戰後台灣中小企業的歷史源頭為何?其跟戰前台人資本存在什麼辯證關係?可以說是本土化研究興起以來台灣經濟史主要課題之一，已有不少學者嘗試從中小工廠領域切入，一方面跟矢內原忠雄與凃照彥等兩位重量級學者對話，一方面則試圖挖掘出五大家族以來之一般中小地主或商人在資本主義化的脈絡之下資本積累的過程。不過，也並非所有研究者都同意戰後台灣中小企業能夠蓬勃發展，乃是以戰前台人資本之積累為基礎。 　　本文同樣以此問題意識出發，但有別於既有研究成果主要以中小工廠為作為分析對象，從而強調台人資本積累過程「自主性」的一面，並普遍以政權遞嬗為研究斷限。本文則擬以較具經營規模且位於近代部門的交通業為個案，就台人資本積累過程如何跟國家權力連結展開論述，並側重於台人資本如何學習殖民者所引進的資本主義制度、特別是以資本核算(盈餘保留跟固定資產折舊)為主軸之近代企業經營概念。同時，本文還將採取跨政權研究途徑(approach)，就戰前台人資本所進行之資本積累與養成之近代企業經營能力，如何成為渡過戰後接收期乃至投入中小企業的重要憑藉提出一理論性分析。 本文首先發現所謂台/日資或殖民者/被殖民者等二元對立框架，不足以解釋戰前台灣經濟結構，台人資本積累過程乃存在跟殖民者有所連結的一面。此一跟國家權力的連結，也延續到戰後。 基本上，交通業作為特許行業本應由國家經營以避免被獨佔壟斷，但作為後進資本主義國之日本，從明治維新以降即在國家力量不足的前提下，透過強烈監督與保護手段讓民間資本代行國家發展交通，官方與交通業者間存在特殊互動模式。日本領有殖民地台灣後更由於本國資本主義尚未確立，因此持續仰賴民間資本經營作為地方交通主力的民營鐵道與公路運輸，不過此時被仰賴的對象主要為台人資本，該業台人資本也就在台灣總督府協助之下進行資本積累。 台人資本透過交通業也廣泛運用了殖民者所引進的近代企業制度。由於交通業本來就具有資本密集性(capital-intensive)與固定資本(fixed capital)比重高之特徵，必須採行較具規模的經營型態，台人資本在交通業乃高比例的運用股份有限公司(日文稱株式會社)，從而交通業跟既有前人研究成果主要關懷之中小民營工廠(主要業種為農業、農產加工業與輕工業)就存在本質上的差異。 在交通業台人資本高比例運用近代企業制度的前提之下，本文進一步發現單純從文化面角度來檢討台人資本為何存在優異企業經營能力恐怕有所不足。也就是說，移民社會特質與發達的合股組織固然是台人資本參與資本主義的基礎，但能否落實以資本核算(盈餘保留跟固定資產折舊)為主軸之近代企業制度，或許具備更關鍵的地位。因為移民社會特質雖然能讓台人企業展現出冒險、進取的一面，清代以降發達的合股組織則讓台人資本較容易習慣近代市場經濟的運作，但台人企業要能展現出「永續經營」的特質，還是必須建構出建全的資產結構與財務狀況。 最後，本文主張戰後台灣中小企業仍然是以戰前台人資本為基礎。雖然既有研究成果亦多持一學術見解，但他們未能充分論證台人資本如何渡過1937年中日戰爭以降至1949年國民政府遷台為止這段政經局勢激烈動盪的時期。相較於此，交通業台人資本則能一定程度填補此一空白。首先，台人資本在該業不僅未全面從屬於日資或被其消滅，反而基於交通統制讓原本散落各地的台人資本獲得整合、經營規模獲得擴張，從而增強其資本力量。這些以州廳為單位並仍由台人資本所主導的交通統制企業，在戰後更直接轉型為地方客貨運業，從而存在非常直接而明確的延續性。 其次，近代企業制度落實乃至交通業關聯產業開啟，都在這一階段獲得實現。就前者而言，即如上述，日本乃是後進資本主義國，資本核算制度發展腳步緩慢，這導致戰時體制成為其確立的關鍵階段，亦即國家利用各種統制手段強迫企業採行標準的商業會計(特別是固定資產折舊的計算)。尤其，交通業作為重點統制產業之一，該業資本核算制度是否確立也就更受到殖民政府重視。再就後者而言，交通業本質上跟傳統部門不同已如上述，在歐美與日本皆扮演著推動產業革命的重要角色，台人資本也就有可能透過該業往近代部門移動，這一方面表現在機械動力的接觸；另一方面則是以該業為媒介，往工業部門邁進，特別是伴隨戰時體制與軍需工業化所開啟的車輛維護、修繕產業等關聯產業更具指標性意義。 總而言之，戰前到戰後台人資本積累過程乃存在一連鎖機制，即「非機械力的輕便鐵道→嘗試蒸氣動力與電力(並投入電力部門) →機械力的汽車運輸→新興機械製造與化學→地方客貨運業→中小企業」。這中間當然不會是一線性發展姿態，毋寧經歷諸多波折，但基本繼承關係仍然可以被尋得。 / What were the historical sources of the small and medium-sized enterprises in Taiwan after the war? What was the dialectical relationship between them and the capital existence in Taiwan before the war? It has been one of the main topics in Taiwanese economy history since the rise of the research of localization, and a few scholars tried to cut in through the small and medium-sized factories. On one hand, they opened the conversation with two key prominent scholars, Yanaihara Tadao and Chao-Yen Tu, and on the other hand, they tried to dig out the capital accumulation process from the general small and medium landlords or businessmen under the sequence of ideas of capitalism after Taiwanese five key families. However, not all of the researchers agreed that the reason why the small and medium-sized enterprises in Taiwan could be rising and flourishing after the war was because of the foundation of the capital accumulated by Taiwanese people before the war. This research started with the same question concepts, but with different object of the study from the past research results, which was only used small and medium-sized factories as the study object, and emphasized the “independence” side of Taiwanese capital accumulation process; they generally cut the time of the research period when there was any state power changed or transferred. Instead of that, this study planned to use transportation industry as the study case, discussed from how Taiwanese capital accumulation process linked to national power, and then laid special emphasis on how Taiwanese capital accumulation process learnt from capitalism that the colonialists brought in; especially, the operation concept of the modern enterprises which gave priority to capital accounting (retained earnings and assets depreciation). Furthermore, the study adopted cross-political power research approach and discussed how Taiwanese capital accumulation before the war and the management capacity development of the modern enterprises became the important basis of passing through the take-over period to throw into the small and medium-sized enterprises. A theoretical analysis was addressed here. The study first found the binary opposition framework of so-called Taiwanese investment/ Japanese investment or colonialists / natives was not sufficient to explain economy structure in Taiwan before the war. Taiwanese capital accumulation process was existed on one aspect which linked to the colonialists, and this linkage to national power lasted to postwar. Basically speaking, transportation industry as a franchising sector should be run by the nation to avoid monopoly; Japan, as a later emerging capitalism country, allowed private capital to develop the nation’s transportation industry though intense supervision and protection by the government because the insufficient national power after Meiji restoration; there was a special interaction model between the official and transportation dealers. After occupying Taiwan, Japan continued relying on private capital to develop local transportation such as privately-run railway and road transportation due to it hadn’t established its capitalism firmly. Nothing but Taiwanese capital was the subject which was dependent on at that moment, the capital accumulation of the Taiwanese capital for this industry proceeded under the assistance of Taiwanese Governor General’s Office. Through transportation industry, Taiwanese capital widely applied modern enterprise system brought into by the colonialists. Transportation industry featured high proportion of capital-intensive and fixed capital, and it needed to run in large-scaled operation types. Taiwanese capital used high-proportion of limited liability companies ((ka bu si ki gai sya in Japanese), and it showed the essential difference from the small and medium-sized factories (mainly agriculture, agriculture product processing and light industry) that pervious research focused on. Under the precondition that Taiwanese capital highly used modern enterprise system in transportation industry, the study further revealed that it was not enough to only examine why Taiwanese capital existed excellent enterprise management capacity from cultural aspect. That was to say, the social characteristic of immigration and the prosperous cooperated organizations were the foundation of Taiwanese capital joining capitalism, but whether it could fulfill modern enterprise system which gave priority to capital accounting (retained earnings and assets depreciation) played an even more significant role. Although the social characteristic of immigration presented the adventure and aggressiveness of Taiwanese enterprises, the prosperous cooperated organizations after Ching Dynasty helped Taiwanese capital get used to the operation of modern market economy easily. However, only when constructing sound assets structure and financial status, Taiwanese enterprises could show the quality of “sustainable operation”. In the end, the study claimed that the small and medium-sized enterprises in Taiwan after the war were still based on the Taiwanese capital before the war. Though the current research results mostly held the same academic view, they couldn’t fully approve how Taiwanese capital passed through the war of resistance against the Japanese in 1937 to National Government retrieved to Taiwan in 1949, the intensive political turbulent period of time. Compared to this, Taiwanese capital in transportation industry could fill the gap in a certain level. First, Taiwanese capital in transportation industry instead of subordinating to or being eliminated by Japanese investment, it integrated the Taiwanese capital spread out in different places and expanded the operation scale on the basis of transportation governing system; its capital strength increased as a result. The transportation governing enterprises which were managed by states but guided by Taiwanese capital directly transformed into local transportation carriers, and it showed extremely direct and clear continuity. Second, the fulfillment of the modern enterprise system and the starting of the relevant industries of transportation industry were implemented during this stage. In terms of the former, as what mentioned above, Japan was a later emerging capitalism country, and its development of capital accounting was slow; this led the system used during the war become the key stage of the development establishment, which meant that government used different governing methods to force the enterprises followed the standard business accounting (especially the calculation of assets depreciation). Moreover, transportation industry was one of the important governing enterprises, and it drew more colonialist government’s attention on whether the capital accounting system had been established in the industry. As for the latter, we talked about the essential difference between transportation industry and other traditional industries, and the transportation industry played an important role in pushing industry revolution in Europe, America, and Japan so that it was with great possibility that Taiwanese capital moved towards modern industries through transportation industry. This could be seen on the contact with mechanical kinetics on one side, and on the other side, it marched towards industry. The indicative meaning of this was presented on the relevant enterprises, especially the vehicle maintenance and repair incident to the system during the war and the industrialization for Army. In conclusion, the chain mechanism existed in the Taiwanese capital accumulation process from prewar to postwar, and it was “non-machinery light railway the attempt on steam powered and electricity (also invested electricity industry) machinery vehicle transportation new and developing machinery manufacture and chemistry local transportation carriers small and medium-sized enterprises”. Of course, the development was not a straight line process, and there were some obstacles in the way; however, the basic successive relationship could still be tracked.