論國際關係社會建構論與組織社會學新制度論之關連性

On the Linkage between Social Constructivism in International Relations and New Institutionalism in Sociological and Organizational Analysis

10.6683/TPSR.200306.7(1).3-37

吳得源(Der-Yuan Wu)

新制度論 ； 社會建構論 ； 國際建制 ； 天經地義性 ； 鑲嵌植基性 ； 一個中國 ； New Institutionalism ； Social Constructivism ； Embeddedness ； Taken-for-granted ； One China

台灣政治學刊

7卷1期（2003 / 06 / 01）

3 - 37

繁體中文

當代國際關係理論之發展，隨著社會建構論的崛起，進入新的階段。研究者常常從國際關係理論之歷史演進順序角度切入，探討現實主義與理想主義以來，國際關係理論的大辯論。據此，社會建構論常被視為是國際關係理論近期發展中社會學觀點的輸入，與傳統（新）現實主義及新自由主義做一區隔。其中，新自由主義通常由國際建制所代表的制度研究化身呈現，國際關係論者因此常常認定新制度論與社會建構論是截然不同的，甚至從認識論與本體論的一致性來看，認為後者超越前者。這種分類或說法，從組織社會學新制度論角度來看，頗值得再三斟酌。 在本論文中，作者自組織理論觀點論述：國際關係社會建構論實際上與組織社會學取向的新制度論有相容性以及不少共通性。國際關係研究者在探討社會建構論與新制度論的理論與實際關連性時，應進一步釐清不同類型的新制度論。就實際關連性而言，本文並以兩岸在國際關係「一個中國」之作為略做說明。

In the wake of the emergence of Social Constructivism, the development of International Relations theory has entered into a new phase. Researchers often address the subject in terms of the historical evolution of theories with reference to the Great Debates since Classical Realism-vs.-Idealism. As such, Social Constructivism, often regarded as a recent import from sociological perspectives, is commonly differentiated from (Neo) Realism and Neoliberalism. Among them, Neoliberalism is often tantamount to ”new institutionalism” in International Relations. Some analysts therefore concluded that Social Constructivism differs from New Institutionalism and even went further to maintain that the former transcends the latter in terms of the consistency of ontology and epistemology. From the perspective of New Institutionalism of Sociological and Organizational Analysis (SOA) branch, the common distinction between Social Constructivism and New Institutionalism in IR is problematic and deserves re-examination. In this paper, it is argued from the SOA new institutionalist perspective that there is close linkage between Social Constructivism in IR and SOA new institutionalism: both share certain commonalities and complement with each other. IR theorists may well clarify the types of new institutionalisms referred to when dealing with the relationships between new institutionalism and social constructivism. The linkage per se can also be demonstrated in the case of Beijing-Taipei diplomatic practices on ”one China.”

1. 莫大華 Mo, Ta-Hua(1999)。論國際關係理論中的建構主義 On Constructivism in International Relations Theory。問題與研究 Wenti Yu Yanjiu，38(9)
   連結：
2. 黃旻華 Huang, Min-Hua(2000)。評（論國際關係理論中的建構主義） Review of 'On Constructivism in International Relations Theory'。問題與研究 Wenti Yu Yanjiu，39(1)
   連結：
3. (1991).The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
4. (1993).Ideas and Foreign Policy.Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
5. (1983).International Regimes.Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
6. (1998).International Relations in a Constructed World.Armonk:M. E. Sharpe.
7. (2001).The Globalization of World Politics.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
8. Adler, E.(1997).Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics.European Journal of International Relation,3(3)
9. Adler, E., Haas, P. M.(1992).Conclusion: Epistemic Communities, World Order, and the Creation of a Reflective Research Program.International Organization,46(1)
10. Berger, P. L., Luckmann, T.(1966).The Social Construction of Reality.New York:Doubleday.
11. Burchill, S., Linklater, A.(1996).Theories of International Relations.New York:St. Martin's Press.
12. DiMaggio, P., Powell, W. W.(1991).The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
13. Giddens, A.(1979).Central Problems in Social Theory.Berkeley:University of California Press.
14. Giddens, A.(1984).The Constitution of Society.Cambridge:Polity Press.
15. Haas, E. B.(1990).When Knowledge is Power.Berkeley:University of California Press.
16. Haas, P. M.(1992).Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination.International Organization,46(1)
17. Hall, P., Taylor, R. C. R.(1996).Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms.Political Studies,44(5)
18. Hasenclever, A., Mayer, P., Rittberger, V.(1997).Theories of International Regimes.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
19. Holsti, K. J.(1985).The Dividing Discipline.Winchester:Allen and Unwin.
20. Kegley, Jr. C. W.(1995).Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge.New York:St. Martin's Press.
21. Keohane, R. O.(1984).After Hegemony.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
22. Keohane, R. O.(1989).International Institutions and State Power.Boulder:Westview Press.
23. Keohane, R. O.(1988).International Institutions: Two Approaches.International Studies Quarterly,32(4)
24. Koelble, T. A.(1995).The New Institutionalism in Political Science and Sociology.Comparative Politics,27(2)
25. Krasner, S. D.(1988).Sovereignty: An Institutional Perspective.Comparative Political Studies,21(1)
26. Lapid, Y.(1989).The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era.International Studies Quarterly,33(3)
27. Madar, D.(2000).Canadian Iternational Relations.Scarborough:Prentice Hall.
28. March, J. G., Olsen, J. P.(1989).Rediscovering Institutions.New York:Free Press.
29. March, J. G., Olsen, J. P.(1984).The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life.American Political Science Review,78(3)
30. Neufeld, M.(1993).Interpretation and the 'Science' of International Relations.Review of International Studies,19(1)
31. North, D. C.(1990).Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
32. Onuf, N.(1989).World of Our Making.Columbia:University of South Carolina Press.
33. Peters, B. G.(1999).Institutional Theory in Political Science.London:Pinter.
34. Price, R., Reus-Smit, C.(1998).Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism.European Journal of International Relations,4(3)
35. Ruggie, J. G.(1998).Constructing the World Polity.London:Routledge.
36. Scott, W. R.(1995).Institutions and Organizations.London:Sage.
37. Scott, W. R.(2001).Institutions and Organizations.London:Sage.
38. Scott, W. R.(1995).Institutional Environments and Organizations.London:Sage.
39. Scott, W. R.(1995).The Institutional Construction and Organizations.London:Sage.
40. Singer, J. D.(1961).The International System.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
41. Skocpol, T.(1985).Bringing the State Back In.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
42. Smith, S.(1997).The Globalization of World Politics.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
43. Sprout, H., Sprout, M.(1965).The Ecological Perspective on Human Affairs, With Special Reference to International Politics.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
44. Sprout, H., Sprout, M.(1968).Ecological Paradigm for the Study of International Politics.Princeton:Center of International Studies, Princeton University.
45. Thelen, K., Steinmo, S.(1992).Structuring Politics.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
46. Viotti, P., Kauppi, M. V.(1987).International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism.New York:Macmillan.
47. Waever, O.(1997).The Future of International Relations.London:Routledge.
48. Waever, O.(1996).International Theory: Positivism ＆ Beyond.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
49. Waltz, K. N.(1959).Man, the State and War.New York:Columbia University Press.
50. Wendt, A.(1994).Collective Identity Formation and the International State.American Political Science Review,88(2)
51. Wendt, A.(1987).The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory.International Organization,41(3)
52. Wendt, A.(1999).Social Theory of International Politics.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
53. Wendt, A.(1992).Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.International Organization,46(2)
54. Wendt, A.(1995).Constructing International Politics.International Security,20(1)
55. Wendt, A., Duvall, R.(1989).Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges.Lexington:Lexington Books.
56. Williamson, O. E.(1985).The Economic Institutions of Capitalism.New York:Free Press.
57. Young, O. R.(1989).International Cooperation: Building Regimes for Natural Resources and the Environment.Ithaca:Cornel University Press.
58. 朱金池(2001)。新世紀的行政理論與實務：張潤書教授榮退紀念論文集。臺北:三民書局。
59. 吳得源 Wu, Der-Yuan(2000).Institutional Development and Adaptability: Canada, Taiwan and the Social Construction of One China.Department of Political Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
60. 吳得源 Wu, Der-Yuan.New Institutionalism: Canadian Perspectives.Toronto:University of Toronto Press.
61. 陳敦源 Chen, Don-Yun(2001)。新制度論的範圍與方法－一個理性選擇觀點的方法論檢視 The Scope and Method of the New Institutionalism: An Appraisal on Methodology from the Rational Choice Theory Perspective。行政暨政策學報 Public Administration & Policy，3
62. 鄭端耀 Cheng, Tuan-Yao(2001)。國際關係「社會建構主義理論」評析 An Analysis of Social Constructivism in International Relations。美歐季刊 Americas & Europe Quarterly，15(2)
63. 謝俊義 Shei, Gen Yi(2000)。新制度主義的發展與展望 The Development and Future of New Institutionalism。中國行政（國立政治大學） The Chinese Journal of Administration，68

1. 陳文彥(2011)。學校權力結構的形構與影響：以一所大型國中為例。新竹教育大學教育學報，28(1)，67-97。
2. 謝卓君(2016)。師資培育制度變革與師範校院轉型：社會制度論的分析與反思。教育科學研究期刊，61(2)，29-56。
3. (2006)。全球治理在公共政策理論發展之擴充。行政暨政策學報，42，1-36。