由於全球化對世界所產生的衝擊，二十一世紀內國家間廣為盛行一種強調共生互助的“區域化”（Regionalization）理論。歐盟（European union）、北美自由貿易協定(NAFTA)等國際區域組織都是區域化的成功範例。這些區域組織強調會員間的分工、共生及資源整合，會員間都有自己的責任及功能。然而區域整合並非萬能靈藥，區域整合泛濫下的失敗例子仍不在少數。在分工機制尚未明顯下，貿然的進行合作將會使整合組織流於形式，整合效益轉為負面的相互牽制。因此，對於至今仍未成立一個正式的區域組織的東亞區域，區域分工機制的重新定位將是經濟整合實行的首要之務，而其中競爭關係的探討又是瞭解分工機制的第一步。
事實上，東亞區域競爭關係的探討除了有助於東亞各國分工機制的定位以及整合機制的建立之外，在全球化、國際化的衝擊下，由於國際、區域互動狀況影響國內社經發展程度愈來愈大，區域競爭關係的探討更將有助於國家國土規劃策略的擬定。在台灣，空間發展的研究以往皆著重在國家內部的空間關聯，即便研究國與國間的空間關係也多在封閉程度較高的區域。在新的世紀中，面對新的秩序勢必需要新的眼界及新的規劃手法來應對。因此，本研究以國土角度作為研究開端，希望能承接國際脈動與國內規劃，並助於未來國土規劃策略的擬定。
國外學者對於國家關係研究常利用網絡分析方法進行探討，研究內容多以全球體系的角度定位國家與國家間的互動關係及階層關係。由於其研究範圍常遍及全球範圍，在受到資料取得困難及資料精度不足的多重限制下，國外學者對於國家關係研究鮮少分析貿易產品結構。近年來，波特（Porter,Michael E.）以另外一種較為細緻的案例研究方法進行國家產業微觀研究，從不同的環境、企業、政府等角度進行國家競爭力分析。這樣的研究方法為國際間國家關係研究拓展了一個新視野，也讓我們瞭解到產業結構的向度複雜性及資訊豐富性。然而，這樣性質的研究方法曠日費時，必須在資料結構相當完整的條件下才能順利進行。對於面對世界日新月異的快速變動模式，規劃學界較需要一種能夠快速更新資料的計量模式。並且考量競爭的複雜，分別以空間及產業結構兩面向加以探討。
因此，本研究將以ArcView軟體為基礎，分別發展網絡模型及網格模型研究東亞國家與全球空間互動關係以及經貿競爭結構。首先，由經貿角度切入，利用統計分析方法，分析東亞區域各國1994年與2000年經貿資料，包括日本、韓國、大陸、台灣、新加坡、泰國、馬來西亞、香港、菲律賓及印尼10國，以確定與東亞區域互動密切的經濟體。其次，配合網絡分析輔以區域關係評量指標，分析1994年/2000年東亞各國與其主次要經貿經濟體發展關係變化，繪製各國發展關係網絡並加以評估台灣與東亞各國的空間競爭情況。接著，由經貿結構切入，利用比較利益的概念對東亞各國發展關係網絡主要成員進行競合結構分析，以建構提供互補或互斥訊息的競爭網格模型，進行台灣與其他東亞區域國家的經貿結構競合評估。
研究結果主要包括下列四點，（1）以貿易依存度的角度觀察東亞區域各國對全世界的空間關聯特性，研究發現東南國家如馬來西亞、印尼等的空間網絡與東北亞國家如日本、台灣等的空間網絡特性具有相當的差異。東南亞國家與全世界的空間關聯程度優於東北亞國家。（2）東亞區域中日本在台灣中的地位己大不如前，取而代之的是具有龐大市場的中國。而對於中國這個龐大市場，台灣的主力產業（電機產品類及紡纖製品類）遭遇了明顯困境。在該產業中，1994-2000年以來台灣相對於菲律賓、泰國、馬來西亞及新加坡在對中國依存度成長呈現正向成長，反應出這些年東南亞國家積極地投入對電機產品類及紡纖製品類產業的發展。台灣這些年經營的卑金屬製品類、雜項製品類及化工產品類等產業，在中國市場則呈現出較佳的發展情形。（3）關於東亞區域貿易結構的改變，藉由貿易依存度配合結構資料進行分析，我們發現了一些與傳統雁行理論相異之處。雁行理論中這一種所謂複型追及(multiplex catching-up)型態仍存在東亞國家間，然而這僅是對技術中低的產業類型而言。對於技術層次高的產業，在技術移轉的影響下，以往居於技術下游的國家，也都有了生產高技術的能力。（4）對於發展整合東亞區域內資源的經濟整合之可行性並不高。一是由於東亞各國在空間發展特性上相異，對不同市場的方針並不一致。二是東亞各國在主力產業的發展上相似。趨利目標的多樣性與產業發展的相似性都將會阻礙經濟共同體的發展。三是由於日本雁首的影響力下降，東亞區域缺少一個推動整合的領導國家。

Because the impact of the Globalization affects the whole world heavily, the Regionalization theory which resist the impact is spread between the countries in the twentieth-one century. The models of Regionalization like EU, NAFTA are international organizations which highlight multinational corporations, symbiosis and resource integration. The members in international organizations have their own duty and functions. Although the international organizations are powerful and useful, there are a lot of international organizations failed to fight the impact of the Globalization and to exist. One of reasons why the international organizations are not always powerful and useful is that the duty and functions of the countries in the organizations are not distinct. In other words, if multinational corporations, symbiosis and resource integration don’t work well, international organizations will turn to be useless and bad for those members. So the distinction of the duty and functions of the countries are very important for an international organization.
As we know, there are typical international organizations in the most important regions like EU in Europe and NAFTA in North America. However, the East-Asia region is also one of the most important regions in the world, but there are no any official international organizations in East-Asia region so far. If establishing an international organization of the East-Asia region, the first job of all is to make the East-Asia countries’ the duty and functions distinct, and knowing the competition of the development between the countries in the East-Asia region is of the first importance to confirm the duty and functions of them.
In fact, knowing the competition of the development between East-Asia countries is not only good for making the East-Asia countries’ the duty and functions distinct but also good for the planning of the national land development. As we mention before, the impact of the Globalization affects the whole world including the relationship of countries, the interaction of regions, and even the society and economic transformation inside the country. Owing to increasing impact of the Globalization and Internaionalization, the society and economic transformation inside the country is affected more easily by the international and regional interaction. That’s the reason why discussing the competition of the development between the East-Asia countries is good for making strategies for the national land development .In Taiwan, the past studies about spatial development emphasized the spatial correlation inside the country, and even the studies about the space relationship between the countries were based on the enclosure. Nowadays we need new viewpoints and planning methods to face the new open order, therefore the study originating from the national land development is done in order to connect the international economic variation and internal planning, and help the government make the national land development strategies.
Foreign scholars usually use the network analysis method to study the whole world countries’ relationship like countries’ the stratum and the interaction, but seldom use the network analysis to investigate the whole world countries’ relationship like the trade structure, since trade structure data is hard to search and collect ,and essential data collected is usually not precise. Michael E. Porter spent several years searching and collecting essential data in order to complete the needed data and spent other several years analyzing those data by a detailed method of case study in order to research the countries’ industry. Porter’s research is great and useful, but requiring much time and work. Planning process is short, so this kind of study is not suitable for the national land development strategies. Facing the open changeable order, we need a measurement method of quantities to update the data and to analyze data quickly.
There are two main contributions of the study. First, we try to tell others that the world is changing and old planning method will not satisfy the new conditions. Second, we use one kind of spatial information technology software called ArcView designing two different models in order to analyze the interaction in space and trade structure between countries.
There are four findings about the competition of the development between the countries in the East-Asia region.
(1) The properties of the East-Asia countries’ space network are different. Southeast-Asia countries like Malaysia are better than Northeast-Asia countries like Taiwan in the space correlation.
(2) About the change of trade structure in East-Asia region, we find the difference from the flying-geese model by trade dependence index.
(3) The markets on which Taiwan rely are different from before. China is the most important market Taiwan are depending on now.
(4) The regional integration in East-Asia region is hardly possible because of the variety of countries’ space correlation and the repetition of countries’ main trade structure.

1.尤元奎，2001，中國大陸電子業在美日歐盟市場之出口競爭趨勢分析，東吳大學經濟學研究所碩論。
2.尹昌光，1997，兩岸產品於美日出口市場之競爭分析，台灣大學國際企業學系研究所碩論。
3.王高成，2000，後冷戰局勢下的兩岸關係，世界新格局與兩岸關係學術研討會論文集，淡江大學。
4.朱雲鵬、林美萱，2002，雁行理論是否仍適用於東亞發展，國家政策論壇，第2卷第3期。
5.佟家棟，2000，國際貿易理論的發展及其階段劃分，http://gaoleyong.vip.sina.com/economist/teach/tong2.html。
6.吳啟禎，2001，中國大陸加入世界貿易組織之宏觀分析，成功大學政治經濟學研究所碩論。
7.林灼榮、施雅琴，1998，「國際貿易：理論.政策.實證」，著者發行。
8.林孟婷，2001，後冷戰時期台灣的亞太政策之研究，中山大學政治研究所碩論。
9.俞海琴、李顯峰、李文瑞、盧信昌，2001，國際貿易理論與政策，台北縣：國立空中大學印行。
10.陳其邁譯自Giddens, Anthony，2001，「失控的世界：全球化與知識經濟時代的省思 」，臺北市：時報文化。
11.范乾峰，1997，經濟全球化發展下台灣跨國性經濟空間網絡之研究--貿易流與商品鏈的網絡分析，台北大學都市計劃研究所碩論。
12.許書銘，2000，產業國際競爭力之發展及其影響因素分析—國家競爭力觀點，台灣大學商學研究所博論。
13.張清溪、許嘉棟、劉鶯釧、吳聰敏合著，1995，經濟學理論與實際第三版下冊，臺北市：翰蘆圖書。
14.張壽明，2001，台灣電子業在美日歐盟市場之出口競爭趨勢分析，東吳大學經濟學研究所碩論。
15.許楓靈，2001，台灣與中國大陸對歐聯出口競爭優勢分析，東吳大學經濟研究所碩論。
16.楊小凱、張永生，2001，對傳統貿易理論的批評及新貿易理論的發展 ，http://www.inframarginal.com/column/xkyang/papers/tadition-chinese/critics-on-traditional-trade-economics.doc。
17.經濟部統計處，2001，經濟統計年報，經濟部統計處。
18.蔡秀卿，2002，經貿交流與兩岸經濟整合性及互動關係之研究，台北大學合作經濟研究所碩論。
19.蔡博文、許嚴燦，2002，新一代地理資訊系統 ArcView 8.X剖析，臺北市：崧旭電腦。
20.蔡繼光、李振昌、霍達文譯自Friedman, T. L. ，1999，「了解全球化：凌志汽車與橄欖樹」，臺北市：聯經。
21.謝雯霞，1997，東亞經濟依存趨勢之研究，中山大學大陸研究所碩論。
22.嚴勝雄、吳連賞，2000，「中國發展，發展中國」，高雄市：麗文文化。
1.Adam, R., 1991, ”A new age in international relations?” International Affairs, 67(3):509-525.
2.Amin, S., 1974, “Accumulation on a World Scale.” Monthly Review.
3.Choe, J. I., 2001, “An impact of economic integration through trade: on business cycles for 10 East Asian countries”, Journal of Asian Economics, 12(4):569–586
4.Huntington, S. P., 1999, “The Lonely Superpower.” Foreign Affairs, 78(2).
5.International Monetary Fund, 2001, “International Financial Statistics Yearbook.” Washington, D.C. : International Monetary Fund.
6.International Monetary Fund, 2001, “Direction of Trade Statistics Yearbook.” Washington, D.C. : International Monetary Fund.
7.Keohane, R., 1984, “After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in World Political Economy.” Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press.
8.Kghane,R.O.and Milner H.V., 1996, “Internationalization and Domestic Politics.” New York : Cambridge University Press.
9.Klein, L.R, Pauly, P. and Voisin, P., 1982, “The World Economy—A Global Model.” Perspectives in Computing, 2:4–17.
10.Krugman, P., 1991, “Geography and Trade.” Leuven University Press.
11. Lall, S., 2000, “The Technological Structure and Performance of Developing Country Manufactured Exports, 1985–98.” Oxford Development Studies,28(3).
12.Liesner, H.H., 1958, “The European Common Market and British Industry.” The Economic Journal, 68:302–316.
13.Linnemann, H., 1966, “An Econometric Study of World Trade Flows.” Amsterdam : North Holland.
14.Poon, J. and Pandit, K., 1995, “The Geographic Structure of Crossnational Trade Flows and Region State.” Regional Studies, 30(3):273-285.
15.Thompson, W.R., 1983, “Uneven Economic Growth, Systemic Challenges, and Global wars.” International Studies Quarterly, 27:341-355.
16.Sergi,B. S., 1999, “Eastward enlargement of the European union.” Russian & East European Finance and Trade, 35(3):41–56.
17.Smith, D.A.and White, D.R., 1992, “Conceptualising and Mapping the Structure of the World System's City System.” Urban Studies, 32(2):287–302.
18.Wallerstein, I., 1974, “The Modern World-System.” New York : Academic Press.
19.Wood, A. & Mayer, J., 1998, “African Development in a Comparative Perspective.” Africa’s export structure in a comparative perspective, 4.

網站資訊
1.台灣經濟研究院東亞產經資訊網，加值型競爭力指標，http://idic.tier.org.tw/item_2.htm（4/6/2002）
2.泰國國際統計廳網站，2002年統計年鑑，www.nso.go.th（4/12/2002）
3.台灣國際貿易局網站，我國進出口貿易統計，