GRK 1613: Risk and East Asia

作为从制度主义角度工作的社会科学家，我们的研究思路是研究社会变革的大规模和普遍性过程如何将东亚经济，政治和社会制度中的风险责任从国家转移到市场，从公共到私人机构，从集体到个人。研究培训小组将从学科角度（经济学、政治学、国际关系、社会学和地理学）对风险和体制的研究现状以及对普遍的大规模进程对体制变革的影响的研究（一般情况和东亚的具体情况）为基础，从风险角度看待当代体制变革。本研究的目的是从风险的角度研究制度变迁，并将研究对象放在制度逻辑表现方式截然不同的东亚地区。该研究计划的最终目的是从风险文献中产生新的见解，以推进制度变革的研究，并通过将东亚研究直接带回欧洲研究辩论和关于当代变革的讨论，建立对变革的更广泛理解。研究培训小组的分主题借鉴了查尔斯蒂利的比较方法，侧重于四个大的过程，（市场化、个性化、去中心化和跨国化），其中制度逻辑的转变岌岌可危，东亚内部以及与欧洲国家相比的差异和相似之处的证据可以为当代制度的理论和研究的进步提供见解变化这四个大进程是推动风险转移的普遍进程，本着蒂利比较方法的精神，这些进程在具体的国家（或许也是区域）体制组合、偏好和关于谁对风险合法承担责任的信念的背景下发挥作用。究竟是什么变化，什么混合是一个问题，仔细和系统的实证和比较分析，这正是我们打算在一系列的博士和博士后研究项目在研究培训组进行。

As social scientists working from an institutionalist perspective, our research idea is to examine how large and universal processes of social change are shifting responsibilities for risks in East Asian economic, political and social institutions, from states to markets, from public to private bodies and from collectivities to individuals. The Research Training Group will develop a risk perspective on contemporary institutional change, building on the state of research about risk and institutions in disciplinary perspective (economics, political sciences, international relations, sociology and geography) and research about the impact of universal large-scale processes on institutional change, both generally and in the specific context of East Asia. The research idea is to study institutional change from the perspective of risk, and to do so in a region of the world - East Asia - where institutional logics have played out in quite different ways. The ultimate aim of this research programme is to generate new insights from the risk literature in order to advance the study of institutional change, and to build a broader understanding of changes by bringing East Asian research squarely back into European research debates and discussion about contemporary transformations. The sub-themes of the Research Training Group draw on the comparative methodology of Charles Tilly to focus on four large processes, (marketisation, individualisation, decentralisation and transnationalisation) wherein shifts in institutional logics are at stake, and where evidence of differences and similarities within East Asia and in comparison to European countries can generate insights for the advancement of theories and research on contemporary institutional change. The four large processes are universal processes driving risk shifts, which, in the spirit of Tillys comparative methodology, play out in the context of specific national (perhaps also regional) institutional constellations, preferences and beliefs about who legitimately bears responsibility for risks. Exactly what shifts and what mixes is a question for careful and systematic empirical and comparative analysis, which is exactly what we intend to undertake in a series of doctoral and postdoctoral research projects in the Research Training Group.