| Abstract: | 本計畫是「東亞制度調適：國際化的挑戰與回應」整合型計畫的子計畫第二年度研究成果報告。本文從新制度論的分析架構，比較台灣、泰國、和馬來西亞三國的金融政治與制度關係，包括銀行市場與股票市場的新制度論分析。主要的發現是，三個國家遭遇到1997年的金融危機，主要是因為1980年代以來的金融革命，使得這些國家的國家、政黨、財團、和地方派系形成了一個壟斷聯盟，限制了外國金融機構的參與，而對於本國金融市場過度扭曲剝削的結果。三個國家的金融制度關係有相同之處，也有不同之處。台灣的國民黨長久執政，本身也是銀行市場及股票市場的主要行為者。國民黨所控制的國家行政機關，如中央銀行和證期會等，無法有效的監督和制裁違反市場規律的行為者。新興的財團建立新銀行和證券公司，並且利用他們在立法院的代言人，取得優勢資訊並且逃避國家的監督和懲罰。地方派系藉由選舉與國民黨和財團進行利益交換，使得地方金融機構的虧損日益擴大。泰國與馬來西亞也有類似的政治經濟制度關係。但是泰國的金融危機肇因於國家失去政治自主性、雇傭式的政黨體系、金融財團的興起、和耗費才力的地方派系政治。而相對來說，馬來西亞受到金融危機的損害比泰國輕，而且回復也較快。這是因為馬來西亞的金融政治雖然也有特權財團肆虐，可是由於國家機關有相當的政治自主性、巫統的強力執政、以及較弱的地方派系政治，使得金融政治不比泰國嚴重。
This is the second year project of the integrated project `Institutional Adjustment in East Asia: the Challenge of and Response to Globalization - Comparing Taiwan and Other Asian Countries.` Based on the analytical framework of new institutionalism, this project compares the financial politics and institutional relationships in Taiwan, Thailand, and Malaysia. Financial politics and institutions include both those of banking and security markets. The major finding is that the financial crisis in these three countries was a result of the oligopolistic alliance among the state, political parties, conglomerates, and local factions. The alliance excluded the direct participation of foreign financial institutions and caused the distortions of local financial markets. However, institutional similarities and differences among these three countries existed. In Taiwan, the KMT had continually controlled the state, and been a major player in the banking and security markets. Being controlled by the KMT, the state financial regulators, such as the Central Bank and Securities and Futures Commission, could not effectively monitor and punish violators of market rules. New conglomerates established new banks and security companies. They earned handsome profits via privileged information and avoided state regulations through their representatives in the Legislature. Local factions contributed to the deterioration of local financial institutions, because of their close connections with the KMT and conglomerates during elections. Both Thailand and Malaysia had a similar institutional system as in Taiwan. But in Thailand, a non-autonomous state, patronage party system, financial conglomerates, and expensive local factional politics caused the financial crisis. By contrast, Malaysia suffered less and recovered faster than Thailand did. This was due to the fact that the Malaysian state was relatively autonomous, the UMNO had dominated its members and opposition parties, local factional politics was weaker, even though privileged conglomerates had weaken Malaysian financial systems. |
