally complicated question of whether there are sufficient horizontal linkages among various social actors to constitute a civil society in China in the first place. This paper will argue that lessons learned from the rich civil society tradition and scholarship from other parts of the world may be adapted fruitfully to generate more meaningful and nuanced analyses of Chinese associations.

This study offers a conceptual analysis of the social economy in China within the context of institutional transition. In China, economic reform has engendered significant social changes. Accelerated economic growth, privatization of the social welfare system, and the rise of civil society explain the institutional contexts in which a range of not-for-profit initiatives, neither state-owned nor capital-driven, re-emerged. They are defined in this research as the social economy in China. This study shows that although the term itself is quite new, the social economy is no new phenomenon in China, as its various elements have a rich historical tradition. Moreover, the impact of the transition on the upsurge of the Chinese social economy is felt not only through direct means of de-nationalization and marketization and, as a consequence, the privatization of China's social welfare system, but also through various indirect means. The development of the social economy in China was greatly influenced by the framework set by political institutions and, accordingly, legal enabling environments. In addition, the link to the West, as well as local historical and cultural traditions, contribute towards explaining its re-emergence. Examining the practices in the field shows that the social economy sector in China is conducive to achieving a plural economy and an inclusive society, particularly by way of poverty reduction, social service provision, work integration, and community development. Therefore, in contemporary China, it serves as a key sector for improving welfare, encouraging participation, and consolidating solidarity.