在本文當中首?提出單純採用新制度主義的理論途徑沒有辦法充分解釋政治轉型時期的政治穩定現象。制度論將研究者的注意導引到制度，確實是掌握了轉型的核心問題。但是影響政治穩定的因?有許多並非剛度緎的，我們所應該掌握的是決定人們行為模式因素有許多並非制度性的，我們所應該掌握的是決定人們行為模式的結構。如果制度構成結構的主體、或甚至是唯一的內容，則專注於制自然掌握到了問題的核心；然而如果結構包含了重要的非制度要素，則我們自然應該走出制度之外，去仔細檢查「非制度的結構性要素」。站在這個角度，本文提出了詮釋半總統制下政治穩定的一個綜合模型。我們所掌握決定半總統制國家政治穩定的因素有兩層。和政治穩定直幹相關的是府會關?、總統權力大小的和政黨體系。這個因素的上一層是選舉結果、菁英的工具性制度偏好、選舉制度、與社會分岐，都包含了制度與非制度的成份，它們構成一個結構，對轉型國家的政治穩定產生決定性的影響。拘泥於新制度論的詮釋途徑(不論對於制度如何定義)都無法全般地掌握整體的結構。本文的結論是：在決定行為和表現上，結構比制度更為重要。

　　　　　This paper argues that new institutionalism is in no position to give a full explanation of political stability in transitional polities. Although new institutionalism directs the researchers’ attention to the focus of political transition, it by no means covers all the important factors bearing on political stability in transitional courtesies. Emphasis should be put on the suture that determines human behavior patterns. If that structure includes “non-institutional factors,” then one should not be diverted away from those factors simply because they are not institutional in nature. In this context, this paper presents an analytical framework that accounts for political stability under transition. Two levels of factors are discerned. The first-level factors are directly related to stability. They are presidential-parliamentary relation, presidential powers, and party system. The second level of factors refers to the sources that determine the first-level factors. Those source factors are electoral results, the elite’s instrumental preferences for institutions, electoral systems, and social cleavages. The tow-level explanatory framework contains both institutional and non-institutional factors. In sum, this paper argues that structure is more important than institution in deterring behaviors and performance.