第二次世界大戰之後，現代南亞研究開始現身於美國學界，儘管其受到區域研究跨學科典範的影響，但卻仍未能完全擺脫東方學和印度學所積累下來的濃厚古典主義色彩，並在幾所領銜區域研究的重點大學院校中，形成獨樹一格的南亞研究傳統，著重於非功利取向的人文式理解;唯在受到一系列知識性與制度性的質疑和挑戰之後，隨著區域研究本身面臨學科紀律的重組與反省，過去對於南亞問題的研究視野，也開始出現許多檢討與轉變。在本文的討論中，我們便將透過南亞研究在美國學界發展軌跡的回顧與檢討，描繪區..

The establishing of South Asian studies in America during the decades following the WWII marked an important shift in the study of South Asia from Oriental studies and Indology towards an interdisciplinary area studies approach which tried to treat this area as objects of social sciences and humanities. During the ensuing decade, the earnest scholarship begun with the leading universities, such as the University of Chicago, University of Pennsylvania; all fostered new projects focused on South Asia. They had emphasized study ..

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..