Page 73 - 201804

2018 年第 4 期

（一）总体述评
目前的族群战争研究存在着许多典型的方法论缺陷，如，案例范围、数据质量
①
（指标、编码和度量误差等）、模型设定、案例比较、聚合程度 以及延展性尚不
②
完全可靠。 但除此之外，现有研究还存在着一些更为基本的缺陷。
③
尽管理论和经验假设之间存在本质不同， 但是很多研究尤其是定量研究，
把推导经验假设的过程等同为理论化过程，这导致很多族群战争的定量研究（除去

① 例如，在理解劣势族群叛乱状态时，应该考虑劣势族群控制的领地的地势等情况，而不
是整个国家的地理情况，然而以前的定量研究却更多地依托后者，参见 Paul Collier, Anke Hoeffler
and Dominic Rohner, “Beyond Greed and Grievance: Feasibility and Civil War,” Oxford Economic
Papers, Vol. 61, No. 1 (February 2009), pp. 1-27; James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin, “Ethnicity,
Insurgency, and Civil War,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 97, No. 1 (February 2003),
pp. 75-86。近期研究在地理信息系统的辅助下明显地纠正了这一错误。
② 早期评论请参见Christopher Blattman and Edward Miguel, “Civil War,” Journal of Economic
Literature, Vol. 48, No. 1 (January 2010), pp. 3-57; Rogers Brubaker and David D. Laitin, “Ethnic and
Nationalist Violence,” Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 24, No. 1 (November 2003), pp. 423-452;
Havard Hegre and Nicholas Sambanis, “Sensitivity Analysis of Empirical Results on Civil War Onset,”
Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 50, No. 4 (August 2006), pp. 508-535; Shale Horowitz, “Mapping
Pathways of Ethnic Conflict Onset: Preferences and Enabling Conditions,” Ethnopolitics, Vol. 7,
No. 2-3 (June 2008), pp. 307-320; Stathis N. Kalyvas, “Promises and Pitfalls of an Emerging Research
Program: The Microdynamics of Civil War,” in Stathis N. Kalyvas, Ian Shapiro and Tarek Masoud,
eds., Order, Conflict, Violence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp. 397-421; David
Keen, “Greed and Grievance in Civil War,” International Affairs, Vol. 88, No. 4 (July 2012),
pp. 757-777; Nicholas Sambanis, “Using Case Studies to Expand Economic Models of Civil War,”
Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 2, No. 2 (June 2004), pp. 259-279; Nicholas Sambanis, “What is Civil
War? Conceptual and Empirical Complexities of An Operational Definition,” Journal of Conflict
Resolution, Vol. 48, No. 6 (December 2004), pp. 814-858; Sidney G. Tarrow, “Inside Insurgencies:
Politics and Violence in an Age of Civil War,” Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 5, No. 3 (September 2007),
pp. 587-600; Pieter Van Houten, et al., “Comment for Horowitz: Responses,” Ethnopolitics, Vol. 7,
No. 2-3 (June 2008), pp. 321-336; Andreas Wimmer, Lars-Erik Cederman and Brian Min, “Ethnic
Politics and Armed Conflict: A Configurational Analysis of A New Global Dataset,” American
Sociological Review, Vol. 74, No. 2 (April 2009), pp. 316-337。
③ 更确切地说，经验假说即使得到了确认，它捕捉到的也仅仅是经验规律或者经验范式（比
如，冲突事件开始阶段通常会与日后冲突的高风险性相关）。反之，理论则是对这些经验规律、
经验范式进行解释。理想情况下，理论应该支持经验假说，而假说则应从理论核心衍生而出。然
而，很多（定量）研究仅仅罗列假说，却始终没有花精力从理论核心出发进行推导。参见 Mario
Bunge, “Mechanisms and Explanation,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 27, No. 4 (December
1997), pp. 410-465。
· 71 ·