日本戰後形成的發展型國家體制被視為是1990 年代「失落十年」的元兇,日本政府因此採取了眾多政治與經濟上的構造改革。本文檢視日本發展型國家體制中兩個促成日本經濟成長的重要制度如何因改革而發生變化:一是力量強大的大藏省用來保護金融界的「護送船團」金融監理制度,二是傳統上金融界相互分擔分險、銀行和企業間特殊溝通管道而形成的「主要經辦銀行制度」。不少學者認為日本發展型國家已經轉型為英美式的監理型國家,但本文發現,雖然改革後的金融監理制度可說趨向監理型國家,「主要經辦銀行制度」也因銀行和企業間的相互持股降低而日漸消逝,然而銀行與企業集團並未完全放棄雙方傳統的緊密關係,反而還想繼續維持。本文認為,日本金融制度雖然引入西方式改革,但發展型國家的傳統仍然存在。換言之,雖然日本發展型國家昔日風光已因經濟危機而消逝,但舊制度仍然抵抗著新改變,監理型國家尚未在日本成形。
The developmental state built after WWII has been blamed for Japan’s “lost decade” of the 1990s. The Japanese government takes a lot of structure reforms in politics and economics. This article examines how the two- important traditional structures of Japanese developmental state that were named as the engines of postwar economic successes were transformed by reforms. The first is so called “convoy system” financial regulation: the powerful ministry Okurasho with this system protected the financial communities. The second is the mainbank system, a product of the financial communities sharing risks with each other and special communication between banks and enterprises. Some scholars claim that the Japanese developmental state is transforming to the Anglo-American style, namely regulatory states, This article finds that the style of Japan’s financial regulation tends toward a regulatory state, and the mainbank system is wearing away due to the decline of shares cross-holding between banks and enterprises. However, banks and business groups have not abandoned their traditional close relationships entirely but tries to remain. The author argues that the western style reforms have induced into Japan’s financial institutions, but the legacies of developmental state are still present. In other words, currently it has not been witnessed an established regulatory state in Japan because the old institutions are resisting the new changes.
國家機關(the State)是否利用國家資源干預市場(the Market)、國家機關是否應選擇某些特定產業加以扶植(selective policy)?這些投入資源是否能被有效達成發展的目的?是政治經濟學界有關「新古典經濟學派」與 「發展型國家學派」爭辯的焦點。在東協國家中,同樣自 1970 年代發展汽車產業,為何泰國與馬來西亞的汽車產業發展出現差距?差距是否源自國家機關與產業政策互動的結果?本研究藉由探討馬來西亞與泰國汽車產業的發展歷程,試圖比較與論證..
Whether should the state interfere the market by using state resources? Should the state cultivate certain industries? Does the state resources work to help the state achieve developmental goals? These are the arguments between the ‘New Classical Economics School’ and the ‘National Development School’. Automobile industries in both Thailand and Malaysia developed in the 1970s with governmental interference but the development in the two countries diverged. Does the difference come from the interactions..
請輸入想查詢的期刊標題、關鍵字、作者相關資訊. Please enter the journal title, keywords, and author-related information you want to query.