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..