由於任何國家領域內所蘊藏的經濟資源是有限的，因此在各個經濟發展階段，勢必因應當時客觀經濟環境與制度結構的需要而進行資源重分配。同時政府在擬訂或推動各項產業政策時，往往導引相對多數的人力、物力資源投注於某些特定的策略性產業部門，因而造成產業部門間生產力成長與生產技術效率的消長。而成長與效率的差異將使得產業部門間在產出結構方面出現變遷調整，並藉由經濟巿場運作效率的提升，更進一步帶動經濟成長與發展。
過去五十年來，臺灣地區經濟成長與發展的快速為舉世所公認的奇蹟，而「臺灣經驗」更為未開發及開發中國家紛紛仿傚的榜樣。本文主要研究如何在臺灣光復後重振戰後經濟，產業結構內之組成型態、產業部門的生產力績效、產業政策三者如何因應互動並帶動經濟的成長與發展，成就引以為傲的經濟成果。
同時面臨近十年來國內外環境變動的衝擊，現階段我國的產業結構形態及政府相關產業政策的施行下，各產業部門的生產力績效是否能持續提昇，從而推動台灣經濟的進一步成長，亦是本文所關心的課題。
綜觀本文各章實證結果，我們發現:台灣經濟自戰後以來階段之產業結構的調整型態，大致符合不平衡經濟發展學派所強調的漸近趨勢--製造業各產業部門能於不同階段中分別輪遞成長，而非由所有產業部門呈面性的同時成長。
再者對照產業結構不同階段的變遷與製造業生產力的關係可以瞭解，在輕工業成熟期與重化工業發軔期中，由於產業結構的循序變遷所帶動的個別產業部門的輪替成長，因而成為此二階段整體製造業生產力快速成長的主要動力。而當在市場自由化時期與產業轉型時期，雖然個別產業部門生產力成長率均以趨緩，然而近年來均不斷致力於技術研發與人力資源品質的提升。依相關數據顯示，其中又以重化工業在這方面更優於輕工業產業部門。
此外，過去台灣的產業政策多偏重於導引要素資源到特定產業部門，亦即針對某些指定重點產業的扶植。此種方式在經濟發展初期，藉由產業結構的因應調節，是有助於提升製造業與產業部門之產出水準、生產力成長率與生產效率技術。然而長時間扭曲資源配置的結果，即使可以繼續維持產業部門的產出水準成長，但終將造成生產力成長率與生產效率技術等成長速度之遞減。所幸政府之產業政策逐漸調整為較中性而尊重市場機能，而轉採功能性的獎勵，故製造業及其各個產業部門的生產效率已經獲得有效的改善。

In the past 50years,the fast economics development and growth of Taiwan has been wide by lauded by the world. In addition, it*s also been taken as a model for developing countries. The main propose of this study is to examine the relationship of industrial structure, industrial productivity performance and industrial policies in Taiwan.
In recent ten years, the globe economic environment had been dramatically changing.Economic growth and development in Taiwan have been threatened because of the impact of this change, which has led to another stage of structural transformation.
Therefore, can every industry*s productivity performance still be obtained growth? This will be the other main issue for this study.
One of the findings in this study that the industrial structural transformation in Taiwan is coincided with the unbalance growth approach: all sectors were growed in turn from light industries to heavy industries at different stages.
On another hand, empirical evidence suggests that the weighted sum of every individual industrial productivity growth is the main impetus for rapid growth in the manufacturing, during the first two stages. But in the recently two stages, industrial productivity growth had slowed down. Industrial output structural transformation after market mechanism operating improved the manufacturing*s productivity growth.
Finally we find that industrial policies in Taiwan were always aimed at some special industrial sectors to help develop during past years. These methods would improve the industrial output level, productivity growth rate and technical efficiency at the initial stages. But the effects gradually slowed down and some policies even were harmful for growth. So during the recently years, market mechanism was respected by government. Industrial policy would be aimed at helping R&D investment or personal training.