近二十年來，中國大陸與印度無論在經濟發展，或是國民平均所得都呈現出快速的成長，它也直接促進了兩國的金融體系發生結構性的改變。在資金流動持續的成長及資本市場自由化的時代下，金融擴張、多樣性及全球化已成為必然的趨勢。所以，90年代以來金融自由化已成為中、印兩國，在經濟發展的政策上最重要的一項議題。 本文的研究範圍：是以中國大陸與印度銀行部門的市場化改革作比較研究，分析兩國銀行部門從金融抑制到自由化的過程，依據轉型的過程要素：自由化、穩定化、私有化、制度建立及結構改變等評估指標，檢視中、印兩國銀行部門改革的成效。並採取歷史制度研究途徑及比較法，分別從中、印兩國的國內政經環境、國際金融及國際建制的規範，比較兩國銀行部門改革的原因與轉型的差異，以深入了解中國大陸及印度銀行部門改革的目標及對經濟發展的影響。 研究發現印度銀行體系的制度建立及監管的規範雖然較中國大陸完善，但是在資金運用的效能及經濟的發展上都不如中國大陸。它主要的原因在於兩國的政治體制不同，影響了改革的執行成效。因此，制度的建立與執行要能互相配合才會有實質的成效，否則即使有了完善的制度，但是缺乏貫徹到底的執行力，最終仍將走向失敗。 / For the past twenty years, China and India have seen rapid growth in both economic development and Gross National Product (GNP), which prompted structural transformation in the financial sectors of both countries as well. In an age of growing capital flows and liberalizing capital market, the trends of financial expansion, variety and globalization have become inevitable. Therefore, since the 1990s, financial liberalization has become the issue of utmost importance in economic development policy-making in China and India. This study aims to conduct a comparative research of market reforms in the banking sectors in China and India to analyze the processes from financial repression to liberalization in the banking sectors of both countries. With the factors of transformation—liberalization, stabilization, institutionalization, and structural transformation—as indicators for assessment, this study examines the effectiveness of banking reforms in China and India. By means of historical institutionalist approach and comparative method, this study compares the reasons for reforms and differences in transformations between the banking sectors in the two countries in terms of domestic politico-economic environment, and standards of global finance/ international institutions so as to delve into the reform objectives for banking sectors in China and India and their influence on economic development. The findings of this study indicate that Indian banking sector have sounder institutions and regulations than China; however, they lag behind their counterparts in China in terms of efficient application of funds and economic development. The key factor is that the two countries have different political institutions, which influences the effectiveness of banking reforms. Therefore, only a coordinated effort of institutionalization and implementation may yield substantial results. Otherwise, a sound system without the executive power to carry through is yet doomed to failure.

經濟效率與經濟公平，是經濟學中最具爭議性的議題之一。俄羅斯自1992年開始由計劃經濟轉型為市場經濟，政府的首要目標就是追求經濟效率的提升，相較而言對於經濟公平的問題較不重視，因此，在轉型的過程中社會所得分配差距持續擴大，最終導致兩極化分配結果。 本文透過文獻整理和統計數據對比分析論證方法探究1992至1997年間俄羅斯轉型政策對其所得不均惡化之影響。首先，藉由俄羅斯轉型前、後所得不均指標之對比，以及其與同時期其他中所得國家和轉型國家之比較，暸解俄羅斯所得不均情況，證明俄國轉型後所得分配惡化程度。其次，由私有化政策、自由化政策、穩定化政策以及社會救助政策等四個層面，分析俄羅斯轉型政策如何影響其所得分配。最後，說明已經是市場經濟體且被譽為金磚四國之一的俄羅斯，其近年來亮麗的經濟成長表現和普欽總統之社會救助政策，對其所得不均皆尚未產生改善效果，故1998年後的俄國所得分配狀況仍値得改以市場因素和相關政策等方面作為觀察重點，進行後續研究。 關鍵詞：俄羅斯、所得不均、私有化、自由化、穩定化、社會救助政策 / Economic efficiency and equity have always been one of the most controversial issues in the economics. Russia began the transformation from a planned economy to a market economy since 1992, and during the process of transformation, the primary objective of the Russian government was to enhance economic efficiency, by contrast, the economic equity was less emphasized. Therefore, the inequality of income distribution had become more and more serious. At the end, it led to the polarization of income distribution. In this study, literature review, comparative analysis and statistical data analysis methods will be used to explore how Russian transformation policies had resulted in the aggravation of income inequality between 1992 and 1997. First of all, in order to clarify the income inequality in Russia, some income inequality indexes of Russia before and after the transformation will be compared, and by the comparison with other mid-income and transformation countries in the same era, we can identify the aggravation of income distribution after the transformation. Secondly, how Russian transformation policies had influenced income distribution will be analyzed from four aspects: privatization policy, liberalization policy, stabilization policy, and social assistance policies. Finally, author interpret that although Russia has moved towards a market economy and become one of the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries in recent years, its brilliant economic performance with Putin’s social assistance policies have not yet improved the situation. Therefore, author suggests that the further research on Russian income distribution after 1998 is better to focus on market factors and related economic policies. Keyword: Russia, Income Inequality, Privatization, Liberalization, Stabilization, Social Assistance Policy