有關台灣、爪哇兩地糖業的比較研究往往在“殖民地資本主義栽植農業”的 預設下強調兩者問的近似性。但是 兩者是否都符合古典“農業資本主義特型”的模式。產 生土地集中及農民普羅化的現象呢？這個問題在爪哇研究上仍在激辯當中，不過審慎的學者 提出了充分的理由質疑來解釋爪哇蔗作的大規模生產及雇工現象是否可以在未釐清既存社會 經濟體制及農民社會對外來糖業資本的權宜調適的機制之前就逕直套用古典農業資本主義特 型模式來解釋。說台灣的例子而言，現代農業的形成明顯的是是另外一條途徑，是以家庭耕 作式農業為基礎而與糖業資本之間形成垂直集中。作者在反省以“農業資本主義特型”模式 直接套用在兩地所產生的弊病之餘，試圖提供分析台、爪兩地糖業資本與農民關係以及米、 糖部門關係的視角。那就是，傳統爪哇村落集體取向的農民社會與台灣家戶個體取向的農民 社會分別是造成前者保留村落為經濟運作單位的“村落糖業”以及後者以家庭農場為經營單 位垂直集中式的“家戶糖業”的主因。簡言之，台、爪之間在糖業資本與農民關係以及米、 糖部門關係上的差異主要是土著既存社經結構的特性所造成的，直接化約到資本的邏輯、探 討“資本主義化”徹底不徹底這種僵硬的視角誤導了問題。

　　　　　Assuming a convergent tendency in the "capitalist transformation" of colonial agriculture, existing comparative studies on the sugar industry in Jave (1830-1940) and Taiwan (1895-1940) emphasize similarities, particularly the land concentration in accordance with differentiation and proletarianization of peasants. But the validity of applying the classical "capitalist-transformation-of-agriculture" model to both colonies is far from settled. The agrarian development in colonial Taiwan provides an alternative to the classical model. In Taiwan, the formation of modern agriculture during colonial period is based on family farming articulated, in the form of vertical concentration, by the Japanese agro-industry. Despite the persistent challenges toward C. Gerrtz's "articulation" model. In Jave study there is growing interest in peasant adaptation to capital domination. Javanese village as an economic unit for large scale sugar cultivation and the diversification of peasant groups in the process of commodification are widely recognized, but the linear evolutionary perspective of agricultural transformation following the classical model is subject to severe criticissm. Regarding the relationship between peasants and sugar capital in the process of agrarian development in both colonies, the question asked in this paper is: "why sugar-cane in Jave was cultivated in paddy land rented from village under the form of large scale cultivation using hired labor (mostly villagers); whereas, in similar climate conditions, Japanese sugar capital in Taiwan purchased cane from small holdings, which subjected only dry land to cane-growing and were prone to convert to rice production when purchase price of cane failed to ensure an equal income. "In the light of studies revealing various forms capital articulates with pre-capitalist social formations, the author highlights the pre-existing socioeconomic structure of indigenous society to answer the above question. The community-oriented collectivism of Javanese village, in contrast to the household-oriented individualism of Taiwanese peasant community, is highlighted to explain the formation of sugar-with–village (desa) form of large scale cultivation. Javanese village under cane cultivation acted as an economic unit both for land and labor use, even after Land Act of 1870. Under simila: Land Act designed to enforce free ownership (1904-05), Taiwanese farm households instead strengthened the long-term tendency toward the fortification of individual ownership and management of land. Recognizing the impossibility of dispossessing Taiwanese peasantry, the Japanese sugar capital incorporated indigenous family farms through contract farming in the form of vertical concentration.