강한 제도주의의 일종인 역사유물론은 방법적 전체주의라는 고유한 이론적 속성. 특히 이러한 방법론적 입장은 구조 출현과 그 변화를 제대로 설명할 수 없다는 이론적 결함을 갖는 것으로 여겨졌다. 반면 방법적 개별주의에 기반한 약한 제도주의의 경우 , 개인의 극대화 행위를 통해 제도나 구조의 변화가 설명될 수 있다고 보았다 . 라는 점을 인정한다 할지라도 모든 미시적 토대들이 방법적 개별주의로 환원될 수 없음을 주장한다. 더군다나 방법적 개별주의는 비실체적인 미시적 토대이며 , 사실상 이에 기반한 제도주의적 연구 프로그램들은 실제 삶 속에서의 인간 행위를 설명하는데 실패하였고, 결과적으로 구조의 출현에 관한 적절한 설명을 제공하지 못한 것으로 볼 수 있다 . 한편, 우리는 실제적 미시적 토대 구축의 원천으로서 구제도학파적 통찰에 주목한다. 그들은 루틴과 전략, 제약과 자유, 습관과 제도, 개인 행동과 집단 행위를 서로 매개함으로써 인간 행위에 관한 새로운 가정이 도입될 수 있다고 믿었다 . 이러한 그들의 방법적 중용주의는 부분과 전체 , 리들의 이해를 개선시킬 것이다 . 또한 동시에 그것의 동학적 표현인 진화적 접근은 구조 변화와 출현에 관한 새로운 해석을 제공할 것이다 . 그러므로 우리는 인간 행위에 관한 새로운 토대를 수용함으로써 구조의 변화를 설명할 수 있다는 의미에서 강한 제도주의를 재구성할 가능성을 얻게 된다 .

Owing to methodological holism, strong institutionalism in general, historical materialism in particular, is characteristic of over-socialization on human behavior. In spite of immunity against positivist illusions, this methodological approach can not explain structural emergence and change. On the contrary, it has been said that weak institutionalism based on methodological individualism can explain structural emergence. However, in this paper, we have rejected such a 'methodological fatalism'. Namely, even if methodological individualism is one form of microfoundation, it is not always the case that all the latter are reduced to the former. Moreover, methodological individualism as unsubstantial microfoundation has failed to understand human behavior in real life. In fact, it has been proved that weak institutionalism is incapable of offering appropriate explanation on structural emergence. Instead, we focus attention to the old institutionalist insights as substantial microfoundation. Mediating routine and strategy, restriction and liberty, habit and institution or individual behavior and collective action, their methodological middle ground shed light on our understanding in the part-whole or subject-structure relationship. At the same time, the dynamic expression of this approach, evolutionism, makes an offer of the effective accounting for structural emergence and change. Therefore, we can reconstitute strong institutionalism in a sense that new microfoundation on human behavior allow structural change to be explained.

Owing to methodological holism, strong institutionalism in general, historical materialism in particular, is characteristic of over-socialization on human behavior. In spite of immunity against positivist illusions, this methodological approach can not explain structural emergence and change. On the contrary, it has been said that weak institutionalism based on methodological individualism can explain structural emergence. However, in this paper, we have rejected such a 'methodological fatalism'. Namely, even if methodological individualism is one form of microfoundation, it is not always the case that all the latter are reduced to the former. Moreover, methodological individualism as unsubstantial microfoundation has failed to understand human behavior in real life. In fact, it has been proved that weak institutionalism is incapable of offering appropriate explanation on structural emergence. Instead, we focus attention to the old institutionalist insights as substantial microfoundation. Mediating routine and strategy, restriction and liberty, habit and institution or individual behavior and collective action, their methodological middle ground shed light on our understanding in the part-whole or subject-structure relationship. At the same time, the dynamic expression of this approach, evolutionism, makes an offer of the effective accounting for structural emergence and change. Therefore, we can reconstitute strong institutionalism in a sense that new microfoundation on human behavior allow structural change to be explained.

strong institutionalism, microfoundation, evolutionary approach