從方法上來看，經濟史研究分為傳統經濟史與新經濟史兩派。新經濟史 發源於美國，其特徵在於採用經濟理論和統計分析說明歷史事賞的意義。美國新 經濟史在1950年代底已發展到含苞待放的階段，最後於I970年代開花結果。1950 年代新分析方法也開始敲扣台淺經濟史研究之門。此後，研究者應用新的方法剖 析了日治時代農業、工業、以及整體經濟的成長型態;也重新反省日治時代人民 的生活水準、租佃制度的影響與專買市場中藤價的決定因素等問題;更在租稅結 構的形成與土地的分配型態等課題上補緒了傳統的觀點。其中大部分的研究完成 於I990年代，因為直到I990年代才有較多的學者投入，研究的課題亦開始多樣化。 近年來這種蓬勃的研究氣息也帶動了史料整理的新局面。不少收藏機構或有心人 士紛紛出版或編製資料目錄;學者也陸績整理史料的內容，以方便經濟分析之 用。199C年代台滔新經濟史研究儼然已發展到195C年代底美國新經濟史研究那 種蓄勢待發的局面。然而迄今台灣新經濟史研究在國民所得的變動、工業的發 展、土地分配、租佃制度等主要研究課題上，都只獲有初步的結果。更有許多重 要的課題，例如所得分配和多數的經濟制度，至今絲毫末為所經濟史家所顧及。 史料的整理除了資料目錄的編製頗有成效之外，資料內容的整理工作仍然有限。 有鑑於此，今後台灣經濟史研究的努力目標，一方面在加速史料的整理，另一方 面在於補上研究的不足與空白。對於以上這些工作，比邵;I、North與新經濟史研 究或能給予我們一些啟示。經濟理論結合統計方法既能加速研究的累積，過去也 為台灣經濟史研究創造了一些研究成果，今後在研究方法上，除了必須善用文字 資料，更可以繼續應用這些新分析工具。比ge.的反事實推論法與North之將交易 成本引入經濟模型的作法，皆有助於處理制度如何形成以及如何影響經濟變遷的 問題。我們也可以用這些方法，研究台灣經濟史發展過程中的關鍵性制度。

　　　　　There are two approaches toward the study of economic history-traditional and new. The New Economic History, originating inthe USA, is characterized as an approach associating economic the-ory and statistics to interpret historical events. The American neweconomic history lias begun to bud in the 1950s, and has blossomedin the 1970s. In 1950s, the new approach was also introduced intoTaiwanese economic history research. From then on, scholars haveapplied it in tliree ways to study Taiwan's economy during theJapanese colonial era-to analyze tlie growth of agriculture, industry,and the overall economy; to reevaluate the living standards, tenuresystem, and forces of sugarcane price; and to make the researchof tax structure and land distribution more complete. However,most of the works and more diverse topics are coming out in the1990s, because not many scholars, especially those with the disci-pline of economics, devoted to this field until 1990s. Recently, thisflourishing atmosphere has also stimulated the organization of his-torical material. Bibliographical books for the historical material ofTaiwan collected by some institutes have been published and some people have tried to compile the data into the form convenient foreconomic analysis. This trend seems to show that Taiwanese economic history research in 1990s has developed to the stage as whatAmerican economic history research experienced in the 1950s. Hewever, most of the works have only gained very preliminary results,many important topics still remain untouched, and the accomplishment in material organization is quite limited except for the publication of bibliograhpical books. For these problems, the works ofFogel, North and the approach of New Economic History may bringus some implications. Since the new approach has already createdsome fruits for Taiwanese economic history research in the past, weshould continue to use this new approach. Both the counterfactualmethod developed by Fogel and the model introduced by Northcan help understand the formation and influence of institutions.We can apply these methods to analyze the institutions critical tothe evolution of Tawian's economic history.