ABSTRACT

When explaining the causes of structural variations in local governance reform, regional studies scholars face a trilemma: how to avoid voluntarism that over-inflates individuals’ power to ‘heroically’ reorganize local governance regimes; how to avoid determinism that denies the prowess of local actors in the face of institutional constraints; and how to avoid constructivism that denies the separate existence of both individual actions and local institutions. The question they must answer is: if individuals are embedded in institutions that define their interests and shape their cognitions, how can they ever be able to change institutions? Critical realism suggests a suitable answer to this question by seeing institutional dynamics as consisting of structures, institutions, and actions, each with a distinct existence but nevertheless irreducible to each other. The practical value of this ontology – which avoids voluntarism, determinism and constructivism – is illustrated by an English devolution case study.

摘要

在解释地方治理改革结构性差异的原因时，区域研究学者面临着一个三难选择：如何避免过度膨胀个人权力以“英雄式”重组地方治理制度的自愿主义；如何避免在面对制度限制时否认当地行为者实力的决定论；以及如何避免否认个人行为和地方机构分开存在的建构主义。他们必须回答的问题是：如果个人植根于定义他们的利益和塑造他们的认知的制度，他们怎么能改变制度？批判现实主义通过将制度动态视为由结构、制度和行动组成，为这个问题提出了一个合适的答案，每个都有一个独特的存在，但彼此不可约。这种本体论的实用价值——它避免了唯意志论、决定论和建构主义——通过一个英国权力下放案例研究得到了说明。