论文部分内容阅读
为了更好地理解制度变迁,从而说明不同时期、不同社会在长时段发展过程中的差异,历史就成为主要的试验场。这样,社会科学领域的一些假设就能够得到检验。通过对道格拉斯·阿兰的《制度革命》进行批判性分析,我们发现了当今经济学家们在运用历史分析方法时所存在的一些误区。再把这一个案放在比较研究的视野中进行审视,借助于近年来经济社会史研究所取得的成果,来寻找避免那些误区的途径。在此基础上,在地区、国家、全球等不同层面上进行比较研究,并展开包括社会背景在内的多维度考察,同时关注长期形成的模式的不连续性,就有可能避免单向度的、目的论的制度变迁研究误区。
In order to better understand the institutional changes and thus to explain the differences in the development of different societies in different periods and in different periods, history has become the main test ground. In this way, some assumptions in the social sciences can be tested. By critically analyzing Douglas Alan’s “institutional revolution,” we have discovered some of the myths that economists today have of using historical analysis. Put this case into the perspective of comparative studies and look for ways to avoid those errors by means of the achievements made in the studies of economic and social history in recent years. On the basis of this, it is possible to avoid unilateralism by conducting comparative studies at different levels, such as at the regional, national and global levels, and conducting multidimensional surveys, including social background, while paying attention to the discontinuity of long-term patterns , The misunderstanding of the study of the institutional change of teleology.