Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy
logo-Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy

Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy
logo_m-Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy

    Jump To中央區塊/Main Content :::
  • About JSSP
    • About JSSP
    • Indexed in
    • Subscription Information
    • Contact Us
  • Editorial Board
  • Notes to Contributors
    • Guidelines for Submitted Manuscripts
    • Publication Ethics Statement
    • Statement Regarding Artificial Intelligence (AI)
    • Review Process
    • Online Submission
  • Volumes and Issues
    • Forthcoming Papers
  • Annual Statistics
    • Submission Trends by Academic Discipline in 2014-2024
    • First Round Processing Time of Submissions in 2024
    • Top 10 Most Viewed Papers in 2024
    • Top 10 Most Downloaded Papers in 2024
  • RCHSS
中文
RCHSS
search
Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy
  • Home
  • Volumes and Issues
  • 《Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy》 Volume 16, Number 03
  • Facebook
  • line
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Print
2004 / September Volume 16 No.3
Dynamic Mechanism of Institutional Change: A Case Study in Transitions of the Central Bank System in Taiwan, 1949-61

Number of Clicks:3415; Number of Abstract Downloads:0; Number of full PDF text Downloads:0;

發刊日期/Published Date
2004 / September
中英文篇名/Title
制度變遷:動態機制的觀點以台灣中央銀行制度的變遷,1949-61為例
Dynamic Mechanism of Institutional Change: A Case Study in Transitions of the Central Bank System in Taiwan, 1949-61
論文屬性/Type
研究論文 Research Article
作者/Author
林文斌
Wen-pin Lin
頁碼/Pagination
389-433
摘要/Abstract

理性選擇制度主義丶歷史制度主義和社會學制度主義等三種新制度主義近來在政冶、社會和經濟學上成為顯學。雖然硏究重點與分析途徑各有不同,對制度的定義也有廣狹之分,但多數的研究都將焦點置於制度如何影響行為者(組織或個人)的行為丶其對整體(國家或社會)的政治、經濟及社會旳影響,而少關心制度的變遷。因爲制度變遷代表的是行為者影響制度,與前者的因果關係恰恰相反。我們在評論三種新制度主義關於制度變遷的論點後,提出「動態機制」論作為制度穩定和變遷的中介,並精緻化新制度主義對制度變遷的分析力。最後以1949年到1961年間台灣中央銀行制度的變遷個案研究為例,加以說明。

New institutionalism is becoming the mainstream in comparative politics. In fact, there are three theoretical views in the mainstream: rational choice institutionalism, historical institutionalism and sociologi­cal institutionalism. These three schools all claim institutions structure the actors, but how do the institutions form and change? They cannot resolve the causal dilemma of whether the institutions change the actors' behaviors, or actors make the institutions change. Some scholars claim we must use two different analytical models in the different situations. But we argue this is not an appropriate answer. We develop the "dynam­ic mechanism" model as an interface between the two situations, and explain the institutional change. We use the model to analyze the transi­tions of the central bank system in Taiwan to make our argument clearer.

關鍵字/Keyword
新制度主義, 制度形成, 制度變遷, 台灣, 中央銀行
new institutionalism, institutional change, dynamic mechanism, Taiwan, central bank
學科分類/Subject
政治學, 經濟學
Political Science, Economics
主題分類/Theme

DOI
檔案下載/Download
Abstract full PDF text
相關文章
  • An Empirical Analysis of the Democratic Peace and Non-democratic Peace Theses: The Critical Effects of Political Institutional Similarity
  • The Feasibility of the Role of the Judicial Yuan as Determined at the National Conference on Judicial Reform - Based on the Contingency in the Council of Grand Justices
  • Institutional Analysis of the Organizational Expansion and Transformation of Social Work Education in Taiwan: The Influence of the Professional Social Worker Act in 1997
  • The Relative Merits (and Weaknessses) of Presidential, Parliamentary and Semi-Presidential Systems: The Background to Constitutional Reform
  • Tocqueville on “Others” and the Qualifications of Civilization

  • About JSSP
  • Editorial Board
  • Notes to Contributors
  • Volumes and Issues
  • Annual Statistics

Research Center for Humanities and Social Sciences, Academia Sinica, No. 128, Sec. 2, Academia Rd, Taipei 115, Taiwan

Tel: 886-2-27898156 Fax: 02-27898157 Email: issppub@sinica.edu.tw

© Copyright 2025. RCHSS Sinica All Rights Reserved.Privacy Policy & Security PolicyVersion:V1.1.3