本論文以臺灣石化業的發展為例，檢驗一些關於東亞新興工業化國家成長原因的假說。我們發現以此產業為例，在臺灣出口導向的成長過程中，國家一直將進口替代做為一輔助性策略，來扶植中上游資本密集的產業，以使其能隨著下游出品產業而發展。同時，與新古典學派說法相異之處是，國家在石化業的發展過程中，尤其是在發展初期，扮演了重要的角色，既使在後期甚至直至今日，仍然繼續給予補助與幫助；這支持 Gerschenkron 等之說法，亦即落後資本主義在發展早期，必須有集體的制度上替代市場的設計。在 1982 年之後，國家增加了它對石化業的補貼，但對其成長沒有顯著的影響；這顯現了石化產業日漸增加的政治影響力，以及國家的相對自主性的日漸消減。而這後期的發展，顯示這個案結果並不支持發展國家（developmental state）學派理論以及 Wade 的統治市場說，因為國家的發展取向有其歷史與社會經濟之背景，非單純由掌握國家機器者的主觀意願所能決定，也絕不能將其獨立於整個社經背景，而將其當作一政策處方並引伸出政策涵義。

　　　　　This paper uses the case study of Taiwan's petrochemical industry to test the validity of some hypothesis regarding the reasons for economic success of Asian NICs. It it shown that import-substitution has been selectively used as a subordinate strategy in Taiwan's export-led growth. It has been used to promote local upstream production of the exportable so as to maximize domestic value-added per exported product. However, no automatism can be assumed for this kind of linkage to materialize, especially because the petrochemical sector is very capital-intensive. The state played a crucial role in the initial setting-up stage of the petrochemical industry, and provided help and subsidies until the present time, thus contradicting the neoclassical hypothesis. The sustained growth of the downstream exporting sector provided the basis for the success of its upstream import-substitution. However, the state increased its subsidies in the later period without significant effects on growth, reflecting the growing political clout of this industry and the decline in the state's autonomy. Thus, the study lends only partial support to Wade's "governing the market" hypothesis, for the objective of industrial policy has become blurred in the 1980's.