發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-08 07:21

  本文選題：制度主義 + 海伊��； 參考：《上海行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)》2017年01期

【摘要】：本文原題為"Constructivist Institutionalism",選自羅德斯(R.A.W.Rhodes)、賓德(Sarah A.Binder)與羅克曼(Bert A.Rockman)主編的《牛津政治制度手冊(cè)》(The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions,The Oxford University Press,2006)第四章�？屏帧ずＲ�(Colin Hay)教授在英國(guó)伯明翰大學(xué)與美國(guó)麻省理工大學(xué)同時(shí)供職的學(xué)術(shù)經(jīng)歷,使他能夠深入思考美國(guó)政治科學(xué)領(lǐng)域的新制度主義路徑的優(yōu)勢(shì)和局限,以及該路徑能否同英國(guó)及歐洲社會(huì)科學(xué)主流傳統(tǒng)相適應(yīng)的問(wèn)題。早在1998年,針對(duì)霍爾(Peter Hall)與泰勒(Rosemary Taylor)以學(xué)科背景及研究領(lǐng)域?yàn)橐罁?jù)來(lái)劃分新制度主義政治學(xué)三大流派的做法,海伊在英國(guó)《政治研究》(Political Studies)雜志上指出理性選擇制度主義、社會(huì)學(xué)制度主義、歷史制度主義在社會(huì)本體性基礎(chǔ)上不僅無(wú)法共享相互兼容的理論假設(shè),而且不同程度上均存在剝奪制度當(dāng)中行動(dòng)者的能動(dòng)性并使制度分析移向結(jié)構(gòu)主義一側(cè)的傾向。2006年,海伊教授在為《牛津政治制度手冊(cè)》撰寫的本文中,較為全面地概括了理性選擇制度主義、社會(huì)學(xué)制度主義、歷史制度主義在關(guān)注制度生成而忽視其隨后發(fā)展方面的共同偏好,指出建構(gòu)制度主義由于本體性、分析性及方法性上的獨(dú)特屬性,其有能力向現(xiàn)有新制度主義各流派發(fā)起挑戰(zhàn)。建構(gòu)制度主義作為一種更富動(dòng)態(tài)色彩并兼具歷史性與建構(gòu)論的制度主義路徑,雖然尚處于初創(chuàng)階段,卻已經(jīng)成為新制度主義政治學(xué)的第四個(gè)流派,在闡釋復(fù)雜制度的演化、適應(yīng)和創(chuàng)新方面展示了出色能力。
[Abstract]:This paper is originally entitled "Constructivist Institutionalism", selected from chapter 4 of the Oxford Handbook of political institutions, "the Oxford Handbook of Political institutions" and "the Oxford University Press / 2006", edited by Rhodes, R.A. W. Rhodesman, Binder and Bert A. Rockman. Professor Colin Hayin's academic experience at the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom at the same time as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the United States enables him to think deeply about the advantages and limitations of the new institutionalism path in the field of political science in the United States. And whether the path can adapt to the mainstream traditions of the British and European social sciences. As early as 1998, in response to the approach of Peter Halland Taylor Rosemary Taylori in dividing the three major schools of neo-institutionalism politics on the basis of academic background and field of study, Hayy pointed out in the British Journal of political Studies that rational institutionalism is the principle of rational choice. Sociological institutionalism, historical institutionalism, on the basis of social Noumenon, is not only unable to share mutually compatible theoretical hypotheses, Moreover, there is a tendency to deprive the actors of the system and to shift the institutional analysis to the structuralist side. In 2006, Professor Hayy wrote this article for the Oxford political system Manual. This paper comprehensively summarizes the common preferences of rational choice institutionalism, sociological institutionalism and historical institutionalism in paying attention to the formation of institution and neglecting its subsequent development, and points out that constructivism is due to its ontological nature. Its unique analytical and methodological attributes are capable of challenging existing schools of neo-institutionalism. As a more dynamic and historical and constructivism path, constructivism, although still in its infancy, has become the fourth school of new institutionalism politics, explaining the evolution of complex institutions. Excellent adaptability and innovation have been demonstrated.
【作者單位】： 英國(guó)伯明翰大學(xué)政治與國(guó)際研究系;吉林大學(xué);
【基金】：國(guó)家社科基金項(xiàng)目“當(dāng)代新制度主義政治學(xué)理論建構(gòu)研究”(14CZZ036)的階段性成果
【分類號(hào)】：D0
，

本文編號(hào)：1860479