台灣、泰國與馬來西亞金融改革的政治分析：制度透明化與問責

Abstract

台灣、泰國與馬來西亞這三個國家分別在1997年與1998年遭受到了嚴重的金融危機，這三個國家也都分別採取了相關的政策進行金融改革。但是在危機發生五、六年的時間之後，這三個國家的金融改革成效卻出現了差異。因此本論文最主要的問題即在於：這三個國家金融改革成效出現差異的最主要原因為何？為了有效分析與解答這一問題，本研究透過三研究層次的建立：制度(治理結構)、組織(監理架構)與市場(金融體系)，以及四個主要概念的釐清：自主性(autonomy)、職能(capacity)、透明化(transparency)與問責(accountability)，建構出所謂的「ACTA理論」(ACTA Theory)。\n 本研究主要論點為：台灣、泰國與馬來西亞這三個國家金融改革成效出現差異的原因在於，這三個國家治理結構與監理架構的ACTA不同所導致。泰國在危機之後，有了一部新憲法，並啟動大規模的政治改革，大幅提昇了治理結構與監理架構的ACTA，使得泰國的金融改革成效為這三個國家中最好的。馬來西亞在危機發生之後，並未進行政治改革，治理結構與監理架構的ACTA與危機發生之前相比，並未有明顯的改進，也因此其金融改革的成效為三個國家中最差的。至於台灣雖然在危機發生之後，出現了首次的政黨輪替，順利啟動了相關的改革工作，治理結構與監理架構的ACTA也有些許的提升，但是改善的幅度不如泰國，也因此台灣的金融改革成效位居三個國家之中。因此，若要有效進行金融改革，相關的政治改革是必要的，只有當治理結構與監理架構的ACTA獲得提升，金融改革才得以發揮其效用。

The thesis focuses on the domestic institutional arrangements and relationships among key political and financial actors in Taiwan, Thailand, and Malaysia after the financial crisis. As we know, Thailand and Malaysia were attacked seriously by the Asian financial crisis in 1997. Meanwhile, also affected by the 1997 Asian financial crisis, many Taiwanese enterprises have reported serious problems in their financial structures and suspended their payments of loans to the banks.\n What happened in Taiwan, Thailand and Malaysia after the crisis? Though these three countries were all attacked by the financial crisis, but with different hurts. Thailand seemed to be the worse, and Taiwan was better than Malaysia. In addition to, all these three countries adapted financial reform policies after the crisis, but still with different degrees of recovery. Malaysia had a fast recovery, but short-term and unstable. Thailand recovered slowly but strong and stable. Taiwan speeded up the reform after the first party turnover in 2000.\n What are the causes of the financial reform differences in Taiwan, Thailand, and Malaysia? Why did these three countries go in different ways on recovery? In order to answer this question, I develop a theory, called “ACTA Theory”. I use these four institutional variables: autonomy, capacity, transparency, accountability (ACTA), and three analysis levels to analysis the financial reform in Taiwan, Thailand, and Malaysia.\n The first level is the governance structure, including the bureaucracies, politicians, political parties, conglomerates, and local factions, etc. The second level is the regulatory framework, including the financial regulatory agency, like Central Bank, Ministry of Finance, or other financial restructuring authority, like FRA, CDRAC, TAMC in Thailand, Danaharta, Danamodal, CDRC in Malaysia, and Financial Supervisory Authority in Taiwan. The third level is the financial system, including the banks, finance companies, and merchant banks, also the performance of financial consolidation plan.\n In conclusion, the ACTA of governance structure will influence the ACTA of regulatory framework from the top, and the institutional relationships between the governance structure and regulatory framework will influence the financial system jointly. Therefore the ACTA of governance structure and regulatory framework are critical for financial reform.