本研究以2004年第1季至2008年第3季之間，國內共449家上市公司為研究對象，採用縱橫資料迴歸模型（panel data regression model）及縱橫門檻迴歸模型（panel threshold regression model）來探討公司財務受到限制（financial constrained）時，其公司特性與總體經濟條件因素對於資本結構的影響是否會發生改變？與財務未受限（financial unconstrained）公司是否會產生差異？以及採用不同方式劃分樣本，其結果的異同又為何？
實證結果顯示：不論以外生或內生決定劃分準則的方式區分樣本，財務受限與未受限公司在規模、獲利能力、未來的成長性等公司特性變數對負債比率的影響上，皆獲得完全相同的結果，亦即依序呈現顯著正相關、顯著負相關以及顯著負相關，此與過去相關文獻一致；而總體經濟條件因素對公司負債比率的影響，則只能符合過去文獻結果的部分，亦即不是財務受限公司的負債比率與總體經濟條件因素有呈現順循環（pro-cyclical）的現象，就是財務未受限公司的負債比率與總體經濟因素有呈現逆循環（counter-cyclical）的現象，但是卻未出現同時成立的結果。

This study is an analysis of 449 Taiwanese firms that are in operation between the first quarter of 2004, and the third quarter of 2008. A panel data regression model and a panel threshold regression model are used to analyze whether the impact of firm-specific and macroeconomic condition variables on the capital structure changes when one firm is financially constrained. The study also assesses whether the results of the financially firms differ from those of unconstrained firms. Also to be determined is whether using different methods of splitting the samples would render any difference.
Our results show that no matter what method of splitting samples we use, the impact of the size, profitability, and future growth on the debt ratio of financially constrained and unconstrained firms are the same. The empirical results show that the relations between above mentioned firm-specific variables and the debt ratio are significantly positive, significantly negative, and significantly negative in turn, as to previous studies. 
Furthermore, the impact of macroeconomic conditions on the debt ratio of the firms is only consistent with part of the results of previous studies. This means that there are two findings. First, the debt ratio of firms in our financially constrained sample varies pro-cyclically with macroeconomic conditions. Additionally, the debt ratio of firms in our financially unconstrained sample varies counter-cyclically with macroeconomic conditions. However, the results are not found simultaneously.

謝辭 I
中文摘要 II
英文摘要 III
目錄 V
圖目錄 VII
表目錄 VII
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 3
第三節 論文架構與研究流程 4
第二章 文獻探討 6
第一節 資本結構理論與相關文獻 6
第二節 財務限制之相關實證文獻 9
第三節 研究變數之相關文獻 13
第三章 研究方法 19
第一節	研究假說 19
第二節	樣本研究其間、選樣準則與資料來源 20
第三節	研究變數之操作性定義 21
第四節	研究方法 26
第四章	實證結果與分析 37
第一節	資料分析 37
第二節	全樣本之實證結果 39
第三節	外生劃分方式之實證結果 42
第四節	內生劃分方式之實證結果 47
第五節	綜合分析 52
第五章	結論與建議 56
第一節	結論 56
第二節	研究限制與後續研究建議 59
參考文獻 60

圖目錄
【圖1】研究流程圖 5

表目錄
【表1】研究變數之操作性定義彙總 26
【表2-1】以外生方式劃分樣本之公司特性變數的敘述統計 38
【表2-2】以內生方式劃分樣本之公司特性變數的敘述統計 38
【表3-1】以權益市場報酬率（EMR）衡量總體經濟條件－全樣本 41
【表3-2】以國內生產毛額成長率（GDP）衡量總體經濟條件－全樣本 41
【表3-3】以景氣對策信號（MI）衡量總體經濟條件－全樣本 42
【表4-1】以權益市場報酬率衡量總體經濟條件－外生劃分準則 45
【表4-2】以國內生產毛額成長率衡量總體經濟條件－外生劃分準則 46
【表4-3】以景氣對策信號衡量總體經濟條件－外生劃分準則 46
【表5-1】股利殖利率的門檻效果檢定 48
【表5-2】股利殖利率（門檻變數）之門檻估計值 48
【表5-3】以權益市場報酬率衡量總體經濟條件－內生劃分準則 51
【表5-4】以國內生產毛額成長率衡量總體經濟條件－內生劃分準則 51
【表5-5】以景氣對策信號衡量總體經濟條件－內生劃分準則 52
【表6-1】各種劃分方式之自變數係數估計值－以權益市場報酬率衡量總體經濟條件 53
【表6-2】各種劃分方式之自變數係數估計值－以國內生產毛額成長率衡量總體經濟條件 54
【表6-3】各種劃分方式之自變數係數估計值－以景氣對策信號衡量總體經濟條件 55

參考文獻
國內文獻
1. 王健聰、闕河士，(2005)，「台灣與大陸企業資本結構決定因素比較之研究」，輔仁管理評論，第12卷第1期，頁93~120。
2. 林郁函，(2004)，資本市場發展對企業資本結構與總體經濟因素關係之影響，國立政治大學財務管學系碩士論文。
3. 洪嘉偉，(2008)，經濟成長差異對公司資本結構之影響-以台灣上市公司為例，淡江大學財務金融學系碩士論文。
4. 徐雍超，(2004)，台灣企業資本結構之決定因素，東吳大學會計學系碩士論文。
5. 辜儀芳，(2002)，台灣上市公司資本結構選擇之實證研究，國立中正大學財務金融學系碩士論文。
6. 蔡宗孝，(2007)，企業資本結構及融資決策選擇之探討，國立中山大學財務管理學系碩士在職專班論文。
7. 談玉涵，(2007)，融資限制下公司投資與內部資金之關係研究-以資產實質性為門檻值，銘傳大學財務金融學系碩士論文。
8. 賴瓊華，(1999)，股市景氣及產業別與公司資本結構相關性研究台灣股票上市公司實證研究，國立交通大學經營管理學系碩士論文。
9.謝劍平，民國97年，「財務管理原理」，台北：智勝文化。

國外文獻
1. Almeida, H. and M. Campello, (2007), “Financial Constraints, Asset Tangibility, and Corporate Investment,” Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 20, pp.1429-1460.
2. Bai, J., (1997), “Estimating Multiplier Breaks One at a Time,” Econometric Theory, Vol. 13, pp.315-352.
3. Baker, M. and J. Wurgler, (2002), “Market Timing and Capital Structure,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 57, pp.1-32.
4. Baltagi, B. H. (1999), Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, 3rd edition, John Wiley and Sons, N.Y.
5. Barclay, M. J., C. W. Smith, and E. Morellec, (2006), “On the Debt Capacity of 
Growth Options,” Journal of Business, Vol. 79, pp.37-59.
6. Bradley, M., G. A. Jarrell, and E. H. Kim, (1984), “On the Existence of an Optimal Capital Structure: Theory and Evidence,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 39, pp.857-878.
7. Chan, K. S., (1993), “Consistency and Limiting Distribution of the Least Squares Estimator of a Threshold Autoregressive Model,” The Annals of Statistics, Vol. 21, pp.520-533.
8. Cook, D. O. and T. Tang, (2010), “Macroeconomic Conditions and Capital Structure Adjustment Speed,” Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 16, pp.73-87.
9. DeAngelo, H. and R. Masulis, (1980), “Optimal Capital Structure under Corporate and Personal Taxation,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 8, pp.3-29.
10. Fazzari, S. M., R. G. Hubbard, and B. C. Petersen, (1988), “Financial Constraints and Corporate Investment,” Brooking Paper on Economic Activity, Vol. 19, pp.141-195.
11. Frank, M. Z. and V. K. Goyal, (2003), “Capital Structure Decisions,” working paper, American Finance Association 2004 Meetings.
12. Hackbarth, D., J. Miao, and E. Morellec, (2006), “Capital Structure, Credit Risk, and Macroeconomic Conditions,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 82, pp.519-550.
13. Hansen, B. E., (1996), “Inference when a Nuisance Parameter Is Not Identified under the Null Hypothesis,” Econometrica, Vol. 64, pp.413-430.
14. Hansen, B. E., (1999), “Threshold Effects in Non-dynamic Panels: Estimation, Testing, and Inference,” Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 93, pp.345-368
15. Hart, O. and J. Moore, (1994), “A Theory of Debt Based on the Inalienability of Human Capital,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 109, pp.841-879.
16. Hovakimian, A., T. Opler, and S. Titman, (2001), “The Debt-equity Choice,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 36, pp.1-24.
17. Hovakimian, A., G. Hovakimian, and H. Tehranian, (2004), “Determinants of Target Capital Structure: the Case of Dual Debt and Equity Issues,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.71, pp.517-540.
18. Hovakimian, G. and S. Titman, (2006), “Corporate Investment with Financial Constraints: Sensitivity of Investment to Funds from Voluntary Asset Sales,” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, Vol. 38, pp.357-374.
19. Huang, G. and F. M. Song, (2006), “The Determinants of Capital Structure: Evidence from China,” China Economic Review, Vol. 17, pp.14-36.
20. Jensen, M. C., (1986), “Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers,” American Economic Review, Vol. 76, pp.323-329.
21. Jensen, M. C. and W. H. Meckling, (1976), “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3, pp.305-360.
22. Korajczyk, R. A. and A. Levy, (2003), “Capital Structure Choice: Macroeconomic Conditions and Financial Constraints,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 68, pp.75-109. 23. Levy, A. and C. Hennessy, (2007), “Why Does Capital Structure Choice Vary with Macroeconomic Conditions?” Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 54, pp.1545-1564.
24. Myers, S. C., (1984), “The Capital Structure Puzzle,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 39, pp.575-592.
25. Myers, S. C. and N. S. Majluf, (1984), “Corporate Financing and Investment Decisions when Firms Have Information that Investors Do Not Have,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 13, pp.187-221.
26. Shyam-Sunder, L. and S. Myers, (1999), “Testing Static Tradeoff Against Pecking Order Models of Capital Structure,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 51, pp. 219-244.
27. Smith, C. W., (1977), “Alternative Methods for Raising Capital: Rights versus Underwritten Offerings,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 5, pp.273-307.
28. Smith, C. W. and J. B. Warner, (1979), “On Financial Contracting,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 7, pp.117-161.
29. Titman, S. and R. Wessels, (1988), “The Determinants of Capital Structure Choice,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 43, pp.1-18.
30. Wald, J. K., (1999), “How Firm Characteristics Affect Capital Structure: an International Comparison,” Journal of Financial Research, Vol. 22, pp.161-187.
31. Yeh, H. H. and E. Roca, (2007), “The Impact of Financial Flexibility and Macroeconomic Conditions on Capital Structure Before and After Tax Integration:  Evidence from the Electronic Industries of Taiwan,” The 2007 Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand Conference, Gold Coast, Australia.