淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-2006200515450600
中文論文名稱 參進型態與創新活動―台灣電子業的實證研究
英文論文名稱 Entry Modes and Innovative Activity-Evidence from Taiwan's Electronics Firms
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 產業經濟學系碩士班
系所名稱(英) Department of Industrial Economics
學年度 93
學期 2
出版年 94
研究生中文姓名 江芳儀
研究生英文姓名 Fang-Yi Chiang
學號 692510109
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2005-05-23
論文頁數 55頁
口試委員 指導教授-楊志海
委員-邱俊榮
委員-陳明園
中文關鍵字 參進型態  創新活動 
英文關鍵字 Entry modes  Innovative activity  Spin-offs 
學科別分類 學科別社會科學經濟學
中文摘要 在充滿創新機會的台灣電子產業中,廠商的創新活動表現卻存在很大的差異。是什麼樣的因素使得高科技廠商的創新活動存在此種異質性?是否廠商參進型態的不同為導致高科技廠商在研發投資與專利行為等創新活動差異的一項重要因素?此外,不同型態參進者的創新活動決定因素是否相同?亦是本論文要討論的重點之一。
本文將電子業廠商的參進型態區分為spin-offs、科技集團多角化及全新參進三種類型,採用1998年至2003年股票上市之電子產業製造業廠商為樣本,共有1482個觀察值。利用計量方法實證檢驗廠商之參進型態是否會影響其創新活動之表現。
在考慮市場誘因、累積科技知識、制度環境和其他廠商特性四類因素後,相對於全新參進廠商而言,spin-offs廠商和科技集團多角化廠商的研發投資均較高,且spin-offs廠商的研發支出大於科技集團多角化廠商。在專利活動方面,本文估計出的研發對專利之彈性較以往台灣相關的研究為高;而有關參進型態與專利行為的估計結果,spin-offs廠商和科技集團多角化廠商的估計係數均為負向,顯示相對於全新參進廠商而言,在考慮研發投入之後,spin-offs廠商和科技集團多角化參進廠商的申請專利傾向反而較低。
最後,我們比較不同參進型態廠商間的研發決定因素與專利決定因素是否有差別。相對於專利活動,廠商的研發活動決定因素略有不同,但在專利決定因素的影響程度方面,spin-offs廠商與非spin-offs廠商二類的專利行為相當一致。
英文摘要 Engaged in rapidly changing and cumulative technologies, the build-up of a large portfolio of patents might enable new high-tech firms to negotiate and compete with leading firms. While we can see that the efforts devoted by high-tech firms differ substantially. One interesting and important issue arise that whether the differences in innovative activities arise from the different modes of entry that reflects the intangible entrepreneurship of the establishers? Moreover, this thesis also aims to investigate that whether the determinants of innovative activities differ for firms of different entry modes?
To investigate these issues addressed above, this study collects a dataset for 247 electronics firms that were publicly-listed on the Taiwan stock market over the 1998-2003 period. By classifying the entry modes of high-tech firms as spin-offs, diversification entry of high-tech enterprises group and whole new firms and employing the (count) panel data model, this thesis analyzes the relation between entry modes and innovative activities of high-tech firms.
The main empirical results are listed below. First, the R&D investment of both spin-offs firms and firms of diversification of high-tech enterprises group are significant higher than that of the whole new firms. In addition, the R&D investment of spin-offs firms is much more than firms which diversification entry of high-tech enterprises group. Second, the estimates of patenting behaviors show that the estimated coefficient for both spin-offs firms and firms which diversification entry of high-tech enterprises group are negative, implying that, after considering R&D investment, the tendency of patent application of spin-offs firms and firms which diversification entry of high-tech enterprises group are lower. Finally, we find that the determinants of patenting behaviors between spin-offs firms and non spin-offs are quite similar, despite that the determinants of R&D activities between spin-offs firms and non spin-offs are somewhat different.
論文目次 第一章 緒論 .............................................1
第一節 研究動機與目的 .................................1
第二節 研究對象及方法 .................................2
第三節 研究架構 .......................................3
第二章 文獻回顧 .........................................5
第一節 廠商研發投資的決定因素 .........................5
第二節 廠商專利行為的決定因素 .........................8
第三節 參進型態與創新活動 ............................10
第三章 實證模型與變數資料說明 ..........................16
第一節 研發活動的實證模型 ............................16
第二節 專利決定因素的實證模型 ........................20
第三節 估計方法 ......................................23
第四節 資料來源與變數基本統計量 ......................28
第四章 實證結果 ........................................34
第一節 參進型態對研發活動影響的實證結果 ..............34
第二節 參進型態對專利行為影響的實證結果 ..............40
第三節 不同參進型態廠商的創新決定因素 ................43
第五章 結論與檢討 ......................................47
第一節 結論 ..........................................47
第二節 研究限制與未來研究方向 ........................48
參考文獻 ................................................49

圖表目錄

《圖1-1》 研究架構圖 .......................................4
《表3-1》 行業標準分類 .....................................19
《表3-2》 變數的定義與衡量方式 .............................30
《表3-3》 變數的基本統計量 .................................31
《表3-3》 變數的基本統計量(續)............................32
《表3-4》 不同參進型態之創新活動差異的檢定 .................33
《表4-1》 研發活動估計式(應變數:lnRD)....................37
《表4-2》 研發活動估計式(應變數:RDR)....................39
《表4-3》 專利行為估計式(應變數:PATENT).................42
《表4-4》 研發決定因素估計式(SPINOFF vs. NON-SPINOFF)....45
《表4-5》 專利決定因素估計式(SPINOFF vs. NON-SPINOFF)....46


參考文獻 1. 梁玲菁(1988),我國資訊電子業研究與發展決定因素之研究,國立中興大學經濟研究所碩士論文。
2. 楊志海與陳忠榮(2001),「創新活動的投入,產出與效率-科學園區內外高科技廠商的比較」,台大管理論叢,台大管理學院出版,11:2,127-153頁。
3. 鄭嘉珮、劉錦添(1995),台灣廠商研究發展支出的分析,臺灣銀行季刊,第45卷,第2期,138-152頁。
4. 楊志海與陳忠榮(2001),「研究發展,技術引進與專利-一般動差法於可數追蹤資料的應用」,經濟論文叢刊,29:1,69-87頁。
5. 馬維揚(1997),影響我國高科技廠商研究發展因素之探討—以新竹科學園區為例,台灣經濟金融月刊,第33卷,第5期,75-91頁。
6. 梁玲菁(1988),我國資訊電子業研究與發展決定因素之研究,國立中興大學經濟研究所碩士論文。
7. 林惠玲、李顯峰(1996),台灣專利權數與R&D支出關係之研究—非負整數計量模型之應用,經濟論文,24:2,114-145頁。
8. Acs, Z. and D. Audretsch (1990), Innovation and Small Firms, MIT Press, Boston.
9. Audretsch, D.B. and Z.J. Acs (1991), Innovation and Size at the Firm Level, Southern Economic Journal, 67(3), 739-744.
10.Baysinger, B. and Hoskisson R. (1989), Diversification Strategy and R&D Intensity in Multiproduct Firms, Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 310-332.
11.Beaudry, C. and S. Breschi (2003), Are Firms in Clusters Really More Innovative?, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 12(4), 325-342.
12.Blundell, R., R. Griffith and J.V. Reenen (1995), Dynamic Count Data Models of Technological Innovation, Economic Journal, 105, 333-344.
13.Bowman E.H. and Helfat C.E. (2001), Does Corporate Strategic Matter?, Strategic Management Journal, 22(1), 1-24.
14.Branstetter, L.G. and M. Sakskibara (1998), Japanese Research Consortia: A Microeconometric Analysis of Industrial Policy, Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(2), 207-233.
15.Cardinal, L.B. and Opler T.C. (1995), Corporate Diversification and Innovative Efficiency: An Empirical Study, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19, 365-381.

16.Chang, S.L. and Singh H. (2000), An Evolutionary Perspective on Diversification and Corporate Restructuring: Entry, Exit and Economic Performance During 1981-1989, Strategic Management Journal, 17(8), 587-611.
17.Chen, J.R. and Yang, C.H (2005), Technological Capital, Spillover and Productivity-Evidence from Taiwanese Firm Level Panel Data. Applied Economics, Forthcoming.
18.Chesbrough, H. (2002), The Governance and Performance of Xerox’s Technology Spin-off Companies, Harvard Business School.
19.Cincera, M. (1997), Patents, R&D, and Technological Spillovers at the Firm Level: Some Evidence from Econometric Count Models for Panel Data, Journal of Applies Econometrics, 12, 265-280.
20.Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., Walsh, J.P., (2000), Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not), NBER Working Paper Series, No. 7552.
21.Cooper, A.C. (1985), The Role of Incubator Organizations in the Founding of Growth-Oriented firms, Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 75-86.
22.Crepon, B. and E. Duguet (1997), Estimating the Innovation Function from Patent Numbers: GMM on Count Panel Data, Journal of Applies Econometrics, 12, 243-263.
23.Dahl, M.S., C.Ø.R. Pedersen, and B. Dalum (2003), Entry by Spinoff in a High-Tech Cluster, DRUID working paper, 03/11, Alborg University.
24.Denis, D.J., Denis D.K. and Sarin A. (1997), Agency Problems, Equity Ownership and Corporate Diversification, The Journal of Finance, 52, 135-160.
25.Denis, D.J., Denis D.K. and Sarin A. (1999), Agency Theory and The Influence of Equity Ownership Structure On Corporate Diversification Strategies, Strategic Management Journal, 20, 1071-1076.
26.Dietrich, G.B. and D.V. Gibson (1990), New Business Ventures: The Spin-Out Process, in Williams, F. and D.V. Gibon (eds.), Technology Transfer – A Communication Perspective, SAGE Publications.
27.Doi, N. (1985), Diversification and R&D Activity in Japanese Manufacturing Firms, Managerial and Decision Economics, 6, 147-152.
28.Evenson, R.E. (1993), Patents, R&D and Invention Potential: International Evidence, American Economic Review, 83, 463-468.
29.Freeman, C. (1994), The Economics of Technological Change, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 18, 463-514.
30.Galbraith, J.K. (1956), American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervaling Power, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
31.Geroski, P.A. (1995), What Do We Know about Entry, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13(4), 421-440.
32.Goss, E. and G.S. Vozikis (1994), High-tech Manufacturing: Firm Size, Industry and Population Density, Small Business Economics, 6, 291-297.
33.Grabowski, H.G. and N.D. Baxer (1973), Rivalry in Industry Research and Development: An Empirical Study, Journal of Industrial Economics, 21, 209-235.
34.Griliches, Z. (1990), Patent Statistics as Economic Indicator, Journal of Economic Literature, 28, 1661-1707.
35.Hall, B.H. and R.H. Ziedonis (2001), The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the US Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995, Rand Journal of Economics, 32, 101-128.
36.Hausman, J.A., B.H. Hall and Z. Griliches (1984), Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patent-R&D Relationship, Econometrica, 52(4), 909-938.
37.Hausman, J.A., B.H. Hall and Z. Griliches (1986), Patents and R&D: Is There a Lag?, International Economic Review, 27, 265-283.
38.Helfat, C.E. and M.B. Lieberman (2002), The Birth of Capabilities and The Importance of Prehistory, Industrial and Corporate Change, 11, 725-760.
39.Hill, C.M.L. (1988), Internal Capital Control and Financial Performance in Multidivisional Firms, Journal of Industrial Economics, 37, 67-83.
40.Hill, C.M.L., Hitt M.A. and Hoskisson R.E. (1988), Declining US Competitiveness: Reflections on a Crises, Academy of Management Executive, 2, 151-160.
41.Himmelberg, C.P. and B.C. Peterson (1994), R&D and Internal Finance: A Panel Study of Small Firms in High-Tech Industries, Review of Economics and Statistics, 76, 38-51.
42.Hitt M.A., Hoskisson R.E. and Ireland R.D. (1990), Acquisitive Growth and Commitment to Innovation in M-Form Firms, Strategic Management Journal, 11, 29-47.
43.Hitt M.A., Hoskisson R.E., Johnson R.A. and Moesel D.D. (1996), The Market for Corporate Control and Firm Innovation, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1084-1119.
44.Holmstrom, B. (1989), Agency Cost and Innovation, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 12, 305-327.
45.Hoskisson, R.E., Hitt M.A. (1988), Strategic Control System and Relative R&D Intensity in Large Multiproduct Firms, Strategic Management Journal, 9, 605-621.
46.Howe, J.D. and D.G. McFetridge (1976), The Determinants of R&D Expenditures, Canadian Journal of Economics, 19, 57-71.
47.Jovanovic, B. (1982), Selection and Evolution of Industry, Econometrica, 50, 649-670.
48.Klepper, S. (2001), Employee Startups in High Tech Industries, Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 639-674.
49.Klette, T.J. and Z. Griliches (2000), Empirical Patterns of Firm Growth and R&D Investment: A Quality Ladder Model Interpretation, Economic Journal, 110, 363-387.
50.Kortum, S. and J. Lerner (1998), Stronger Protection or Technological Revolution: What is Behind The Recent Surge in Patenting?, Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 48, 247-304.
51.Levin, R.C., Klevorick, A.K., Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G., (1987), Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, 783-820.
52.Licht, G. and K. Zoz (1998), Patents and R&D, An Investigation Using Application for German, European and US Patent by German Companies, Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, 49/50, 329-360.
53.Lindelöf, P. and H. Löfsten (2003), Science Park Location and New Technology- Based Firms in Sweden–Implication for Strategy and Performance, Small Business Economics, 20, 245-258.
54.Lindholm, A. (1994), The Economics of Technology-Related Ownership Changes, Department of Industrial Management and Economics, Chalmers University, Göteborg, Sweden.
55.Loescher, S.M. (1984), Bureaucratic Measurement, Shuttling stock Shares and Shortened Time Horizon: Implications for Economic Growth, Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, 24(4), 1-23.
56.Markham, J.W. (1965), Market Structure, Business Conduct and Innovation, American Economic Review, 55, 323-333.
57.Metcalf, J.S. (1994), Evolutionary Economics and Technology Policy, Economic Journal, 104, 931-944.
58.Meyers, S. and D.G. Marquis (1969), Successful Industrial Innovation, Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.
59.Montalvo, J.G. (1993), “Patents and R&D at the Firm Level: A New Look,” Espanola de Economia, 67, 81-82.
60.Morwery, D. and N. Rosenberg (1979), The Influence of Market Demand upon Innovation: a Critical Review of Some Recent Empirical Studies, Research Policy, 8, 102-153.
61.Møen, J. (2002), Spin-offs and Spillovers: Tracing Knowledge by Following Employees across Firms, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration DP 05/02.
62.Myers, S.C. and Majulf N.S. (1984), Corporate Financing and Investment Decisions When Firms Have Information that Investors Do not Have, Journal of Financial Economics, 13(2), 187-221.
63.Pakes, A. and Z. Griliches (1984), Patents and R&D at the Firm Level: A First Look, in Z. Griliches (ed.), R&D, Patents and Productivity, National Bureau of Economic Research, University of Chicago Press.
64.Pavitt, K. and P. Patel (1988), The International Distribution of Determinants of Technological Activities, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 4, 35-55.
65.Pfirrmann, O. (1995), Path Analysis and Regional Development: Factors Affecting R&D in West German Small and Medium Sized Firms, Regional Studies, 29, 605-618.
66.Phillips, D.J. (2002), A Genealogical Approach to Organizational Life Changes: The Parent-Progeny Transfer among Silicon Valley Law Firms, 1946-1996, Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 474-506.
67.Roberts, E.B., and H.A. Wainer (1968), New Enterprises on Route 128, Science Journal, December.
68.Rosenberg, N. (1976), Perspective on Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
69.Scharfetein, D. and Stein J.C. (2000), The Dark Side of Internal Capital Market: Divisional Rent-Seeking and Inefficient Investment, The Journal of Finance, 55(6), 2537-2564.
70.Scharfstein, D. (1998), The Dark Side of Internal Capital Market: Evidence From Diversified Conglomerates, NBER Working Paper, No. 6352.
71.Scherer, F.M. (1965), Firm Size, Market Structure, Opportunity and Output of Patented Innovations, American Economic Review, 55, 1097-1125.
72.Scherer, F.M. (1980), Industry Market Structure and Economic Performance, 2nd. ed, Chicago: Rand Mcnally.
73.Scherer, F.M. (1982), Demand-Pull and Technological Innovation: Schmoolker Revisited, Journal of Industrial Economics, 30, 225-237.
74.Scherer, F.M. and D. Ross (1990), Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Ch17, 613-660.
75.Schmookler (1966), Innovation and Economic Growth, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
76.Schumpeter, J.A. (1942), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, NY: Harper.
77.Shin, H. and Stulz R. (1998), Are Internal Capital Market Efficient?, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113, 531-552.
78.Sleeper, S.D. (1998), The Role of Firm Capabilities in the Evolution of the Laser Industry: the Making of a High-Tech Market, Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University.
79.Sorensen, J. and T. Stuart (2000), Aging, Obsolescence and Organizational Innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 81-112.
80.Stein, J.C. (1997), Internal Capital Markets and The Competition for Corporate Resources, Journal of Finance, 52, 111-133.
81.Tallman, S. and Li J. (1996), Effects of International Diversity and Product Diversity on The Performance on Multinational Firms, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 179-196.
82.Teece, D.J. (1980), Economies of Scope and The Scope of The Enterprise, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 223-247.
83.Thompson, P. (2001), The Microeconomics of an R&D-Based Model of Endogenous Growth, Journal of Economic Growth, 6, 263-283.
84.Villard, H.H. (1958), Competition, Oligopoly and Research, Journal of Political Economics, 80, 190-207.
85.Walsh, V. (1984), Invention and Innovation in the Chemical Industry: Demand-Pull or Discovery-Push? Research Policy, 13, 211-234.
86.Walsh, S.T., B.A. Kirchhoff and R.L. Boylan (1996), Founder Backgrounds and Entrepreneurial Success: Implications for Core Competence Strategy Application to New Ventures, IN: P.D..
87.Westhead, P. (1997), R&D ‘Input’ and ‘Output’ of Technology-based Firms Located on and off Science Parks, R&D Management, 27(1), 45-62.
88.Wiggins, S. N. (1995), Entrepreneurial Enterprises, Endogenous Ownership and the Limits to Firm Size, Economic Inquiry, 33(1), 54-69.
89.Williamson, O.E. (1975), Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implication, New York: Macmillian Free Press.
90.Yang, Chih-Hai (2004), Do Stronger Patents in Length Induce More Patents: Evidence from Taiwan’s 1994 Patent Reform, presented at the 2nd International Conference of Japan Economic Policy Association, Nagoya University, Japan.
91.Yu, D.P., (1998), Analysis of IPRs Strategies for Firms Located in Hsinchu Science Industrial Park, Project Report, (in Chinese).

論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2006-06-28公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2006-06-28起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信