徐斯勤
政治學報；32期 (12/01/2001) P95-170
關鍵字：ew institutionalism, rational choice institutionalism, sociological institutionalism, historical institutionalism, empirical studies of contemporary Chinese politics., 新制度主義、理性抉擇制度主義、社會學制度主義、歷史制度主義、當代中國政治研究
中文摘要
本文試圖探討政治學中理性抉擇制度論、社會學制度論、歷史制度論三種新制度主義在政治學一般理論中的原貌，及其與應用於當代中國政治的經驗性研究之問的關係。本文以現有文獻對於此一主題所提出的詮釋與理解為起點，指出各家立基於對新制度主義的不同理解上，所作之引申與論斷，亟須以上述原貌為依據，在彼此問形成概念指涉內涵上的共享，來作為對話基礎，將彼此間誤解降至最低，從而強化其知識上的累積性。尤其，源自西方的新制度主義引入中國研究，應用在不同於西方的結構、文化與行為，其本身究竟是否適用及如何適用於當代中國，以及適用的研究目的究竟為何，更是本文關注的重點。立基於這項關懷上，本文將繼續檢視九0年代以來的其他中國政治經驗性著作(以英文著作為主)對於新制度主義的應用有何意義，並嘗試就理論與應用之閒互動所衍生的制分問題作較細緻的分析，及討論經驗研究文獻的發展軌跡所呈示出的未來可能走向。在評估此種對話的過程中，本文的重要論證之一
是，新制度主羲理論的應用在於解釋而非詮釋中國政治的經驗現象。由於研究中國改革時期政經變遷上重要現象與議題本身的特質，對應於新制度主義內不同途徑之間在分析前提上的殊異，使得歷史制度主義的影響最為明顯，而且其獨有的邏輯在中國研究也獲得愈來愈多的印證闡發。在此演化軌跡的主流下，九0 年代後期以來針對歷史制度主義較重結構的特質，開始重新喚醒對於文化因素與行為者自主性的考慮。另一方面，新制度主義中理性抉擇的重要性則同時呈現明顯增長。最後，本文至少間接廓清了對於有關新制度主義兩點常見誤解。第一，新制度主義在概念範疇上對於何謂「制度」，遠超出對於新制度的一般嘗試性定義。這對於新制度主義究竟能否適用於中國大陸政經體系，有重要意義。第二，新制度主義的制度概念，並非只包含結構面，文化價值面也是核心元素之一。
英文摘要：
This article explores the theoretical genesis of three types of new institutionalism in political science-rational choice institutionalism－as well as their relations with those empirical studies on contemporary Chinese politics that apply such approaches. A key rationale for pursuing this theme is the failure of existing literatures to different among the subtle yet vital variations of the approaches above, and to resolve their theoretical debates with a set of minimal common understanding of the conceptual connotations of such approaches. In order to examine the strengths and weaknesses of applying such approaches that originate from the political life of the West to China studies, this article will scrutinize a numbers of major empirical studies in 1990s. In doing so, a close examination of the problems derived uniquely from the interactions of the theoretical genesis and the empirical studies above, and of the evolutionary trend revealed by the empirical studies will also be performed. A core argument emanating from this analysis is the distinction between “interpretation” and “explanation”of the political phenomena in contemporary China. Judging from the utility of explanation, it is the historical institutionalism that has exercised greater influence on the application in the empirical studies above, compared to the other two new institutionalism. Such a consequence cannot be understood without considering the peculiar nature of the evolutionary path and the key issues of the Chinese political economy during the reform era, as well as the three new institutionalism’ theoretical parameters. These preconditions warrant an increasingly closer correspondence between the unique theoretical logic of historical institutionalism and China’s reform experiences in recent years. Parallel to this consequence is the growing attention during the latter half of the 1990s paid by the empirical studies to cultural dynamics and the autonomy of human agency in theoretical explanation. In addition, the weight of rational choice institutionalism is turning heavier in the application as well. Last but not least, this article helps clarify at least two misunderstandings frequently found in the discourse on the application of new institutionalism. The conceptual domain of “institution”in new institutionalism is far wider and richer than what is preconceived by those perspectives based simply on common sense or intuitive comprehension. The dialectical character inherent in the competing components about institution in the new institutionalisms facilitates a constructive application to the political eventualities of contemporary Chinese political economy. Furthermore, the vitality of cultural factors as an integral element in new institutionalisms has long been under-estimated, if not totally neglected, compared to the structural aspect therein. A sufficient attention to this reality would help alleviate much of the alleged tensions between the theoretical genesis and its application to contemporary China.
全文下載：連結
林繼文
政治學報；32期 (12/01/2001) P61-94
關鍵字：new institutionalism, rational choice, game theory, institutional choice, evolution, 新制度論、理性選擇、賽局理論、制度選擇、演化
中文摘要
本論文引介了三種制度研究的均衡概念，指出創設觀、選擇觀和演化觀分別對應於賽局理論中的納許均衡、帕雷圖最適及穩定演化策略等三種均衡解，並據此比較四種制度形成的基本類型。主要論點是:制度愈能排除違規者的搭便車，或愈不需要將成本分攤給所有成員，就愈容易鞏固。本文也發現，三種均衡觀所觀察到的世界並不完全一致;「最妤的制度」和「最可能的制度」反而是在行動者沒有清楚的策略選擇時最容易相符。
英文摘要：
This article introduces three analytical concepts in new institutionalism, each corresponding to the game-theoretic notions of Nash equilibrium, Pareto optimality, and evolutionarily stable strategy. Existing studies use them to portray the design, choice, and evolution of institutions, but rarely make a clear distinction. I argue that these three concepts are conceptually separable but analytically correlated. Through a two-person symmetric game, I derive several hypotheses concerning institutional change: the probability for an institution is most likely to be chosen when the actors are ignorant of their true preferences.
全文下載：連結
劉瑞華
政治學報；32期 (12/01/2001) P209-229
關鍵字：New institutionalism, Institution, Structure, and Political Stability, 新制度主義
中文摘要
經濟學曾經以其理論模型化的優勢，向社會科學的其他領域擴展其學術影響力，這股力量彷彿是學術上的帝國主義，迫使許多政治學與社會學的研究採取理性模型作為行為假設的基礎，以及採用計量實證作為檢證理論的標準。不過，畢竟因為主題的差異，學術上的經濟學帝國主義未竟其功。近來，隨著新制度主義在經濟學界興起，社會科學的其他領域也對新制度主義的理論方法產生很大興趣，逐漸形成一次新的學術運動。究竟新制度主義是讓社會科學返回學科間可以互相溝通的大理論，還是另一場經濟學帝國主義的侵略？答案在於各個學科研究者的作法。如果新制度主義在各個社會科學領域的建構過程中，能夠維持其學科中制度議題的主體性，而且能夠從學科議題的應用中產生新的制度理論，則新制度主義將不會是經濟學帝國主義的再現。從新制度主義的理論發展來看，社會科學有相當大的機會能夠返回大理論。
英文摘要：
Economics, with the advantage of its model-building approach, has extends its influence into other fields of the social sciences and built up and academic imperialism that forced political science and sociology to adopt a rational behavior assumption the in their theories and econometric methods in the empirical works. However, because of the differences in the subject matters, the economics imperialism has not yet succeeded. In recent years, as the new institutionalism prospered in the field of economics, there has been a new movement toward integrating the social sciences. Will the new institutionalism bring the social sciences back to a grand theory with communicable fields, or be another invasion of the economics imperialism? The answer depends on what the social scientists will do. If each field of the social sciences can maintain the uniqueness of its institutional subject and develop new theories through applications, as the new institutionalism becomes a common practice in each field, then the new theories through applications, as the institutionalism becomes a common practice in each field, then the new institutionalism shall not be a reincarnation of economics imperialism. Therefore, there is a pretty good chance for return of grand theory, based on the new institutionalism, in the social sciences.
連結：期刊全文尚未取得作者授權
何思因
政治學報；32期 (12/01/2001) P31-59
關鍵字：金融史、現代國家建立、財產權、政治發展, financial history, state-building, property rights, national development
中文摘要
本文討論現代國家最重要的兩個目標，「富」與「強」，之間的關係。在檢視過十七世紀的英格蘭及二十世紀的韓國的金融史後，本論文認為在現代國家建立時，富即是強的一部份。雖然如此。這兩個國家達到富強的途徑卻很不一樣。它們所採取致富致強的途徑
係由歷史的偶發事件決定的。這些途徑的長遠影響也不一樣:財產權清楚的金融體系比起財產權不清楚的金融體系，就長遠來看更有韌性、更能提供國家發展的機會。
英文摘要：
The article examines the relationship between power and plenty, two goals frequently harbored by states in modern international system. By reviewing the financial history during the state-building stage of the 17th Century England and the 20th Century Korea, this study finds that plenty is an integral part of power. Yet the paths these two states traveled in their respective pursuit of power and plenty were the “unintended consequences” of historical events that happened during their nation-building stage. While in the short run the paths exemplified by England and Korea could both lead to power, in the long run, the path that better specifies property rights could also be better for national development.
全文下載：連結
吳玉山
政治學報；32期 (12/01/2001) P1-30
關鍵字： niew institutionalism，strutcture、semi-presidentialism, political stability social cleavages, 新制度論、結構、半總統制、政治穩定、社會分歧
中文摘要
在本文當中首先提出單純採用新制度主義的理論途徑沒有辦法
充分解釋政治轉型時期的政治穩定現象。新制度論將研究者的注意導引到制度，確實是掌握了轉型的核心問題。但是影響政治穩定的因素有許多並非制度性的，我們所應該掌握的是決定人們行為模式的結構。如果制度構成結構的主體、或甚至是唯一的內容，則專注於制度自然掌握到了問題的核心;然而如果結構包含了重要的非制度要素，則我們自然應該走出制度之外，去仔細檢查「非制度的結構性要素」。站在這個角度。本文提出了詮釋半總統制下政治穩定的一個綜合模型。我們所掌握決定半總統制國家政治穩定的因素有兩層。和政治穩定直接相關的是府會關係、總統權力大小和政黨體系。
這三個因素的上一層是選舉結果、 菁英的工具性制度偏好、選舉制度、與社會分歧。這其中不論是府會關係、總統權力大小和政黨體系，或是選舉結果、菁英的工具性制度偏好、選舉制度、與社會分歧。都包含了制度與非制度的成份，它們構成一個結構，對轉型國家的政治穩定產生決定性的影響。拘泥於新制度論的詮釋途徑(不論對於制度如何定義)都無法全盤地掌握整體的結構。本文的結論是:在決定行為和表現上，結構比制度更為重要。
英文摘要：
This paper argues that new instilutionalism is in no position to give a full explanation of political stabilitty in transitianal polities﹒Although new insitutionalism directs the reseruchers'attention to the focus of political
transrtion,it by no means covers all the important factors bearing on political stability in transitional countries. Emphasis should be put on the structure that determines human behavior patterns.If that structure includes 〝non-institutionl factors,"then one should not be diverted away from those factors simply because they are not institutional in nature﹒In this coetext, this paper presents an analyticaI framework that accuunts for political stability under transition.Two levels of factors are discerned.The
first-level factors are directly related to stability．They are presidential-parliamentary relation, presidential powers，and party system. The second level of factors refers to the sources that determine the first-level factors.
Those source factors are electoral results， the elite，s instrumental preferences for institutions,electoral systems，and social cleavages.The two-level explanatory framework contains both institutional and non-institutional factors﹒ In sum， this paper argues that structure is more important than institution in detemining behnviors and performance。
全文下載：連結
郭承天
政治學報；32期 (12/01/2001) P171-208
關鍵字：religion, democracy, United States, Taiwan, new institutionalism, theology, 宗教、民主政治、台灣、美國、新制度論、神學
中文摘要
本文從新制度論的意識型態和制度行為兩個分析層次，比較美國和台灣的宗教與民主政治之關連。主要論點是，宗教藉著提出民主神學和採行宗教民主制度，可以成為民主制度的重要基石，美國的經驗顯示，原始基督教與民主制度並沒有必然或直接的關係。美國民主制度的建立與鞏固，是因為美國基督教各宗派發展出一套民主神學和採用了宗教民主制度。而台灣民主政治鞏固的過程崎嶇不平，可能是因為台灣的各種宗教在發展這兩個民主特性上，仍較緩慢。
英文摘要：
Following the new institutional analysis of ideology and institutional behavior, this paper compares the relationships between religion and democracy in Taiwan and the United States. The major thesis is that religion can be a foundation for democracy if it develops a theology of democracy and if it adopts democratic institutions in religious practices. The American experience reveals that no necessary or direct relationship existed between the nascent Christianity and democracy. The establishment and consolidation of American democracy was due to the later development of a democratic theology and the adoption of democratic institutions within various Christian denominations. In contrast, the sluggish democratization process in Taiwan probably reflects the underdevelopment of these two democratic features in the various religions.
全文下載：連結