1980年代以來「新制度主義」席捲學界,學者分別受經濟學、政治學、組織社會學的影響,形成「理性選擇制度主義」、「歷史制度主義」與「社會學制度主義」等學派。本文假定政治制度與行為,是歷史經驗的產物,特別關注歷史制度主義,探討以下主題:第一、歷史制度主義的研究取向在政治學發展的脈絡中是如何逐漸產生?第二、新制度主義各學派的基本假設不同,也形成研究途徑的差異;歷史制度主義的基本假設與研究途徑為何?第三、歷史制度主義的應用特色與限制為何?本文初步認為,歷史制度主義的「問題導向」與假設,符合真實世界的經驗,能提出具體有效的知識;比較歷史的方法,擴展視野使解釋更具時效性;路徑依賴與權力不對稱,突顯政治生活的特徵;個案比較研究具有深刻的解釋力,呈現政治的複雜性;因此歷史制度主義具有實際解釋與應用的能力。
The ”new institutionalism” after 1980 has caused frenzy in the academic world, scholars were influenced by studies in economics, politics, and sociology of organizations, ”rational choice institutionalism”, ”historical institutionalism”, and ”sociological institutionalism” were established as a result.The content of this paper presupposes that institutions and behaviors are the product of history, particularly historical institutionalism to discuss the following themes: 1) How did historical institutionalism come into place? 2) What is the hypotheses and method of historical institutionalism? 3) What is the explanatory power of historical institutionalism and what are its limitations?Upon primary examination, the result of this paper is of the opinion that the ”direction of the question” and hypotheses in historical institutionalism fit with the experiences of the real world, and thereby is able to provide practical knowledge. The method of comparing history can expand horizon and make explanations more consistent with time. The ”path dependence” and asymmetry between powers bring out the unique features of political lives. Comparison between cases does have a more in-depth explanatory power, showing the complexity of politics. Therefore, historical institutionalism does have its practical advantages.