本文試圖探討政治學中理性提擇制度論、社會學制度論、歷史制度論三種新制度主義在政治學在政治學一般理論中的原貌，及其與應用於當代中國政治的經驗性研究之間的關係。本有以現有文獻對於此一主題所提出的詮釋與理解為起點，指出各家立基於對新制度主義的不同理解上，所作之引申與論斷，亟須以上述原貌為依據，在彼此間形成概念指涉內涵上的共享，來作為對話基礎，將彼此間誤解降至最低，從而強化其知上的累積性。尤其，源自西方的新制度主義引入中國研究，應用在不同於西方的結構、文化與行為，其本身究竟是否適用及如何適用於當代中國，以及適用的研究的目究竟為何，更是本文關注的重點。立基於這項關懷上，本文將繼續檢視九○年代以來的其他中國政治經驗性著作(以英文著作為主)對於新制度主義的應用有何意義，並嘗試就理論與應用之間互動所衍生的部分問題作較細緻的分析，及討論經驗研究文獻的發展軌跡所呈示出的未來可能走向。在評估此種對話的過程中，本文的重要論證之一是，新制度主義理論的應用在解釋而詮釋中國政治的經驗現象。由於研究中國改革時期政經變遷上重要現象與議題本身的特質，對應於新制度主義內不同途徑之間在分析前提上的殊異，使得歷史制度主義的影響最為明顯，而具其獨有的解釋邏輯在中國研究中也獲得愈來愈多的印證闡發。在此演化軌跡的主流下，九○年代後期以來針對歷史制度主義較重結構的特質，開始重新喚醒對於文化因素與行為者自主性的考慮。另一方面，新制度主義中理性抉擇的重要性則同時呈明顯增長。最後，本文至少間接廓清了對於有關新制度主義的兩點常見誤解。第一，新制度主義在概念範疇上對於何謂「制度」，遠超出對於制度的一般常識性定義。這對於新制度主義究竟能否適用於中國大陸政經體系，有重要意義。第二，新制度主義的制度根念，並非只包含結構面，文化價值面也是核心元素之一。

　　　　　This article explores the theoretical genesis of three types of new institutionalisms in political science-rational choice institutionalism, sociological institutionalism, and historical institutionalism-as well as their relations with those empirical studies on contemporary Chinese politics that apply such approaches. A key rationale for pursuing this theme is the failure of existing literatures to differentiate among the subtle yet vital variations of the approaches above, and to resolve their theoretical debates with a set of minimal common understanding of the conceptual connotations of such approaches. In order to examine the strengths and weaknesses of applying such approaches that originate from the political life of the West to China studies, this article will scrutinize a number of major empirical studies in English on Chinese politics in the 1990s. In doing so, a close examination of ht problems derived uniquely from the interactions of the theoretical genesis and the empirical studies above, and of the evolutionary trend revealed by the empirical studies will also be performed. A core argument emanating from this analysis is the distinction between “interpretation” and “explanation” of the political phenomena in contemporary China. Judging from the utility of explanation, it is the historical institutionalism that has exercised greater influence on the application in the empirical studies above, compared to the other two new institutionalisms. Such a consequence cannot be understood without considering the peculiar nature of the evolutionary path a the key issues of the Chinese political economy during the reform era, as well as the three new institutionalisms’ theoretical parameters. These preconditions warrant an increasingly closer correspondence between the unique theoretical logic of historical institutionalism and China’s reform experiences in recent years. Parallel to this consequence is the growing attention during the latter half of the 1990s paid by the empirical studies to cultural dynamics and the autonomy of human agency in theoretical explanation. In addition, the weight of rational choice institutionalism is turning heavier in the application as well. Last but not least, this article helps clarify at least two misunderstandings frequently found in the discourse on the application of new institutionalisms. The conceptual domain of “institution” in new institutionalism is far wider and richer than what is preconceived by those perspectives based simply on common sense or intuitive comprehension. The dialectical character inherent in the competing components about institution in the new institutionalisms facilitates a constructive application to the political eventualities of contemporary Chinese political economy. Furthermore, the vitality of cultural factors as an integral element in new institutionalism has long been under-estimated, if not totally neglected, compared to the structural aspect therein. A sufficient attention to this reality would help alleviate much of the alleged tensions between he theoretical genesis and its application to contemporary China.