Has the Developmental State become a distant past？Taiwan underwent power rotation (1996~2004)

• Main Authors: Tsai-Hua Wu, 吳采樺
• Other Authors: 朱雲漢
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2004
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/90296191201806867317

碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 國家發展研究所 === 93 === Before the early 90’s, Taiwan was conceived as one of the typical “developmental states.” The government had dominant power over economic activities in the private sector, which has resulted in efficient capital accumulation. However, as the local and also global political and economic environment have been changing, democratization, globalization and the China factor altogether have brought significant transformation that challenged the paradigm of the developmental state after 1996, during the last reigning period of KMT. But still, the most dramatic change was indeed happened after 2000, when the first power rotation took place in the history of Taiwan. Therefore, the three factors have had continuous influence from 1996 to 2004. The first party turnover, which represents the unprecedented transfer of the core power in the state apparatus and the replacement of political decision maker, has provided the necessity and opportunity to redefine and reexamine the so-called “developmental state”. Based on the previous concept, this research would present the interactive relationship between the state and the business in the distribution of interests and the developmental policy within the first four years of DPP reign, from the two major dimensions of state-business relationship, rent-seeking and developmental coalition. It would also discuss how much and what kind the will and the logic the state presented when the government handles the needs for the capital, the macroeconomics and industrial policies. Its conclusion rests upon the rising of “the post-developmental state”. Once the economic entity of the developmental state has gradually matured, the politics has been forwarded to the stage of democratic consolidation, and the structural power of the capital has been strengthened, the political decision making have to compromise between long-term and short-term interests, and at the same time hold back and narrow control the means and extent of the state intervention. However, even though the state has submitted to the interests of the business in some ways, in the case of Taiwan, it never sacrificed its existence and development in the international political and economic environment. The state would still expect to intervene economic activities effectively and efficiently.