發展型國家理論是解釋日本、韓國和臺灣等東亞後進發展國家,在二次大戰後經濟躍升的重要理論,這些國家也因此被名爲「發展型國家」。但該理論在一九九○年代卻因東亞國家陸續發生金融危機,而遭受重大的批評。然而對該理論最大的挑戰不是來自其他學派的批評,而是「發展型國家」採取英美「監理型國家」的改革措施。本文以臺灣爲例,自政府、金融和企業間的關係,考察臺灣「發展型國家」的變遷,認爲基於現有的證據,臺灣「發展型國家」確實正在自我調整,且混有兩者的特徵,但無法肯定或否定未來會朝向「監理型國家」轉型的主張。不過,無庸置疑的是,臺灣兼有兩者特徵的政經變遷,仍會受到發展型國家理論者和監理型國家支持者的關注,以證明自己或批評對方的主張。
After the East Asian financial crisis, the Developmental State Theory is under fierce criticisms. But the most important challenge facing the Developmental State Theory is that the developmental states are taking some neo-liberalist reforms and seem more like the Anglo-American regulatory states. The Developmental State theorists deny the developmental states will be transformed into regulatory states. While the developmental states are in transitions, the Developmental State Theory also has to be revisited. This article analyzes the transitions of the developmental state in Taiwan, focusing on the comparison of the two ideal types, the developmental state and regulatory state. The author argues that a hybridism is witnessed in Taiwan, and the transition process is still going on. We cannot declaim that the end of transition is regulatory states according to our evidences at present. However, the two schools have yet to closely watch the transitions of the Taiwanese political economy in order to confirm, revise themselves or criticize each other.