就清廷的臺灣統治與平埔族地權（熟番地權）間的關係，既存的政治經濟分析主要可以歸為「國家剝削論」與「理性國家說」兩類。兩種學說對於清廷保護（或失於保護）熟番地權的原因以及保護實效所提出的說法明顯牴觸。本文使用日治初期地籍普查資料和清代相關的官方、民間史料詳加檢證。作者提供的經驗證據，在地理分佈與法規制度上具體呈現了以下的事實：乾隆中期以前臺灣西部海岸平原的平埔族原領地已幾近流失殆盡，隨後清廷重新配置平埔族土地於西部平原東側沿山附近邊界一帶，並制訂周詳的法規嚴加保護，平埔族遷入該地帶作為隔離漢人與高山族的夾心層，形成三層制的族群分布。此一經驗事實與國家剝削論所認定的平埔族因不堪壓榨而「流離失所」並不相符，同時也拒斥了理性國家說裡清廷藉由「順應」平埔族對原領地的土地權利主張而得以維持「族群安定現狀」、遂行「低成本統治」的說法。新的史料與研究發現導引作者發展出「族群政治說」作為替代性理論。
「族群政治」意指清廷操弄高山族、平埔族與漢人間的關係，以及因之而形成的衝突╱結盟過程。從族群政治的新視角出發，本文舉證清廷如何透過重新配置熟番地以及界定熟番地權，捏塑族群關係，以利其有效統治。本文的見解與強調自主性國家理性設計（或普同法則的決定性力量）的說法有別，作者的歷史制度分析指出，清廷的國家行動不只受限於歷史過程中形成之社會經濟制度，而且還隨著國家與其他同處於制度內之社會行動者──平埔族、高山族、漢人──的互動而改變。這種分析視角引伸出互動過程中致生非預期性後果的可能性，因此在解釋架構內也涵蓋了歷史機遇的作用。

　　　　　Two confronting theories-state exploitation theory and rational state theory-constitute key interpretations depicting the political economy of aborigine land rights in Qing Taiwan. In addition to their disagreements upon the role of the Qing state, their constradictory assessments upon the effect of state's protection of aborigine land rights are unsettled. This study reviews memorials, contracts and policy debates as well as land cadastral data collected by the Japanese colonial government to test both arguments. The empirical evidence predicates the dissolution of aborigine lands in the west coast plains and the displacement of their traditional settlements. But, it also shows, in the post-1760 period, a policy-led reallocation of plains aborigines to border areas close to the foothills and the implementation of effective protection of aborigine land rights. The empirical findings do not support the rational state argument, that the Qing state achieved "ethnic status quo" in the island frontier through "accommodating" existing multi-tiered land rights between aborigines and Chinese. Nor the reallocation and protection of aborigine lands in the post-1760 period fit the state exploitation theory, which assumes a predatory Qing state uprooting plain aborigines. In this article, an alternative interpretation pivoting on ethnic politics is adopted. The ethnic politics model not only reveals how the Qing state uprooting plain aborigines. In this article, an alternative interpretation pivoting on ethnic politics is adopted. The ethnic politics model not only reveals how the Qing state uses its power to define and reallo9cate aborigine lands in order to manipulate ethnic relationships to serve its rule, but also illustrates the unintended consequences of the interaction among state, plains aborigines, mountain aborigines, and Chinese settlers. As a consequence, a path dependent model highlighting the historical contingency is preferred to the rational choice model.