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，試圖比較與論證在國家機關所建立的產業策略下，兩國汽車產業發 展的差異。本文發現：雖然發展中國家的產業發展有賴於國家機關的介入， 產業政策的策略選擇也會有所不同：其一是在「自主發展」（馬來西亞）與 「依賴發展」（泰國）之間產業策略的選擇；其二是馬來西亞汽車產業的 「政治性」阻礙後續產業政策「追隨市場」的調整。國家機關的「策略選 擇」與「政治介入」是本文認為馬來西亞汽車產業發展遜於泰國的主因。

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 between the states and the industries? This paper compares the developmental differences between the automobile industries under different industrial policies of the two countries. This paper discovers that although the development of industries in developing countries require interference from the government, the political and economical background differences affect the policies adopted. The choice between ‘autonomous development (Malaysia)’ and ‘dependent development (Thailand)’ is the first issue. The second issue is that the politics in automobile industry in Malaysia deters the industrial adjustment toward ‘market follow’. This paper finds that the ‘strategy choice’ and ‘political interference’ are the two reasons Malaysian automobile industry has less competitiveness than that in Thailand.