点击排行
 
正文
全文下载次数:195
2020年第4期   DOI:10.19830/j.upi.2020.185
借鉴历史制度主义的中国规划史研究方法
A Historical Institutional Approach to Chinese Planning Historic Studies

侯丽

Hou Li

关键词:新制度主义;历史制度主义; 历史比较分析;路径依赖;规划史

Keywords:New Institutionalism; Historical Institutionalism; Comparative-Historical Analysis; Path Dependence; Planning History

摘要:

本文梳理了当前中国规划史研究所面临的研究方法适用性的困境,提出借鉴社会学科新制度主义的研究方法,包括有限理性、路径依赖,以及制度连续和断裂的相关概念,用于研究当代中国城市规划体系的演进和变革。文章提出通过应用这些制度主义的理论工具,可以提高规划史研究的诠释能力;将规划视为一种制度,规划师作为有限理性的专业人和社会人,关注制度和社会结构对规划行为的影响,探寻规划在国家政治、社会、经济制度中的位置及其发展规律。


Abstract:

The paper attempts to introduce new institutional approach from political science, especially the so-called “historical institutionalism”, including the concepts of path dependence, bounded rationality and critical junctures, to the historical study of Chinese urban planning. The author argues there shall be more attention paid to planning as an institution and planners are professional practitioners as well as social actors with bounded rationality. Historic institutionalism offers an applicable theoretical framework to analyze the evolution of planning institution, to inquire its relationship to national political, social and economic structures. In doing so, research in planning history can move from largely descriptive studies to a more interpretive one.


版权信息:
基金项目:国家自然科学基金面上项目(51778427)资助
作者简介:

侯丽,博士,同济大学城市规划系,教授。houli@tongji.edu.cn


译者简介:

参考文献:
  • [1] 汪德华. 中国城市规划史纲[M] 南京: 东南大学出版社, 2005.

    [2] 张京祥, 罗震东. 中国当代城乡规划思潮[M]. 南京: 东南大学出版社, 2013.

    [3] 中国城市规划学会. 中国城乡规划学学科史[M]. 北京: 中国科学技术出版社, 2018.

    [4] 杜赞奇. 为什么历史是反理论的[M] // 黄宗智, 编, 中国研究的范式问题讨论. 社会科学文献出版社, 2003.

    [5] 彼得·伯克. 法国史学革命:年鉴学派,1929—1989[M]. 北京大学出版社, 2006.

    [6] 诺斯. 经济史上的结构和变革[M]. 商务印书馆, 1981.

    [7] HSING Y. The great urban transformation: politics of land and property in China[M]. Oxford University Press, 2010.

    [8] 赵燕菁. 制度经济学视角下的城市规划[J]. 城市规划, 2005(7): 17-27.

    [9] TEITZ M B. Planning and the new institutionalism[M] // VERMA N, ed. Institutions and planning. Elsevier, 2007.

    [10] 桑劲. 西方城市规划中的交易成本与产权治理研究综述[J]. 城市规划学刊, 2011(11): 98-104.

    [11] 朱介鸣. 模糊产权下的中国城市发展[J]. 城市规划学刊, 2001(6): 22-25.

    [12] 田莉. 我国控制性详细规划的困惑与出路:一个新制度经济学的产权分析视角[J]. 城市规划, 2007(1): 16-20.

    [13] 周建军. 转型期中国城市规划管理职能研究[D]. 同济大学, 2008.

    [14] 冯立. 以新制度经济学及产权理论解读城市规划[J]. 上海城市规划, 2009(6): 8-12.

    [15] KATZENSTEIN P J. Between power and plenty: foreign economic policies of advanced industrial states[M]. Madison University of Wisconsin Press, 1978.

    [16] HALL P A. Governing the economy: the politics of the state intervention in Britain and France[M]. Oxford University Press, 1986.

    [17] IMMERGUT E M. The rule of game: the logic of health policy-making in France, Switzerland and Sweden[M] // STEINMO S, THELEN K,

    LONGSTRETH F, eds. Structuring politics: historical institutionalism in comparative analysis. Cambridge University Press, 1992: 57-89.

    [18] NORTH D C. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance[M]. Cambridge University Press, 1990.

    [19] DARON A, JAMES R. Why nations fail: the origins of power, prosperity, and poverty[M]. Crown Business, 2012.

    [20] PIERSON P. Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics[J]. American political science review, 2000, 94(2): 251-267.

    [21] MAHONEY J, KATHLEEN T. Advances in comparative-historical analysis[M]. Cambridge University Press, 2015.

    [22] MAHONEY J, KATHLEEN A T. Explaining institutional change: ambiguity, agency, and power[M]. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

    [23] YANG D. Calamity and reform in china: state, rural society, and institutional change since the great leap forward[M]. Stanford University Press, 1996.

    [24] HOLZINGER K, KNILL C, SOMMERER T. Environmental policy convergence: the impact of international hormonization, transnational communication, and regulatory competition[J]. International organization, 2008, 62(4): 553-587.

    [25] CAO X. Global networks and domestic policy convergence: a network explanation of policy changes[J]. World politics, 2012, 64(3): 375-425.

    [26] JENSEN N M, LINDSTADT R. Leaning right and learning from the left: diffusion of corporate tax policy across borders[J]. Comparative political studies, 2012, 45(3): 283-311.

    [27] HEALEY P. The new institutionalism and the transformative goals of planning[M]// VERMA N, ed. Institutions and planning. Elsevier, 2007: 61-90.

    [28] WU F. Planning for growth: urban and regional planning in China[M]. Routledge, 2015.

    [29] WU F. Planning centrality, market instruments: governing Chinese urban transformation under state entrepreneurism[J]. Urban studies, 2018, 55(7): 1383-1399.

    [30] RITHMIRE M. Land bargains and Chinese capitalism: the politics of property rights under reform[M]. Cambridge University Press, 2015.

    [31] 侯丽, 孙睿. 地方规划决策制度的创新与演进:以上海和深圳的规划委员会制度为例[J]. 城市规划学刊, 2019(6): 87-93.

    [32] 何丹. 城市政体理论及其对中国城市发展研究的启示[J]. 城市规划, 2003(11): 13-18.

    [33] 赵燕菁. 城市规划职业的经济学思考[J]. 城市发展研究, 2013(2): 1-11.

    [34] CHUNG J H. Centrifugal empire: central-local relations in China[M]. Columbia University Press, 2019.

    [35] 孙睿. 产权与规制的关系及其对城市更新的影响:中国控规与美国区划法的比较研究[J]. 国际城市规划, 已录用.


《国际城市规划》编辑部    北京市车公庄西路10号东楼E305/320    100037
邮箱:upi@vip.163.com  电话:010-58323806  传真:010-58323825
京ICP备13011701号-6  京公网安备11010802014223

5604840