Research Orientation of Western Political Science

The study of western political science follows two distinct main lines, one is the alternation and integration of institutionalism and behaviorism, and the other is the rise of economic research on political issues in the second half of the twentieth century. New institutionalism politics and new political economy are the products of these two routes respectively. Studying these two routes will help us to understand the general context of the development of political science research in the last century and understand some internal logic of the development of political science.

First, the dispute between system and behavior.

Institutionalism can be divided into old institutionalism and new institutionalism in chronological order. Institutionalism is not a school concept in the strict sense, because it contains different theories, but refers to a research orientation. The discussion of the system can be traced back to the public political debate before Plato in ancient Greece, the debate between God and vulgarity in the middle ages, and the enlightenment works of Hobbes, Locke and Montesquieu in modern times, all of which can be regarded as the exploration of the principles of human order, and these explorations are reflected in the thinking and design of the system. By the end of 19 and the beginning of the 20th century, political science, as an independent discipline, first appeared in the United States, and the research on the system was still at the center. This trend lasted until the middle of the 20th century, and was seriously challenged by behaviorism.

Behaviorists believe that the traditional macro, static, ethical and descriptive research methods are no longer suitable for the needs of research and are anti-theoretical; Law, system and historical framework cannot explain the behavior and political process of political individuals in real politics; We should grasp the essence of politics on the basis of observable human behavior and psychology. Behaviorism is a research orientation, which not only takes individual behavior as the research object in content, but also tends to be a scientism in method. It tries to approach the accuracy of natural science, and tries to conduct value-neutral, quantitative and verifiable empirical research on the research object with the standards of natural science. The rise of behaviorism marks the decline of traditional institutionalism, which is called old institutionalism or old institutionalism.

Although the behaviorism movement is huge, its research orientation is inherently flawed, which leads to its short time in the mainstream, and behaviorism has not been generally accepted from the beginning. Because of the emphasis on the study of individual psychology and behavior, its concern is too trivial to pay enough attention to major social issues; Because of the emphasis on value neutrality, it is impossible to standardize reality; Moreover, the accuracy it pursues cannot be achieved, because the standards of natural science are difficult to apply to social science research. All these led to the behaviorist school unable to explain and predict some major events at that time, which was in sharp contrast with their academic ambitions. In the mid-1960s, the wave of criticism of behaviorism began to rise, and in this criticism, a movement of constantly reforming political science was formed. The reflection on behaviorism has entered the post-behaviorism era and systematically returned to the mainstream of political science research.

As a result of reflection, there are at least three research trends in political science research. First, the return of normative philosophy represented by Rawls, focusing on social justice and its realization; The second is the rise of policy science represented by lasswell, who is concerned about how the political system makes decisions to solve major social problems; The third is the new institutionalism that appeared later. It can be seen that the research orientation in the post-behaviorism period is also centered on generalized systems. The difference is that behaviorism has not been completely abandoned, and its analytical techniques and means have been inherited in large numbers, thus making the analysis of post-behaviorism more accurate. Similarly, some post-behaviorist scholars also put individual behavior in the basic position of research.

The emergence of new institutionalism politics represents the revival of institutional research. American scholar James first put forward the concept of "new institutionalism". March and John? Olson, 1984 They published the article "New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life" in the American Political Science Review, which marked the rise of new institutionalism political science research. After less than 20 years, the development of new institutionalism politics is becoming more and more mature, and it is even called the paradigm revolution of political science research. But the new institutionalism politics is not a unified school, it has many schools, because everyone is concerned about the system, which can be unified under the banner of the new system. According to the division method of Peter Hall and Rosemary ·C·R· Taylor, new institutionalism politics can be divided into historical institutionalism, rational choice institutionalism and social institutionalism. (1) American scholar B. Guy Peters divides it into normative institutionalism, rational choice institutionalism, historical institutionalism, empirical institutionalism, sociological institutionalism, interest representative institutionalism and international institutionalism, among which normative institutionalism, rational choice institutionalism and historical institutionalism are more influential. ② Some scholars simply divide it into rational selectivism and sociological institutionalism.

Neo-institutionalism politics is the most prosperous branch of politics at present, so that many scholars call themselves neo-institutionalists. The new institutionalism politics was established on the basis of reflecting behaviorism, criticizing the old institutionalism and experiencing the rise, decline and revival of institutionalism. Therefore, only from the institutional point of view, the evolution from the old institutionalism to behaviorism and then to the new institutionalism constitutes a main line in the development of political science in the twentieth century. This main line covers almost all the major academic schools at that time, with rich literature. The viewpoints are different and interrelated, which have made great contributions to the construction of political science knowledge system and also reflected the internal logic of the development of political science theory.

Second, the economic study of political issues

Another main line is the economic research on political issues, which rose in the 1960s, that is, the so-called new political economy. The new political economy is an interdisciplinary product. It is difficult to say whether it belongs to politics or economics in the demarcation of modern disciplines. It can be said that it belongs to both politics and economy, or it is different from economy and politics, but the integration of the two. There are two meanings in studying political themes by means of economics. On the one hand, it emphasizes the influence of politics, especially institutions, on the economy; On the other hand, explain the system construction with the mode of economics. Compared with the above-mentioned dispute between system and behavior, the characteristics of this research idea are very distinct. The former is mainly determined by the internal logic of the development of political science, which is mainly completed within political science, while the latter is an interdisciplinary subject, an extension and expansion of economics to political science, which is carried out outside political science, so the two are essentially two different development paths.

The new political economy is not a school, but a research direction. What is the new political economy? The new political economy is still in the development stage, and there is no unified definition of it. However, it is generally believed that the new political economy studies the relationship between the state and the market, politics and economy, society and individuals. However, in these research orientations, political factors are undoubtedly the key content. There is a significant difference between new political economics and neoclassical economics. The latter regards institutional factors as exogenous factors and refuses to analyze the system, while the emphasis on the system is the key content of the new political economy. New political economy is different from classical political economy, because it applies the analytical methods and means of economics to the interaction of political economy, making its analysis more rigorous and accurate, and compared with classical political economy, it also attaches importance to micro-foundation.

There are also different opinions on the definition of the research object and scope of the new political economy. Representative views mainly include the following. 1. Buchanan thinks that the new institutional economics includes six aspects: public choice, property rights economics, legal economics (or economic analysis of law), new institutional economics, regulatory political economics and economic history; (3) 2.D.Lal and H.Myin believe that the new political economy includes three research contents: public choice, social choice and institutional and organizational economics; 4 3. Andrew in his article "New Political Economy". Gamble believes that the research content includes four aspects: international political economy, national theory, comparing the relationship between government and industry and public choice; ⑤4. In the editorial of the first issue of "New Political Economy" 1996, four other statements are given: comparative political economy, environmental political economy, development political economy and international political economy; 5. Hans Van den Del thinks that there are: the supply and demand of public goods, the distribution of value in the process of political transactions, election competition and the influence of bureaucracy on public policies. Although they have given different research contents from different angles and starting points, they are generally similar, that is, the relationship between the state and the market, society and individuals, politics and economy, and the themes are basically close. At present, among the branches of new political economics, public choice theory and new institutional economics are the most important, influential and mature.

It should be pointed out that the new political economy mentioned here is different from the rational choice branch of the new institutionalism politics mentioned above. The research scope of new political economy is wider. New political economics also includes the study of international politics and development issues, while rational choice institutionalism mainly refers to new institutional economics and public choice theory. Of course, the school of rational choice will also study international politics or development issues and the environment, but at present the research methods adopted by the two schools are quite different. Especially in the political science research of new institutional economics, the method of transaction cost is mainly used, and its methodological attribute also determines that the future research should focus on transaction cost analysis and property right analysis. However, the methods and contents of international political economy are different. "The research of international political economy can be summed up as one of three theories: liberalism, (new) Marxism and (new) mercantilism"; "There are great differences between these international political economy theories, and sometimes they hold completely different views when analyzing national economic behavior." However, according to Buchanan's classification, the branches of new political economy and rational choice institutionalism overlap, but this does not mean that they are logically the same in cognitive development. You know, when James, March and John? When Olson first put forward the concept of "new institutionalism" in 1984, the theories of public choice and new institutional economics already existed. As mentioned above, the revival of institutional research in political science is based on the reflection of behaviorism (of course, it is also influenced by economic methods to a considerable extent), which is different from the extension of economic methods to the political field, so it is also different from the attention of economics to institutions. But it is the emergence of political science research in public choice and new institutional economics that shows the trend of the integration of political science and economics. Politics can be economic, and economy can also be political. The two should not be separated from each other from the beginning.

Three. Conclusion and analysis

The theory of political science comes from the realistic needs of political life and also depends on the internal logic of its own development. With the evolution of political system and people's observation of political life, the knowledge of political science is also deepening and progressing. The rise of behaviorism and the decline and revival of traditional institutionalism reflect such a track.

Throughout history, mankind has never stopped exploring the social system. In the history of western political thought, there are such efforts from ancient Greek sages to modern bourgeois thinkers. Political principles and political forms are the core content of their concern, and this trend has come to an end temporarily with the establishment and stability of the capitalist political system. With the completion of the capitalist revolution and the establishment of the political system framework, capitalism has gradually entered a period of stable development. Contradictions and conflicts in political life no longer focus on the principle of what kind of system to establish, but gradually shift to the formulation of public policies. Therefore, the research center of political science has gradually turned to public policy. At the same time, the single research orientation of traditional institutionalism has also fallen into crisis. Many behaviorists believe that traditional political science cannot produce reliable knowledge, and historical, legal, institutional, descriptive and ethical judgment methods are regarded as "non-theoretical". Under the influence of behavioral science and natural science, behaviorists advocate using empirical and accurate behavioral research to grasp the political process.

This substitution is not accidental. Political life is hierarchical. Viii[viii]] We can divide it into macro, meso and micro levels. The political life at the macro level consists of the main political principles, the environment in which the political system exists and develops, the main political forces, the allocation of political power, and the operation and development of the political system. Relatively stable. The meso level is the level of system, rules and policies. The meso level is the maintenance and support level of the macro level. Once the system and rules are shaken, the macro level will fail. Of course, changes in macro-political elements will also lead to institutional changes. Micro-level political life consists of political behaviors of political individuals, political groups, political organizations and other political individuals, which constitutes the basis of political life. On the one hand, the system and rules determine the behavior framework of these political individuals, on the other hand, it is the political actions of political individuals that determine the formation of the system. Therefore, whether macro, meso or micro, system and behavior are the two most basic elements of political life. The system stipulates individual behavior, and individual behavior stipulates the changing direction of the system, and individual behavior is the basis of the political system. Therefore, it is very consistent with the internal logic of the development of political cognitive system to shift attention to behavior research after studying the system, which reflects people's deepening cognition of political system.

At the same time, human knowledge system should be GAI's. The rise of new institutionalism politics is the embodiment of this GAI. Behaviorism, like the old institutionalism, has also made one-sided mistakes, and the concern for behavior has led to the neglect of the system, so the behaviorism school is doomed to be lifeless. Behavior without system is one-sided, and system without behavior is also one-sided. New institutionalism is the integration of old institutionalism and behaviorism on a higher platform, which embodies the interactive relationship between system and behavior and tends to be more accurate and rigorous. And in fact, even in the period of behaviorism, the orientation of college research has not been completely replaced.

The emergence of new political economy also embodies this roughly the same development logic. As we all know, in the period of classical political economy, political factors were highly valued. At that time, political economics was economics, and politics and economy were not separated. Only after the marginal revolution, in order to pursue simplification and mathematicization, economists gradually expelled politics, regarded politics as an exogenous factor and refused to include it in economic analysis, only studying the behavior of consumers and producers, thus becoming pure economics and "blackboard economics". However, as North thinks, the huge performance difference between Britain's rise and Spain's decline cannot be explained only by resource endowment, but should be investigated as an endogenous factor, and institutional endowment has a decisive impact on economic performance. Economics divorced from political analysis is one-sided, so the intersection of politics and economics is not accidental. The development process from classical political economics to neoclassical economics and then to new political economics shows that the cognitive system of economics is deepening and GAI has made great progress.

Similarly, the emergence of the new political economy also shows the deepening of the cognitive level of political life. The integration of politics and economy is of great significance to their development. For political science, the analysis of political problems by economic methods provides a new perspective for political science research, enriches the research content and enhances the explanatory power; Compared with "conventional" politics, the research orientation is no longer single, the research methods are diversified and the research results are more abundant. For economics, bringing institutional factors into economic analysis makes up for the inherent methodological defects of taking political factors as exogenous variables, so that we can fully understand the relationship between economy and politics. All these show that although human beings are limited in rationality, their understanding of human society is becoming more and more complete.