相對於泰國與馬來西亞，印尼是東南亞最早發展汽車業的國家，也有內需市場支撐，但是印尼並沒有像泰國成為亞洲的底特律，也沒有如馬來西亞建立起國家汽車品牌，而成為「有市場無技術」的「無科技工業化」。本文以政治經濟學領域中的「制度分析」途徑，就國家干預、政商關係、跨國產業分工等三個角度分析印尼汽車產業失靈的原因。受限於印尼政治經濟的結構因素，本文發現印尼汽車產業失靈的原因在於：在產業發展時期國家的干預政策沒有「學習」與「管理」市場；本土資本未建立產業所需相對的供應鏈，汽車鉅子「亞洲教父」的政商關係的利益共生，國家機關與產業部門也就缺乏產業轉型的「合夥」（partnership）動機；外資並未技術移轉，無法帶動產業進步。即使有龐大的市場支撐，現今印尼汽車產業並未達到應有的發展水準。本文提出：未來印尼汽車產業發展的關鍵在於政治經濟的「制度轉型」。汽車產業政策必須建構在能順利推進讓全體民共享利益，如果加上本土企業的成長與學習，具天生發展優勢的印尼汽車產業才有進一步產業升級的可能。

With respect to Thailand and Malaysia, Indonesia was first in Southeast Asia to develop a automotive industry, supported by the domestic market. But Indonesia did not become the ＂Detroit of Asia＂ as Thailand, or establish national brands as Malaysia. On the contrary, Indonesia is a ＂huge market without technology,＂ an ＂Industry Without Industrialization.＂ This paper adopts an institutionalist approach with three aspects- state intervention, government-business relations, and transnational industrial division- to explain why Indonesia's automotive industry has been limited by the structure of political economy. We find that (1) in the industrial development period, state intervention policies did not ＂learn from＂ and ＂manage＂ the market, (2) local capitals did not establish a supply chain industry or government-business relations, thus lacking motivation for partnership in industrial transformation, and (3) a lack of foreign technology transfer deterred the industry's progress. Despite having a large support market, Indonesia's automotive industry has not attained a desired level of development. In conclusion, this paper discovers that the key to developing an automobile industry in Indonesia is ＂Institutional Transformation.＂ Industrial policies must benefit all parties, and if coupled with growths of local enterprises and learning, Indonesian automobile industry may finally utilize its advantages for industrial upgrading.