共存分析与比较政治学研究

组态比较分析集合定性与定量研究的方法论优势，成为比较政治学研究的重要发展趋势。共存分析作为定性比较分析发展的进阶因果组态分析方法，是解释案例要素组态与结果之间因果结构的重要探索性工具。共存分析以中小样本案例为研究对象，基于集合论与布尔代数理论，关注复杂社会现象的因果关系，运用因果建模定制的优化算法，通过前提条件、因果假设、核心算法和模型检验等环节，分析多元组态因果链条机制和共同原因结构。共存分析应用于比较政治学领域研究，通过维护研究对象一致性和覆盖性的阈值边界，具有超越定性比较分析的较强适用性与解释力。通过对共存分析的评价与引介，可以推动比较政治学的复杂因果机制研究，成为具有解释张力的新范式。     

学科视野中的历史政治学:以历史社会学、政治史、比较政治学为参照

历史政治学是中国学者提出的研究政治学之全新范式,但当然不是从零开始,而有众多可资利用之知识资源,本文探讨其与历史政治学之关系。历史政治学与历史社会学均致力于带回历史、带回国家,并共享众多方法;但后者有西方中心论偏见,奉行价值无涉原则,止于理解或解释;历史政治学则破除西方中心论,公正对待中国等非西方国家、文明丰富的政治实践,且有明确价值追求,致力于从历史中探究善治之道。历史政治学呼吁历史学再度重视政治史,并使之有政治学想象力。历史政治学可为比较政治学带入大历史视野,以矫正其以西式政治制度为标准的偏失。     

邓小平历史方法论探讨

邓小平的历史方法论是邓小平研究社会历史问题的一般方法论原则。邓小平最常使用且最具特色的有三大方法,即实践反思的方法、比较分析的方法和历史主义的方法。研习邓小平的历史方法论有重要的价值和启示。     

霍布斯、洛克和卢梭社会契约论思想之比较

社会契约论是近代西方政治思想家提出的一套比较系统的关于国家（政府）起源及理想政治制度的理论，经霍布斯奠基，和洛克的阐发，由卢梭发展到极致。然而通过比较我们可以发现，由于所处历史环境以及个人经历的差异，三位思想家关于契约订立的原因、订立方式以及订立结果方面的看法各有不同。社会契约思想不仅极大的影响和鼓舞了资产阶级和劳动人民为推翻封建政权所做的斗争，而且成为西方国家宪政制度设计的重要理论基础。     

历史政治学的功能分析

历史政治学的提出引发了中国政治学界的广泛关注。作为一种新型研究路径的历史政治学不但具有客观的分析主义特征,而且和其它政治理论的研究路径一样,还具有鲜明的功能主义特征。历史政治学首先回答了政治理论的知识来源问题,从而为建构中国自主性政治学知识体系提供了可能。基于政治学取向的政治史研究有助于避免因“文化转向”而导致的历史研究的碎片化问题,这意味着历史政治学研究既追求“真相”也关怀“真理”。历史政治学的知识功能自然有其政治实践价值,那就是为治国理政提供历史解释与现实论述,并为认识合法性政治提供一套不同于理性人假设的历时性方案。     

中国医疗卫生体制改革的政策议程分析

公共政策议程研究是西方政策研究领域中一个新兴的研究热点。20世纪70年代以来,西方学者基于西方政治体系中的政策实践总结归纳出了政策议程的很多准入条件和模型。而中国学者在议程问题的研究上还处于萌芽阶段,基于本国实践的同类研究不仅数量稀少,而且解释的力度和系统性都欠缺。约翰·金顿（John·Kingdon）的多源流分析框架为基础对我国医疗卫生体制改革的政策议程有现实的指导意义。     

西方国家宏观经济调控的比较与借鉴

西方国家均采用市场经济体制，因而宏观经济调控具有某些共同点。由于各国市场发育程度、社会政治经济结构、经济发展阶段及历史文化背景不同，使其市场经济模式各具特点，宏观调控存在差异。比较西方国家宏观经济调控之异同，可以为建构中国宏观经济调控体系提供许多借鉴。     

西方民主发生理论辨析

民主发生理论通过对主流民主化理论的问题意识的修正,致力于解释在非民主的政治环境中,民主的条件是怎样组合在一起并且相互作用的,从而使得民主政治能够在非民主政治解体之后破茧而出。在民主何以发生的问题意识引导之下,笔者通过阅读和分析经典文献,依据理论视角的不同归纳出民主发生理论的比较政治学、历史社会学和政治经济学三种解释模式。比较政治学的解释模式诉诸经济发展、公民社会、政治文化之间的耦合关系来建构民主的发生机制;历史社会学的解释模式则从资本主义所造就的阶级力量之间的均势来解释民主政治的发生;而政治经济学的解释模式则从经济不平等、资本类型、政治资源分布之间的制约关系中的阶级之间的结盟与敌对关系解释民主的发生。     

邻避冲突中社会抗争与政治回应的因果推理——基于京沈高铁事件的力场分析和过程追踪

围绕"具体公共政策中的社会抗争是否催生政府回应""社会抗争如何作用于政府回应"这两个问题,运用力场分析和过程追踪方法对京沈高铁事件进行因果影响和因果机制分析,实现对"社会抗争与政治回应"完整的因果推理。研究发现,在有争议的权威主义国家背景下,社会抗争与政治回应逐渐呈现良性互塑,抗争性政治正朝着回应性政治转变。研究结论认为,社会抗争与政治回应正相关、社会抗争中的政治回应性取决于动员能力和反动员能力的博弈结果、政府回应对社会抗争具有"判例"效应。而有效处理类似的社会抗争事件,应保持政治回应的理性、重视信息技术的作用、变革社会治理的方式等。     

20世纪90年代以来中国公民社会研究述评

20世纪90年代以来,中国学术界对公民社会的研究逐步繁荣起来。由于中国正处于政治转型和社会变迁的历史时期,公民社会理论正好迎合了当代中国的实际国情,为解决当前的各种社会问题提供了理论支撑,为此国内学者纷纷用这一理论分析我国的历史和现实问题并且积极探寻公民社会的构建途径。本文主要将国内学者们关于中国公民社会的内涵、兴起、功能以及如何构建具有中国特色的公民社会等问题所作的研究进行简要述评以供学术探讨。     

From McCarthyism to the Tea Party: Interpreting Anti-Leftist Forms of US Populism in Comparative Perspective

This article presents an analysis of McCarthyite and Tea Party political discourse and explores the possibilities of utilizing populism as an analytic construct for making comparisons between the political and economic projects envisaged by these two conservative movements. Relying on a definition of populism as a universal discursive formation, this article argues that there is a similar structure to the discourses of McCarthyism and the Tea Party, which relies on the construction of a “left-oriented enemy,” posed as a threat to the American values of freedom and independence historically tied to the nation's “founding moment.” With this comparative discursive structure established, the article then explores the ideological differences between the movements and attempts to interpret them within a historical framework. This article concludes by asserting that cases of populism in the immediate postwar period such as McCarthyism were short lived compared to new cases of populism such as the Tea Party, insofar as the universal discursive structure of populism, which once proved to be an exceptional phenomenon within modern forms of political rule, is now becoming part of the institutionalized structure of democratic politics, evidenced by a number of cases taken in comparative-historical perspective.     

Max weber and China’s transition under the new leadership

Some scholars have applied Max Weber’s three ideal types of authority (traditional charismatic and rational-legal) and general transition theory to China. This paper argues that the application of these Weberian concepts is faulty. Weber’s understanding of rationality is specific, a narrow reference to modern Western capitalist rationalization of action. When Weber’s account is forced upon the issues of Chinese political leadership, it simplifies the complexity of historical phenomena, and falls prey to the difficulties of universalism and dualism. Chinese political ideas and practices have developed in a distinctive cultural tradition and may not be able to be fully understood in Western terms and categories. This paper proposes an alternative tongbian interpretation of Chinese politics. His research interests focus on comparative Western and Chinese political philosophy. He has published a number of articles in English and Chinese. He has taught American Politics, International Relations, Western Political Philosophy and Theory, and team-taught ASIAN Nations: China. He is currently teaching Advanced Chinese Language at the Japan American Institute of Management Science (JAIMS) and is a Liaison of Exchange Programs with China at the Center for Chinese Studies, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.     

资本主义代议制民主政治制度的元批判——马克思《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》新释

《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》是多个学科公认的经典名著。但国内外学者对其的解读却往往囿于各自的学科意识,忽视了其作为一篇时事政治评论的创作初衷。基于政治事件史的视角,以马克思《资本论》中成熟的思想作为分析的出发点,能发现马克思在对阶级斗争和国家原理的分析过程中还揭示出了资本主义代议制民主政治制度的本质性缺陷,即"代表"的分裂问题;制度本身无法避免成为保守势力倒转历史车轮的工具;自由主义与民主主义无休止的斗争。这些缺陷使得资本主义国家在周期性经济危机的影响下一直无法摆脱政治困境的周期性反复。当代随着经济危机的反复爆发与萧条的普遍蔓延,各种"煽动者"又开始普遍在资本主义国家政坛上崭露头角,并导致了一系列"黑天鹅"事件的发生。此时重温《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》更应别有一番意趣。     

我国行政学界腐败研究的现状分析

腐败造成对政治、经济、社会等领域的巨大腐蚀与破坏,是我们这个时代面临的最大挑战之一。研究腐败的成因、现状、对策等问题,提出遏制腐败的对策,是历史和社会提出的重要课题。国内学界对此进行了深入研究,并且有大批学术成果面世。为推动腐败研究的深入进行,通过对发表于国内行政学界主要期刊上的近一百多篇学术论文的实证分析,总结与综述现阶段腐败研究现状的若干特征和理论观点,并由此分析得出相关的研究结论。     

The future in comparative politics

This article is based upon a key speech that Professor Robert Bates gave at the 13^th Annual Conference of the Association of Chinese Political Studies (ACPS) held in Bethesda, Maryland between October 17–18, 1998. Professor Bates observes that there is a sense of crisis among comparative political scientists and central to their concerns is an apparent loss of diversity. Professor Bates believes that homogenization presents an opportunity for comparatists to redirect their comparative social inquiries. He argues that comparative politics is a field that is based upon method; that the presumed homogenization of politics, globally, and the existence of large-scale collections of data, highlight the utility of returning to large-N, cross-national research; and that the subfields of political economy and development are best positioned to secure rapid advances from their redirection. He also emphasizes that we need to blend cross-national statistical research with in-depth case studies, arguing that the two are not substitutes but rather complements, and should be pursued in tandem. Professor Bates further argues that there is an “over supply” of theory in comparative politics and debates over theory should be based on assessments of the theory’s capacity to account for outcomes. In this sense, questions of theory cannot and should not be separated from questions of method. A good theory, in practice, provides a powerful engine of empirical discovery.     

Comparative Analysis in Political Science: Requiem or Resurrection?

Comparative method in political science is currently going through a critical time, particularly after the failure of developmentalism, and of the classical paradigm of comparative government. This crisis stems from questioning universalism, mono-determinism and the compartmentalism between political science and history. New paradigms are now conceived in order to overcome this crisis: culturalism, social action, historical sociology. Can they be used to construct a new kind of comparison? Can they deal effectively with the new objects of comparison which derive from the increasing differentiation of political situations and political practices that we currently observe?     

Symbolic ideology in the American electorate

Ideological self-identification in the United States is well measured for the period 1970 to the present. Many survey measures are available and they are posed with considerable frequency and regularity. It is thus a relatively straightforward methodological exercise to combine them into a single measure of the American public's latent disposition to identify as liberal or conservative. What is problematic about this state of affairs is that the availability of these good measures occurs after a number of important changes in the American political context, changes that, we argue, have affected how Americans conceive of ideological terms and how scholars think about self-identification in the modern electorate. This paper seeks to measure and explain ideological self-identification in the time before modern survey research. We undertake an historical analysis of scattered pieces of public opinion data before 1970, assembling the pieces to build a time series of self-identification from 1937 to 2006. We then begin attempts at explaining the now observable, and often dramatic, changes in this series.     

History and Thought in China’s Traditions

The recent turn to China??s traditions has the potential to correct for the Eurocentrism of Political Science theories. Nevertheless, the overwhelming emphasis on political thought, especially Confucianism, may have its drawbacks. This article suggests that political scientists who are interested in building theories and drawing policy implications should study the verifiable, i.e., history. Unless the purpose is to study philosophy for its own sake, political scientists should study political thought in practice, rather than political thought divorced from history. This article first discusses why it is important to examine history beyond thought. It then analyzes why scholars should not conflate political thought with historical practice. It anchors the analysis with a high-profile recent book on ancient Chinese thought.     

Promoting State-of-the-Art Methods in Public Management Research

The field of public management is methodologically underdeveloped as compared to other disciplines. In order to derive the fullest benefits of methodological advancements, the field needs to invest in discussing and deliberating over the state of the art in methodological advances. Using state-of-the-art methods helps to produce knowledge that is useful for scholars and practitioners. This symposium aims to add to and improve the methodological toolkit available to public management scholars. We distinguish three categories that could strengthen the methodological toolkit: underutilized methods (such as ethnography), innovations in current methods (such as the synthetic control method for comparative case studies), and novel methods (such as natural language processing for content analysis). We hope that this symposium encourages scholars to seek for novel and improved methods to produce research that lives up to scientific scrutiny and is valuable for practitioners.     

Territory and Power Revisited: Theorising Territorial Politics in the United Kingdom after Devolution

The article seeks to contribute to theoretical analysis of political decentralisation in the UK occasioned by devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1998–9. It examines the contribution that can be made by Jim Bulpitt's 1983 book, Territory and Power in the United Kingdom . First, it argues that Bulpitt's critique of conventional wisdoms in the early 1980s remains highly relevant to reflecting on shortcomings in the literature today. Key among these is the lack of a common conceptual language for analysis, and Bulpitt's overarching re-conceptualisation of the field as the study of 'territorial politics' would repay renewed reflection. Secondly, the article clarifies Bulpitt's own centre perspective and argues that its application is best understood today as a realist historical institutionalist account of UK territorial politics. In so doing Bulpitt also provides an enduring methodological and interpretative challenge to assumptions of state centralism. Thirdly, the article argues that key methodological/interpretative insights can be adapted from Territory and Power in analysis of UK territorial politics and the advent of devolution. This reinforces the utility of Bulpitt's historical institutionalism to contemporary analysis. Finally, it argues that Territory and Power 's concepts and methods, understood in these ways, would bear application in comparative studies of political decentralisation.