本文觀察台灣與韓國發展過程的差異，對兩地金融危機形態以及金融重建進展的影響。兩國金融重建過程的差異受到危機形態的制約，這又受到之前發展形態的影響，亦即是否出現雙元經濟:同時存在一個面對軟預算的內需部門與一個面對硬預算的出口部門。韓國的金融危機，除了一開始的壞帳率較高之外，更包含外匯危機，另外出口重心的財閥負債淨值比高，而且很多是國際的借貸，產生急迫的壓力要採取結構性的改革措施以挽回市場的信心，不同面向改革工程在短時間內次第開展。雙元經濟的存在使台灣的金融危機並不包括外匯危機，問題企業集中在內需產業，所以金融重建的啟動相對較慢，一開始集中於處理問題金融機構，其後雖然因為遲未處理銀行壞帳，使得逾放比不斷升高，甚至比韓國金融危機剛爆發時更高，但因沒有外匯危機，加上出口企業的問題不大，所以對壞帳的處理較慢，對其他部分的 金融重建改革更為遲緩。另一方面，金融風暴的性質也影響國際金融機構的介入與否，外匯金融危機需要國際金融機構的資金援助以穩定匯率，本土金融風暴則不需要這方面的援助。

This paper explores how patterns of development affect types of financial crises and financial restructuring by comparing the experiences of Taiwan and South Korea. With or without the presence of dual economy determines the nature of the financial crises, eventually affecting the scopes and paces of restructuring packages in the two countries. Dual economy in this context denotes the coexistence of an efficient exporting sector and an inefficient domestic sector. The financial crisis in South Korea involved high initial non-performing loans ratios, exchange rate crises, and high debt to equity ratios. In addition, the heavily indebted exporting sector forces the government to undertake immediate and extensive reform measures to restore the market confidence. Exchange rate crises, in addition, also invited the rescue package engineered by IMF, helping South Korea better implement structural reforms. In contrast, with the presence of dual economy, exchange rate crises are not an essential part of the financial crisis in Taiwan, and heavily indebted enterprises concentrate in the domestic sector. As a result, the liquidation of non-performing loans and the introduction of the other part of the restructuring reforms were considerably delayed.