國際關係歷史社會學承諾要打破主流國際關係學界中的歐洲中心論（Eurocentrism），但至今為止很少有人從事具體的歷史社會學經驗研究來兌現這個承諾。許田波（Victoria Tin-Bor Hui）對近代早期歐洲與上古中國的國家形成做出具有開創性的比較研究是少數的例外，她探索的主要問題是何以歐洲國家間的軍事競爭會維持一種競爭性的多國體系，而中國的戰國體系最終卻匯歸為一統帝國？她認為秦國能統一中國主要是因為它進行了自強型的改革，而歐洲國家則多半採取了自弱型的改革。其解釋雖然涉及軍事壓力下的制度改革的作用，但畢竟過於強調軍事因素的角色，而未充分探討其他因素的潛在作用。本文延續趙鼎新的論述，認為採取邁可．曼（Michael Mann）的涵蓋意識形態權力、經濟權力、軍事權力與政治權力四種因素的IEMP模式，可以對許田波的問題意識提供比較完整的解答。本文的目的，就是試圖說明這四個因素如何影響上古中國政治格局的變化（由封建走向大一統帝國），使其有異於歐洲的發展軌跡（維持多國競爭的格局）。
Historical sociology in international relations promises to undermine the Eurocentrism that is characteristic of mainstream international relations theories. To date, however, few empirical studies in historical sociology have been carried out to deliver on that promise. Victoria Tin-Bor Hui’s groundbreaking comparative study of state formations in early modern Europe and ancient China is a rare exception. The main question she addresses in her work is why under similar pressure of military competition, Europe continued to be a multi-actor system while China ended up with a unified empire? Hui argues the key to this question is that Qin adopted the strategy of ＂self-strengthening reforms＂ whereas most European states adopted the strategy of ＂self-weakening reforms.＂ Although her explanation does touch on the significance of institutional reforms triggered by military competition, she nevertheless overemphasizes the role of military factor while paying insufficient attention to other potential explanations, such as ideology. Inspired by Zhao Dingxin’s illuminating study on the same subject, in contrast, this paper opts for Michael Mann’s IEMP model, which includes ideology, economy, military and politics as four sources of social power, in the belief that it will offer a more comprehensive answer to the question Hui raises. The purpose of this paper is to access to what extent these four factors contribute to the great divergence between the state formation of early modern Europe and that of ancient China.
