Page 45 - 201806
P. 45

均衡困境与金融安全:国际货币制度变迁及问题

                                   ①
            我利益的理性行为体”。   虽有重要分歧,新制度主义对制度变迁的解释却有很多
            相似之处。新制度主义者认为,由于制度间的相互关联、路径依赖、变迁高成本或
                             ②
            制度惯性等原因,   制度变迁是困难的,只有发生外部冲击时,现行制度才能够被
                                                                ③
            改变,即所谓的“刻点均衡”(punctuated equilibrium)。   这种制度变迁的解释受
            到较多质疑。例如,欧洲大学学院(European University Institute)教授斯文·斯坦
            莫(Sven Steinmo)认为,这种理解只关注重大或革命性的变化,并将制度变迁完

                               ④
            全视为命运的产物。   一些学者更加关注渐进和细微的变化,并从权力关系的视角
                                                                  ⑤
            将制度变迁总结为四种模式——取代、叠加、偏离和转变。   另外一些学者试图将
            观念和话语带入对制度变迁的解释中,并逐渐形成了一个新的理论流派——话语制
                                       ⑦
            度主义     ⑥   或建构制度主义。   虽有诸多批评,但外部冲击可作为制度变迁充分条
            件的观点鲜有争议。
                 比较政治学视角下的制度更多被理解为一种制约或影响人的行为的正规约束
                                                                                   ⑧
            (如法律、法规、规则以及契约)和非正规约束(如文化传统、伦理道德等),   其
            “代理人-结构”模式中的代理人是个人。相比之下,在国际关系学研究中,制度


                ①  Sven Steinmo, “What is Historical Institutionalism?” in Donatella Della Porta and Michael
            Keating, eds., Approaches in the Social Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, p. 2.
                ②  Vivien A. Schmidt, “Taking Ideas  and Discourse Seriously:  Explaining Change  Through
            Discursive Institutionalism as the Fourth ‘New Institutionalism’,” European Political Science Review,
            Vol. 2, No. 1 (March 2010), pp. 1-25.
                ③  Kathleen Thelen and Sven Steinmo, eds., Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in
            Comparative Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992; Paul Pierson, Politics in Time:
            History, Institutions, and Social Analysis, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004.
                ④  Sven Steinmo, “What is Historical Institutionalism?” in Donatella Della Porta and Michael
            Keating, eds., Approaches in the Social Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008,
            pp. 150-178.
                ⑤  James Mahoney  and Kathleen Thelen, “A Theory of Gradual Institutional  Change,” in
            Mahoney James and Kathleen Thelen, eds., Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and
            Power, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 1-33.
                ⑥  Vivien A. Schmidt, “Taking Ideas  and Discourse Seriously:  Explaining Change  Through
            Discursive Institutionalism as the Fourth ‘New Institutionalism’,” European Political Science Review,
            Vol. 2, No. 1 (March 2010), pp. 1-25.
                ⑦  Colin Hay, “Constructivist Institutionalism,” in R. A.W. Rhodes, Sarah S. Binder and Bert A.
            Rockman, eds., Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006,
            pp. 56-74.
                ⑧  Douglass C. North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge:
            Cambridge University Press, 1990.

            · 42 ·
   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50