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,試圖比較與論證在國家機關所建立的產業策略下,兩國汽車產業發展的差異。本文發現:雖然發展中國家的產業發展有賴於國家機關的介入,產業政策的策略選擇也會有所不同:其一是在「自主發展」(馬來西亞)與「依賴發展」(泰國)之間產業策略的選擇;其二是馬來西亞汽車產業的「政治性」阻礙後續產業政策「追隨市場」的調整。國家機關的「策略選擇」與「政治介入」是本文認為馬來西亞汽車產業發展遜於泰國的主因。
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 between the states and the industries? This paper compares the developmental differences between the automobile industries under different industrial policies of the two countries. This paper discovers that although the development of industries in developing countries require interference from the government, the political and economical background differences affect the policies adopted. The choice between ‘autonomous development (Malaysia)’ and ‘dependent development (Thailand)’ is the first issue. The second issue is that the politics in automobile industry in Malaysia deters the industrial adjustment toward ‘market follow’. This paper finds that the ‘strategy choice’ and ‘political interference’ are the two reasons Malaysian automobile industry has less competitiveness than that in Thailand.
相對於泰國與馬來西亞,印尼是東南亞最早發展汽車業的國家,也有內需市場支撐,但是印尼並沒有像泰國成為亞洲的底特律,也沒有如馬來西亞建立起國家汽車品牌,而成為「有市場無技術」的「無科技工業化」。本文以政治經濟學領域中的「制度分析」途徑,就國家干預、政商關係、跨國產業分工等三個角度分析印尼汽車產業失靈的原因。受限於印尼政治經濟的結構因素,本文發現印尼汽車產業失靈的原因在於:在產業發展時期國家的干預政策沒有「學習」與「管理」市場;本土資本未建立產業所需相對的供應鏈,..
With respect to Thailand and Malaysia, Indonesia was first in Southeast Asia to develop a automotive industry, supported by the domestic market. But Indonesia did not become the “Detroit of Asia” as Thailand, or establish national brands as Malaysia. On the contrary, Indonesia is a “huge market without technology,” an “Industry Without Industrialization.” This paper adopts an institutionalist approach with three aspects – state intervention, government-business relations, a..
本文回顧近年來政治經濟發展的研究。文中處理兩個主要的議題,第一個是國家在經濟發展中的角色,包括產業政策以及經濟自由化政策。產業政策部分討論贏家挑選政策、產業政策實踐上的差異、技術官僚與統治者之間的關係、影響發展途徑選擇的結構性因素,以及近年來發展型國家的轉型。其次,發展國家論的著重在工業政策,對經濟自由化政策常以經濟發展的另一種選項視之。本文討論國家如何交互使用這兩項政策,另外也分析影響經濟改革推動的制度與結構性因素。挑選贏家的過程中需將資源分配到最有潛力的部門,經濟自由化改革也需移除壟..
We review two important topics in the field of political and economic development. We discuss how states employ industrial policies and economic liberalization to promote economic development. Within the industrial policy framework, we delve into the issues of choosing winners, difference in industrial policy implementations, the relationship between technocracy and the rulers, structural factors that affect industrial policy choices, and the transformations of developmental states in recent years. Secondly, the debates surrounding developm..
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.