新制度論的困境與挑戰

The Dilemma and Challenges on New Institutionalism

陳嫈郁(René Ying-Yu Chen)

《政治學報》 58期 (2014/12) Pp. 1-36

https://doi.org/10.6229/CPSR.2014.58.01

摘要

1998年美國學者Hall & Taylor與英國學者Hay & Wincott一場聚焦在三種新制度論差異的對話，開啟了學術界對制度研究「理念變因」作用與變遷動力來源的爭辯。此一波對話，藉由探討制度變遷的動力根源，試圖重新將微觀的行為者理念變項帶回制度研究。他們認為三種新制度論最大的困境在於過度強調均衡與結構作用，缺乏對於變遷動力來源的解釋，同時也忽略對制度中「行為者」角色的關照。從此，新制度論興起一股內部的更張趨勢，試圖矯正上述的缺失。本文先透過援引「系譜學」對於知識／權力的分析方法與概念從「理論後設與制度性質」、制度過程與結果「對結構與行為者的基本定義與假設」、「方法論取向的選擇、實證推論基礎」以及「理論發展的挑戰與最新議題」四個面向來解構「新制度論」內各學派，分析新制度論各學派所面臨的理論困境與限制。最後，討論近年來政治科學界新興起的「理念轉向」與「建構轉向」等趨勢，對新制度論各學派的啟發與探討可行的途徑。本文建議釐清制度分析層次與將「理念變因」進行更概念化的處理，將可能發展出得以進行驗證「理念變因」對制度的結果具有因果影響力的方法，拓展理論的深度與廣度。然而，本文亦認為「理念轉向」並非顛覆原來三種新制度論的論述，而應是一種理論的更張。

關鍵字

新制度論 ； 理念變因 ； 社會學制度論 ； 歷史制度論 ； 理性選擇制度論

並列摘要

In 1998, Hall & Taylor and Hay & Wincott initiated a debate on three new institutionalism, and provoked furthering arguments about the role of ideas in institutionalism and the resources of institutional change and dynamic. By exploring the resource of institutional change, micro-level and agent-based ideas are brought back into the studies of new institutionalism. Until 2000, across the political science, ideas are increasingly recognized as major factors in politics. There is also a radical movement on interdisciplinary methodology in political science which confidently claims the epoch of ＂ideational turn＂ and ＂constructivist turn＂ is coming. However, this paper argues this interdisciplinary ideational turn actually is which borrows concepts from constructivism in sociology, cognitive and social psychology. In so doing, the substantial structuralism and materialism in new institutionalism might be remedied by bringing the micro-level agency and ideas back into new institutionalism. For investigating and clarifying points mentioned above, this paper will be evolved into six sections. The first section lays conceptual foundation by defining an ideational turn in political science and distinguishing it from alternative logic of explanation. The second section provides a brief historical profile of new institutionalism in political science. The third to the fifth sections, in light of Foucault’s genealogy of knowledge, this paper anatomizes and deconstructs three new institutionalism by delving into their theoretical origins, assumptions, methodology, comments and pitfalls. The final section suggests the ideational and constructivist turn in new institutionalism will show a series of hybrid position and proliferation of inter-paradigm and inter-discipline debates within contemporary political science. However, it will not overwhelmingly turn the original new institutionalism down. The central role ideas play in shaping political outcomes have been acknowledged, nonetheless, the operationalization and verification of ideas need further valid references and evidential commitments.

並列關鍵字

new institutionalism ； ideational variable ； sociological institutionalism ； historical institutionalism ； rational institutionalism

參考文獻

劉正山(2008)。代理人基模擬途徑的政治學方法論根基。政治科學論叢。36，149-186。

邵軒磊(2007)。作為研究方法的系譜學。政治科學論叢。34，151-174。

黃宗昊(2010)。歷史制度論的方法立場與理論建構。問題與研究。49(3)，145-176。

Barley, S. R.,Tolbert, P. S.(1997).Institutionalization and Structuration: Studying the Links between Action and Institution.Organization Studies.18(1),93-117.

Bates, R. H.,Greif, A.,Levi, M.,Rosenthal, J. L.(1998).Analytic Narratives.Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.