内生视角下的制度分析及其案例研究方法（摘要）

franz — Fri, 26 May 2006 15:01:00 GMT

论文题目：

内生视角下的制度分析及其案例研究方法

—— 格雷夫“比较历史制度分析”的概念框架和研究方法

作者：付方赞

系别、年级：经济与工商管理学院 2003级硕士研究生

学科、专业：经济学经济思想史

完成日期：2006年4月

收藏：北京师范大学经济与工商管理学院资料室

内生视角下的制度分析及其案例研究方法

—— 格雷夫“比较历史制度分析”的概念框架和研究方法

摘要

本文依照熊彼特关于“分析史”的研究思想，运用历史的方法和比较的方法，对格雷夫提出的“比较历史制度分析（CHIA）”框架进行研究，包括其概念体系及案例研究方法。

所谓“比较历史制度分析”，“制度”是研究对象，针对的问题包括“为什么社会沿着不同的制度轨迹演化？为什么社会不能复制一个更为成功的制度结构？如何检验社会制度的隐性、非正式的一面和显性、正式的另一面之间的关联？” 等等； “历史”指揭示历史在制度的出现、持续和变迁中所起的作用；“比较”是在研究中进行相关制度的跨时空比较；“分析”则表示区分于简单描述，而是使用明确的特殊情景微观模型进行分析。

从国内已有的译介文献来看，对CHIA的学术史定位在三个不同的维度进行。一是作为比较经济体制分析的新进展。第二个维度是经济学中制度分析领域。其中又分别有三个不同角度，一是西方新制度经济史的第三代代表；二是现代经济学制度分析三大流派中的博弈论制度分析；三是博弈论视野下内生视角的制度分析。第三个维度是作为经济学与历史学的交叉学科的经济史学科的维度，在这个维度之下，体现了CHIA方法论上历史学与社会科学，尤其是经济学理论相结合的特征。

格雷夫整合已有的制度定义，将制度定义为：由共同生成了一套行为常规且相互关联的规则、信念、道德规范和组织等制度因素构成的一个体系。制度要素是影响行为的人为、非物理因素，对于行为受其影响的单个个人而言是外生的，并且共同激励、促使并引导个人遵循在社会情景下多种技术可行的行为中的其中一种。制度具有自我实施和可再生的特征。

CHIA得益于博弈论工具，在统一的框架内研究制度与制度的动态演变。CHIA将交易作为分析的基本单位，在博弈论表述中，关于情境结构的认知模型、道德规范，以及内在化信念被涵盖在博弈规则内，并且通过社会心理学理论成果的引入，以及历史、文化因素的加入解决了经典博弈论关于共同知识的假设难题，和博弈论多重均衡的难题。

格雷夫还在“历史进程的制度动态学”研究视角下，提出了制度内生变迁的分析路径，借助“拟参数”和“制度强化”两个概念，得以分析变迁环境下制度的持续，以及不变环境下的制度内生变迁。并且格雷夫强调，指导个人选择行为的微观基础具有不对称的性质，亦即过去的制度对后续制度具有影响作用。证明了制度变迁中，历史与个人理性的共同作用。并且注意到制度领导者和制度联合体对制度变迁的影响。

CHIA的研究方法是一种案例研究方法。这一方法主张历史与理论、归纳与演绎方法的结合，并且注重对假说的证伪机制，将研究分为四个步骤：（1）识别问题；（2）发展假说；（3）构造模型；（4）检验假说。

通过对格雷夫CHIA框架核心思想的梳理，可以看出他与青木昌彦CIA框架，在博弈论制度分析的内容和工具、制度的定义和特征，和制度的演变机制等方面具有许多相似之处。文章最后介绍了CHIA在中国经验研究中已有的运用，并提出了一个可能的研究议题：透过当前中国乡镇企业产权制度的变革，探寻组织与制度变迁的深层逻辑。

关键词：制度分析内生性格雷夫博弈论经济史方法论

THE INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

IN THE ENDOGENOUS PERSPECTIVE

AND ITS CASE STUDY METHOD

：The Conceptual Framework

and Methodology of CHIA

ABSTRACT

Inspired by Schumpeter’s studies on History of Analysis, this article examines the Comparative and Historical Institutional Analysis (CHIA) advanced by Avner Greif with the methods of historical study and comparative study. It covers the conceptual framework as well as the empirical methodology.

CHIA is employed to address the most fundamental questions of Institutions, which include: “Why do societies evolve along distinct institutional trajectories? Why do societies often fail to adopt the institutional structure of more successful one? How may we examine the interrelations between the implicit and informal aspects of societies’ institutions, on the one hand, and their explicit and formal aspects, on the other?” “CHIA is historical in its attempt to explore the role of history in institutional emergence, perpetuation, and change; it is comparative in its attempt to gain insights through comparative studies over time and space; and it is analytical in its explicit reliance on context-specific micro models for empirical analysis.”

According to the literatures of study and translation here in mainland China, CHIA in academic history can be traced in three different trajectories: as the latest development of Comparative Economic Systemic Analysis, as the method of institutional analysis in economics, and as an analytic framework of History of Economy, which demonstrates CHIA well combines the methods of historical studies, social sciences, and, particularly, theories of economics. When as the method of institutional analysis in economics, it could also be specific as the third stage of the New Institutional Economic History, or as the institutional analysis of Game Theory approach, one of the three approaches of modern Economics institutional analysis, or as the institutional analysis in the endogenous perspective in the view of Game Theory.

Grief develops a concept of institution out of all other concepts, which defines an institution as a system of institutional elements, including rules, norms, beliefs, and organizations, that conjointly generate a regularity of social behavior. Institutional elements of this system are man-made, nonphysical factors that are exogenous to each individual whose behavior they influence，and together these elements motivate, enable and guide individuals to follow one behavior among the many that are technologically feasible in social situations. Institutions are self-enforcing and reproductive.

CHIA advances a unified framework, which benefits from Game Theory, to studying institutions and the dynamics of institutions. In CHIA, transactions become the basic unit of analysis. “In a game-theoretic representation, the cognitive models regarding the structure of the situation, norms, and internalized beliefs are captured in the rules of the game, while behavior and behavioral beliefs are represented as strategies and the probability distributions over them. By adopting the achievements of Social Psychology and historical and cultural factors, the CHIA solves the problem of common knowledge postulate and of multi-equilibriums of classical game theory.

Regarding “institutional dynamics as a historical process”, Greif proposes an analytical approach of endogenous institutional change, which enables study on the institutional persistence in a changing environment and the institutional change in a stable environment, which benefit from two analytical conceptions, quasi-parameters and institutional reinforcing. Greif emphasizes that there is a fundamental asymmetry between institutional elements inherited from past and technologically feasible alternatives, which means history and individual agency will have common effects in the process of bringing in new institutions. Greif also mentions the influences on the institutional change brought by institutional entrepreneurs and institutional complexes.

The case study method, the empirical studying method of CHIA, combines historical and theoretical methods, as well as deductive reasoning and inductive analysis, and adopts the Falsificationism methodology. There are four stages in a case study: (1) initialing institutional analysis, identifying issues; (2) toward a conjecture, assembling the pieces; (3) forming context-specific models; (4) evaluating a conjecture through interactive, context-special analysis.

Through a review of the essence in the framework of CHIA, we can find that the CHIA has many analogies with the framework of Comparative Institutional Analysis (CIA) advanced by Masahiko Aoki in the following aspects: the contents and instruments of institutional analysis of Game Theory approach, the definition and characters of institutions, and mechanism of institutional change. This article concludes by giving a survey of exercises of CHIA and some related studies in Chinese empirical studies, and proposing an operable topic, which is to explore the general essence of the institutional change by examining the institutional changes in the property rights of the rural villages’ enterprises in China.

KEY WORDS: Institutional Analysis, Endogenous perspective, Avner Greif, Game Theory, the History of Economy, Methodology

The History of Analysis

内生视角下的制度分析及其案例研究方法（摘要）