學 院 專 欄 FACULTY COLUMN 舉辦另外幾場研討會和工作坊，進一步改進理 論框架，對亞洲、歐洲和非洲的實證案例進行 比較分析。 構建理論框架的第一步是對制度的性質及缺失 的概念進行清晰的界定。傳統觀點認為，制度 是由一整套正規及非正 規的規定、權利和慣例 組成的。但「職能角色」 不可或缺的職能卻經常 被忽視。例如，法律體 系作為一種司法制度不 僅僅涉及法律法規，還 包括諸如法院監獄之類 的國家機關，以及由檢 察官、律師、法官等履 行的職能角色。香港和 澳門沒有反壟斷法， 這無疑造成壟斷規管領 域的制度缺失；但是， 缺乏精通反壟斷案件的 合格律師也同樣會導致 制度缺失。在這個案例 中，法規和職能角色都 是構成制度的不可或缺的 一部分。因此，當我們討 論制度缺失的時候，不但 包括法規慣例的缺失，還包 括職能角色的缺失。因此， 要填補缺失，就必須雙管齊 下，一方面建立或修訂法規， 另一方面供應或替換履行特定 職能角色的行為者。 制度缺失有兩種情況，一種是 制度完全不存在，一種是現行 制度存在缺陷。這裡， 我們對缺失採用功能定 義。當佔主導地位的制 度基礎不能夠履行其特 定的規管或協調職能的 時候，就構成缺失。換言 之，當現行制度不能履行其聲 稱會履行的職能時，就構成缺失， 但是，不應將「缺失」的功能定義等 同於對「缺失填補」的功能性理解。雖 然缺失的存在創造了讓新制度去填補 缺失的機會，但這種機會並不總是能 轉化為功能需求。有時候，缺失可能對 某些強大行為者有利，此時這些行為者 poorly theorised and limited in its application. To construct a new theory of institutional voids, we have organised a series of seminars and workshops in Paris, Rotterdam, and Toronto. Several workshops are forthcoming in Leiden, Singapore, Rotterdam, and Macao to re!ne the theoretical framework and to compare empirical cases across Asia, Europe, and Africa. The construction of the theoretical framework begins with a clari!cation of the nature of institutions and the idea of voids. Institutions are conventionally seen as embodying sets of formal and informal rules, rights, and norms. What is often overlooked is the indispensable function of institutional roles. For instance, a legal system as an institution for the administration of justice concerns not only laws and statutes, but also includes organisational functionaries such as courts and prisons, as well as functional roles as performed by prosecutors, lawyers, judges, and so on. In Hong Kong and Macao, the absence of anti-trust laws will no doubt constitute an institutional void in the regulation of monopolies, but by the same token the shortage of quali!ed lawyers specializing in anti-trust cases will also create a void. In this case, both rules and roles are part and parcel of the institution. As such, when we talk about institutional voids, we refer not only to the inadequacy of rules and norms, but also to the absence of roles. The !lling of voids thus involves the creation or modi!cation of rules, as well as the supply or replacement of speci!c roles by actors. A void indicates not only a complete absence but also the inadequacies of existing institutional set-ups. Here we adopt a functional de!nition of void: a void exists when the predominant institutional infrastructure cannot provide certain regulatory or coordinating functions. In other words, a void is present when an existing institutional setup fails to ful!l its ostensible functions. However, a functional de!nition of void should not be equated with a functional understanding of void-!lling. While the presence of an institutional void creates an opportunity for new institutions to !ll that void, there is no guarantee that this opportunity will be translated into a functional demand. The void may be bene!cial to certain powerful actors who take advantage of it, for instance through rent seeking. Other social interests may simply be too weak or fragmented to offer resistance. In such circumstances, the presence of a void will not necessarily generate a demand to !ll that void, not to mention actors to !ll it. Put differently, institutional voids expose a functional inadequacy, but this in itself is insuf!cient to 48 umagazine | issue 07
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ1NDU2Ng==