本文旨在探究戰爭時期，日本為了維持糧食正常供應，在臺灣、朝鮮所形成的特殊體制，也欲比較兩地的補給任務，糧食生產、配給系統，及其運作結果。 在中日戰爭前，日本對糧食供應深具信心，主要是擁有朝鮮與臺灣兩個重要的米倉。原本朝鮮的支援地位最重要，但1939 年的一場旱災，使朝鮮米穀生產腰折，打亂了日本的戰爭糧食佈局。戰事瞬息萬變，日本不得不隨時調整糧食政策，包括南洋的支援、雜糧的增產及農村的動員等。此外，日本動輒整編或新設糧食機構，戰爭末期，曾大刀闊斧地整合內地及臺灣、朝鮮三地的農村社會，以方便糧食動員。臺灣農村社會組織整併於臺灣農業會之下，由其負責生產及收購；另由企業會社組成的食糧營團執行配給，形成雙元的生產收購與配給制度。朝鮮則由營團統攬生產收購及配給，為一元化的設計。上述不同的設計與兩個總督府在殖民地的統治經驗有關。運作結果，臺灣的生產較朝鮮穩定，收購配給也較為井然有序。

This essay aims to explore the special system established by Japan in Taiwan and Korea between 1937 and 1945, with the aim of maintaining regular supply of grains. It also compares the provision, production and allocation of grains in the two colonies as well as results of the implementation of the grains regulation system within the Japanese colonial empire. Before the Sino-Japanese War, Japan had no worry in the supply of grains because Korea and Taiwan, two crucial rice-producing countries, were part of the Japanese colonial empire. Originally, Korea played the chief supporting role; yet the drought of 1939 disrupted rice production in Korea. This caused upheaval to Japan’s wartime grains management policy. Consequently, adjustments were made including greater reliance on support from the South Pacific area, increase in production of grains other than rice, and the mobilization of the rural villages. Moreover, Japan frequently reorganized and established institutions related to grains supply and management. Towards the end of World War II, Japan introduction drastic reforms and integrated the agricultural societies of Japan, Taiwan and Korea to facilitate the mobilization of grains production and supply. In Taiwan, a parallel system was formed with social organizations of agricultural villages amalgamated under the Agricultural Society of Taiwan, which was responsible for grains production and procurement; while enterprises and companies formed the EIDAN ( えいだん營團) of grains to execute the allocation. On the contrary, Korea had a unified system with production/procurement and allocation of grains all centralized in the hands of the EIDAN. The difference in operation was attributed to the different governing experience in the two colonies. In comparison, the operation in Taiwan could maintain more steady grain production than that in Korea and the procurement and allocation were also more well-regulated.