Translated by Wang Liqiu

Harvard university, Scobo.

Starr? 6? Professor of government and sociology, Harvard University. She is a social revolution in the modern world (1994). Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of American Social Policy, 1992) and Comparative Analysis of French, Russian and China by National and Social Revolution (National and Social Revolution: Russia, China, 1979). She also edited or co-edited many anthologies, including Vision and Methods in Historical Sociology (1984).

My comments will elaborate on the following two points: why I am a historical institutionalist and what this means, and how I view the label of historical institutionalism that I put on myself in my relationship with other research paths.

My colleagues and friends? 6? Mo Fiorina (1) has previously hinted that the remarks about neo-institutionalism in social sciences, especially political sciences, are largely the product of differentiation from a young Turkish academic group, which tries to act as if they are engaged in something innovative compared with their predecessors. Because I am no longer young, I was ready to admit that I wanted to do something I didn't suggest more than ten years ago. However, when I and others began to study what I now call historical institutionalism, we did more than that.

By putting the relationship between the state and the state-society at the forefront of the definition of important and substantive issues and the study of explanatory assumptions in this study, we try to emphasize the interrelationship between mechanisms and organizations that other scholars tend to deal with separately, without falling into the stereotype of functional holism.

For example, let's think about how the overall model of the American government mechanism, which we call the country, has been influenced by the development of the American workers' movement. Such a survey requires us to analyze more than isolated parliaments or courts or political parties or administrators, and (we can't) analyze only one element at a time like many traditional functionalists. When paying attention to the interaction between mechanism and organization, historical institutionalists emphasize that in the process of early industrialization, American workers must deal with (and) the infrequent Supreme Court and political parties rooted in local areas and based on (popular) support.

The absence of state administrative agencies and procedural political parties also has an impact on the evolution of the goals and strategies of the American labor movement, especially in the comparison of social democratic movements in Europe. The analysis of inter-governmental and inter-organizational concepts, such as "state" or "political organization" (including political parties and organized political actors outside the state), is bound to be a comparative and historical (research) plan. Comparison, whether it is transnational, cross-regional, cross-regional comparison or cross-time comparison, is to find interesting models to explain and test the reliability of causal hypothesis. In order to find the intersection of the movements of the separation structure-these movements are usually the reasons to explain the results we want to understand, whether these results are revolution, the lack and strategy of the trade union movement, or the development model of the welfare state-we must track various processes over time.

I agree. Steve. 6? 1 Steve Ronicke and Karen? 6? Karen Orren1believes that historical institutionalists avoid thinking about the synchronic balance of institutions. The organizers of historical institutionalism put forward a series of general theoretical and methodological problems to the participants. I'm not very good at talking about these issues, because I always closely combine the empirical research on some type of practical and comparative conceptual model to solve the theoretical framework problems. Therefore, when expounding my recently published book "Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Origin of American Social Policy", I put the theoretical debate about the western welfare state together with the empirical study of American history in order to answer what I tried to explain in this example of the United States.

But this is not a plan to apply the theoretical model to the case at all. In fact, the most important model I finally tried to explain, that is, the expansion of pensions to civil war veterans and survivors, and the spread of social policies designated for mothers, came into my field of vision through empirical research rather than theoretical operation.

I also pay attention to the arguments of those who have engaged in political or academic careers. They notice patterns that blood often forgets. After defining some interesting models about1American current or absent social policies in 1970s and 20s, I put forward a historical institutionalism and political organization as the core explanation to explain what happened, when and how it happened, and why some possible policies did not actually appear.

My (interpretation) path is too complicated, which is closely related to the essence of my work in Thailand, and it is not worth elaborating separately here. From an analytical point of view, my path with political organization as the core allows me to focus on four processes. The first is the establishment and change of state and political party organizations, through which politicians pursue the initiative of policies. The second is the influence of political system and procedure, social change and social system on identity and goals, and the ability of social groups to gradually participate in politics. Third, the matching or deficiency between the goals and abilities of different types of political activity groups, and the historical changes of the rights and forces allowed by the national political system. Fourthly, from a practical point of view, the influence of social policies formulated before on later policies.

I believe that many other historical institutionalists are using similar methods, focusing on the interaction between the state and society and tracing various historical processes. In order to respond quickly and briefly to a conceptual question raised by the group organizer, I want to say that the system is a collection of lasting relationships for me, although this relationship is essentially conflicting and full of tension. This system can be a formal organization or an informal network. They have shared assemblies and relatively stable resources. I study the system from the perspective of organizational realism, and regard the system as a practical way of communication and action, instead of taking it as values, norms, concepts or official laws first. My first interest is to study the political process and results. I think these processes and results are triggered by actors whose goals and abilities and conflicts between them are rooted in the system, but usually these actors have no insight (for these processes and results) and no control (will and action).

Let me sum up by explaining the relationship between historical institutionalism and rational choice theory and the explanatory path leading to historical understanding. Hermeneutics and I have some common premonitions about how to define the nature of research. Like them, I am also interested in the formation of organizational identity and its influence on the political process. However, I think that from the perspective of methodology, causal analysis and variable hypothesis verification are the methods that should be adopted in the discussion. It is not enough to study how people speak or think. We must find relevant patterns in their actions. I don't think the system is just or above all a system of meaning or a normative structure. For me, group identity is based on the right to organize contact, obtain and use resources, and a certain "sense of accomplishment" in my political career over time.

As for the rational choice theorists who intend to put the actors in a given and partially operable institutional environment, I have a lot in common with them. When I talk about these people, I think of Terry? 6? 1 Mo (Tremo), Barry? 6? 1 Barry Wingast, Margaret? 6? 1 Margaret Levi, Robert? 6? Robert Betts Last but not least, my colleague Mo? 6? 1 fiorina. I call them rational choice analysts of institutions. They don't think the world is an Adam? 6? 1 Smith style, huge free market.

Rational choice analysts always correctly emphasize the needs of non-specific actors, and leave room for strategic choices and strategies in explanatory arguments. Unfortunately, rational choice theorists are too inclined to assume that the actors must be individuals, without paying attention to the groups or organizations that act collectively in some way. To make matters worse, some rational selectors are so obsessed with the formal deductive model that they deliberately avoid the complicated historical changes and the realistic political life process. But others, including all the people I mentioned, are committed to solving the problems such as the change of national system, government intervention in the market, and the decisive factors of legislative results.

Rational choice scholars often use certain institutional settings to model the set of events and the mobility of actors in a certain period. Historical institutionalists prefer to trace the sequence of results in time dimension to explain how early results change the parameters of subsequent development. Historical institutionalists are also interested in the process of position separation or conflict combination. Nevertheless, I still believe that there are many potential complementarities between historical institutionalism and rational choice rooted in the system. The difference between language and work style should not hinder the substantive dialogue between history and social science.

[Note] Translated from Theda Skocpol, Why am I a Historical Institutionalist, in Political Science, Vol. 28,No. 1 period (autumn, 1995),No. 103- 106. See http://www.jstor.org/stable/3235190.