Scholars consider deficient local accountability mechanisms a key shortcoming of China's response to environmental issues. Through empirical analysis of the new procurator-led public interest litigation (PIL) system, this study examines whether – and to what extent – this shortcoming can be remedied by empowering the juridical institutions. It concludes that thanks to the procuratorates’ political insider status, relative autonomy from local politics and extensive resources, procurators have generally found ways to maintain a delicate balance between holding executive agencies environmentally accountable and managing local governments’ resistance to the PIL system. However, reliance on top-down political support may ultimately hinder the expansion and stability of the procuratorial PIL system.

Based on findings from three years of site-intensive fieldwork at the local level, this article presents evidence to suggest that binary governance frameworks like centre–local relations are insufficient to understand certain local regulatory outcomes in contemporary China. I seek to specify a distinct type of local governance that has been emerging in recent years, which blurs existing binary concepts. It can be distinguished along two main dimensions: ostensible structure and modalities of governance. Two cases are analysed to illustrate the ways in which it impacts local regulatory outcomes. The analyses point to the need for expanding our portfolio of approaches to understanding local governance in contemporary China.

The Chinese government uses legal registration to manage and control the rise of social organizations. To avoid negative government attention, organizations might be expected to actively pursue such registration. However, in-depth field research of Chinese NGOs in three issue areas (environmental protection, HIV/AIDS prevention, and gay and lesbian rights) reveals that this is not always the case. There are many conflicting political and economic incentives for both NGOs and government, complicating understandings of social organization registration in China. By shedding light on the process of registration, this article reveals the complexities of state–society relations and demonstrates the difficulties for social organizations to avoid significant government interference.