Thomas Kuhn's concept of paradigm has long been a part of ordinary parlance in political science. Aside from its role in metatheoretical debate, scholars have enlisted the paradigm concept to explain policy change, particularly in the international political economy (IPE) literature. In this context, policy paradigms are defined primarily in ideational terms and with respect to a specific domain of policymaking. We argue that this stance overstates the ideational coherence of policymaking and runs a risk of reification. We re-evaluate the paradigm concept by drawing a link to the recent literature on norm change that emphasizes the importance of practice and process. This analysis highlights theoretical difficulties in using the paradigm concept, as the relation of ideas to practical logics elides the distinctness of paradigmatic frameworks. Without clear boundaries, paradigms lose much of their analytical purchase. While the paradigm concept initially proved useful in highlighting the role of ideas, it is time to recognize its limits in explaining stability and change in policymaking.

中文翻译：

---

范式与实践

托马斯·库恩的范式概念长期以来一直是政治学中日常用语的一部分。除了在元理论辩论中的作用之外，学者们还利用范式概念来解释政策变化，特别是在国际政治经济学 (IPE) 文献中。在这种情况下，政策范式主要是在概念上定义的，并且与特定的政策制定领域有关。我们认为，这种立场夸大了政策制定的理念连贯性，并冒着物化的风险。我们通过链接到最近强调实践和过程重要性的规范变化的文献来重新评估范式概念。这种分析强调了使用范式概念的理论困难，因为思想与实践逻辑的关系忽略了范式框架的独特性。如果没有明确的界限，范式就会失去大部分的分析购买力。虽然范式概念最初被证明有助于突出思想的作用，但现在是时候认识到它在解释政策制定的稳定性和变化方面的局限性了。