【作者】 李力东；

【导师】 陈剩勇；

【作者基本信息】 浙江大学 ， 政治学理论， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 西方政治发展理论自20世纪50年代晚期兴起以来虽然经历了跌宕起伏的发展过程,然而这一领域名家辈出,学术成果丰硕,影响深远。相对而言,霍华德·威亚尔达是政治发展研究的一位后起学者。先是作为一名学生,后作为一位学者,他见证和参与了政治发展理论兴起、鼎盛、批评、反思和转变的全过程。威亚尔达的政治发展研究虽然涉猎广泛,但是法团主义是他一以贯之的研究维度,是他的研究特色,也是他对政治发展理论的最大贡献。研究威亚尔达的政治发展理论有助于我们洞悉西方政治发展理论演进的来龙去脉,同时可以帮助我们把握政治发展研究的未来走向。20世纪60年代的政治发展理论被发展主义范式所支配。事实上,威亚尔达早期也是发展主义的信徒。但是,随着发展主义假设在发展中国家的失效,威亚尔达通过对伊比利亚—拉丁美洲政治的研究认为它们有不同于西欧、北美的独特发展模式,他称之为“法团主义模式”。在威亚尔达看来,伊比利亚—拉丁美洲的法团主义不仅是一种按照功能性团体组织起来的利益代表体系,更是深深镶嵌于这一文化区域的历史、文化和传统之中的思想观念和行为方式。威亚尔达虽然主要考察了伊比利亚—拉丁美洲政治发展的法团主义模式,但是他并没有排除这一模式对其他地区的适用性。他把法团主义分为自然法团主义、意识形态法团主义、政制法团主义和现代新法团主义四种类型,并认为它们之间有一种内在的逻辑演进过程,当然也可能在某种条件下表现为几种类型的混合与重叠。政治发展理论的法团主义维度可以帮助我们理解发展中国家的民主制度何以失败以及权威主义何以建立。而且,即使是在民主转型的背景下,威亚尔达也认为法团主义范式的有效性依然强大。首先,很多发展中国家并没有实现民主巩固,排他性的、权威性的国家法团主义仍然存在。其次,社会法团主义作为一种利益代表和协调机制事实上与民主制度是相容的。所以,对许多发展中国家来说,民主转型和巩固并不意味着法团主义因素的消失,而是从国家法团主义向社会法团主义的演进。威亚尔达的法团主义范式强调了政治发展的连续性,并向我们展示了政治、历史和文化因素的重要性。事实上,威亚尔达主张在变化性与连续性、外来性与本土性之间实现某种平衡。这就在很大程度上克服了发展主义范式片面关注政治变迁过程中的变化性、外来性的缺陷。威亚尔达虽然是发展主义的批评者,但并不是发展主义的否定者。正如他自己多次提到的,法团主义是发展主义的补充而不是替代,他认为应该把发展主义、法团主义、依附理论等各种理论范式结合起来。这反映了威亚尔达在法团主义研究中坚持一种实用主义的而不是意识形态的态度。当然,威亚尔达的法团主义维度也存在一些问题,比如法团主义概念过于宽泛、有模棱两可之嫌以及批评性有余而建设性不足。但是无论如何他为我们提供了一个非常具有启发性的视角。此外,法团主义范式对于理解中国政治发展的实践和理论也颇具借鉴意义,这是因为法团主义与中国的历史传统和政治发展现实有诸多契合之处。从国家与社会关系重构的视角来看,法团主义提供了一种现实可行的选择。中国当前虽然具有国家法团主义的显著特征,但是随着国家与社会之间的良性互动,公民社会日益发育,社会的组织化水平不断提高,中国实现从国家法团主义向社会法团主义的过渡是可以期待的。更多还原

【Abstract】 Western political development theory has gone through ups and downs since its rise in late 1950s, but there are many famous scholars and fruitful academic production in this field, and it has a far-reaching impact. Howard J.Wiarda is a later scholar studying on political development. First as a student, later as a scholar, he witnessed and participated in the whole process of rise, peak, criticism, reflection and chang of political development theory. Although Wiarda’s political development research covers a wide range, corporatism is his consistent research dimension, is his research feature, and is his greatest contribution to political development theory. To study Wiarda’s political development theory will help us not only discern the cause and effect of evolution of western political development theory, but to grasp the future direction of political development research.The paradigm of developmentalism dominated the political development research of 1960s. Actually, Wiarda was primitively a believer of developmentalism. However, as the failure of developmentalism in developing countries, Wiarda found a distinct development model which he named "corporatist model" that was different from Western-Europe and North-America’s through his research on Iberic-Latin politics. In Wiarda’s opinion, corporatism is a set of ideas and ways of behavior that are deeply embedded in Iberic-Latin histroy,culture and tradition as well as a system of interest representation organized according to functional groups. Wiarda focused on the corporatist model of Iberic-Latin political development, but he never excluded the applicability of this model to other areas. Wiarda classified corporatism as four categories: natural corporatism, ideology corporatism, manifest corporatism and modern neo-corporatism. He considered that there was a inherent logic of evolution from one to another, and it also may be a mixture or overlap of several categories under certain conditions.The corporatism dimension of political development study makes us understand why democracy failed and why authoritarianism was established in developing countries. Furthermore, even under the background of transition to democracy, Wiarda considered that the validity of corporatism paradigm was still very strong. First, democratic consolidation has not been achieved in many developing countries, exclusive,authoritarian state corporatism is still exist. Second, societal corporatism which is a mechanism of interest representation and intermediation is in fact compatible with democratic system. So, for many developing countries, democratic transition and consolidation do not mean the passing of corporatism, but the development from state corporatism to societal corporatism.Through corporatism paradigm, Wiarda emphasized the continuity in political development and demonstrated the importance of political,historical and cultural factors. In fact, Wiarda suggested to achieve some balance between change and continuity, alien and indigenous factors. So the problem, which was developmentalism only focused on changeable and alien aspects in political change, was overcome to a large degree. Wiarda criticized developmentalism but did not deny it. He mentioned many times that corporatism supplied rather than substituted for developmentalism. He suggested to combine such paradigms as developmentalism, corporatism, dependency theory,etc. This reflected a pragmatic rather than ideological attitude in Wiarda’s study on corporatism. It is to be noted that there were also some problems in Wiarda’s research. For example, the concept of corporatism was too wide and some ambiguous; and criticism was much more than construction. But in any case Wiarda provided us a very enlighten perspective.Corporatism paradigm is very useful to understand the practice and theory of China’s political development because it has much correspondence with China’s historical tradition and reality of political development. From the perspective of rebuilding state-society relations, corporatism provides a realistic and feasible choice. Present China is mainly characteristic of state corporatism, but with the positive interaction between state and society, with the growth of civil society and the enhancement of social organizational level increasingly, it can be expected that China would achieve the transition from state corporatism to societal corporatism.更多还原