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..

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..

二次世界大戰後，若干國家為使其外匯存底或公共基金產生更佳的增長效益，開始由政府設置主權財富基金，近年來其規模急遽膨脹而備受矚目，2007 年較 2006 年增加 18%而為 3.3 兆美元，預估至 2015 年將超過 12 兆美元。2008 年開始因美國次級房貸所引發的全球金融危機，主權財富基金成為許多國家與企業救亡圖存的希望。從國際政治經濟學的角度來看，符合「相互依存理論」與全球化理論中「過程論」的觀點;但在迅速發展下也出現了若干問題，不但動輒影響國際金融..

After World War II, in order to obtain better growth performance from the large foreign exchange reserves or public funds, several new financial institutions in East Asia and oil-producing countries in the Middle East started to have their governments establishing the Sovereign Wealth Fund. The Sovereign Wealth Fund has attracted wide attention as their scales rapidly expanded in recent years. The fund scale increased by 18% in 2007, as compared to 2006, and reached USD 330 billion. It is estimated that the funds will exceed ..

財政短缺常是政府選擇 PFI 的主要原因之一，PFI 可以幫助政府克服財政上的兩難:即在緊縮的財政情況下，仍能透過較高的私人資本支出增加公共投資。本文主要的目的即在檢驗具有豐富 PFI 經驗的英國，尤其是新工黨執政時，是否符合這項假設。此外，本文也試圖回答新工黨選擇 PFI 的理由、主要的作法及其如何面對黨內 PFI 的反對者，以貫徹其執行 PFI 的決心。研究發現保守黨政府採取 PFI，確實存在政府部門面臨的財經壓力，工黨政府並非在財政壓力下，為了控制公共..

Financial shortage is the main reason governments choose PFI. Literature on PFI almost always argues that they can solve the government financial dilemmas under extreme conditions of retrenchment through more private capital spending to boost public investment. The purpose of this study is to examine whether the British government under the New Labor matches the hypothesis. Moreover, this study tries to find out why and how PFI has been adopted and carried through by the New Labor in spite of oppositions within the party. We ..