在戰後，台灣及其他東亞國家依靠發展型國家模式而成功地發展了經濟。近年來東亞民主化帶來的變化，是否導致發展型國家模式的解體，是一眾所矚目的議題，而本文主題即是探討民主轉型對台灣發展型國家模式的影響。為了理解政治與經濟轉型的產生背景，本文先對台灣戰後發展型國家的形成與動力作一敘述，指陳國民政府在台灣推動經濟發展的政治意志，源自中國百多年來面對西方與日本挑戰，為了救亡圖存而形構成的現代中華民族主義。發展型國家的政策模式主要包括執政者對經濟發展的堅定支持，經濟官僚體系有能力且具鑲嵌自主性，以整體發展為目標，發展的優先性得在政策協調上顯現。而這些部分在近年則都受到民主化過程的影響。從1980年代開始，台灣政治與經濟方面的轉型幾乎同時進行。本文將民主轉型對於經濟政策轉型的影響分幾方面討論：一是就政策目標之擴大以包容經濟發展以外之考量因素而言，發現民主轉型中社會議題之爭議趨向黨派化，使得社會對如何修正發展優先政策不易形成共識；二是就政策目標是否能持續以整體經濟發展為考量而言，發現民主競爭模式造成之分化及黨派化考量，對此帶來挑戰；三是討論主導性經濟理念的變化，發現民主運動對以往之全盤否定，也導致從以往之發展為先的理念轉變為以新自由主義為主導，無助於對全球化影響的因應；四則論及民主轉型中形成的主流論述，因強調台灣新國族的打造，未能處理台灣經濟重新定位的問題，也使得台灣經濟願景難以形成。雖說過去發展型國家模式確實應該且必須轉型，但至今轉型並非完全成功。

The East Asian tigers relied upon their developmental states (DSs) to achieve extraordinary economic development in the postwar era. Whether these DSs would remain effective after democratization occurred has been a subject of great interest. This paper addresses this question relating to the case of Taiwan. The formation and make-up of Taiwan’s DS is discussed first from a historical perspective. It is argued here that the DS’s will to develop came from modern Chinese nationalism, which had been formed during China’s lengthy process of facing up to the challenge from the West since the Opium War. Taiwan’s DS consists of the following features: the ruling elite’s will to develop, a capable economic bureaucracy with embedded autonomy, an industrial policy framework with an aim of further overall growth, and an arrangement to coordinate policies to give development top priority. All these facets have been affected by the process of democratization in the last two decades. By the 1980s, the success of Taiwan’s development has brought great pressure for it to transform the original economic model and the political institutions at the same time. This paper discuss the impact of democratization on Taiwan’s DS in four aspects: in terms of broadening policy objectives to include social concerns besides that of economic development, it is found that the fight over social issues have become too partisan for the society to form a policy consensus; as to whether the policy objective is furthering of overall interests, the new mode of political competition has sometimes led to pursuit of divisive and partisan ways of distributing resources; regarding the guiding principle of economic policy, neo-liberalism has replaced developmentalism as the guide because the democratic movement had adopted neo-liberalism in its fight against authoritarian rule; and finally, because the newly formed democracy discourse is mainly for forging an independent nation and against integration with Mainland China, it hence fails to provide a vision and a feasible future development plan for the Taiwan economy. In sum, the transformation of Taiwan’s DS has been less than successful.