臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

全球講究環保健康自然的風氣已是趨勢，有機產業順應而生，目前以歐洲地區發展最為蓬勃，台灣自1986年起，歴經籌備、試作、示範及推廣階段的發展，至今已有許多廠商加入生產或銷售同訴求的產品，市場型態已從獨占市場轉換為獨占性競爭市場，在民眾生活品質日益提高及愈發重視環保健康自然的大前題下，供給端也因應訴求呈現許多異質性產品，這正好是獨占性競爭市場的特質之一；本文對具有發展前景的有機產業，就獨占廠商在多家分店（分支數或品牌數）、獨占性競爭的多家廠商（分支數或品牌數）生產單一產品，及完全競爭市場三種不同市場結構進行價格、產量及分支數(品牌數)、社會福利的比較；第一階段將以賽局理論（game theory）找出最適分支數(品牌數)，第二階段探討價格競爭。以倒推法求解，首先求得第二階段價格競爭，再探討不同市場結構下的最適分支數(品牌數)。
分支數的大小存在著一個替代性指標之臨界點 ，臨界點介於0與1之間，雖然 不是一個確切的數值，但透過假設的數進行比較，大小的排序是可以知道的；探討的結果顯示，當產品之替代性很小時，獨占之分支數小於獨占性競爭小於完全競爭；相反地，替代性很大時分支數的大小排序依次為獨占、獨占性、完全競爭。跳開經濟學對產品替代性與市場型態的介紹，回到現實生活中的農糧品或必需品來看，它是有可能存在的。
很湊巧地，本文的探討剛好說明了某個案公司在台灣有機產業的初期推動的過程階段中，扮演近似政府功用的角色，對產出有困難之農民酌量補貼或提供資材、技術，鼓勵農民耕種之意願，並以獨特方式的行銷通路，幫助有機農民解決辛苦耕耘和不成比例的收成問題，這樣效率反而比較好，也增加農民續種有機蔬菜的信心，台灣的有機產業從跌跌撞撞的走到現在各家廠商崢嶸的景象，從不可能走向可能，開啟有機產業的市場，普及嘉惠廣大民眾。

With demand for environment-friendly, healthy, and natural foods now a global trend, organic foods have become a booming industry. Currently, Europe has the best developed organic foods industry. Since 1986, Taiwan has undergone a developmental process of preparation, testing, demonstration, and promotion, with the result that there are now a large number of vendors producing and selling products to meet the homogenous market demand. For this reason, the market has now moved from its former monopoly market state to its current monopolistic competitive market state. To meet the general public’s rising qualities of life and heightening expectations for environment-friendly, healthy, and natural foods, suppliers have responded with a large variety of heterogeneous organic products. This happens to be a key characteristic of a monopolistic competition market. Using the organic foods industry as a starting point, this paper compares the pricing, output, store branch or brand numbers, and social welfare differences between monopoly markets (with multiple store branches or brands), monopolistic competitive markets (with multiple store branches or brands) that produce a single product, and perfectly competitive markets. The first stage of this paper uses the game theory to identify the optimal number of store branches (brand numbers), and the second stage to study price competition. To backward method for solving first obtained the second stage of price competition, and then investigate the optimal number of branches in the different market structures (brand numbers).
Store branch numbers have a substitution indicator critical point that falls between 0 and 1. Although this critical point is not an exact value, we can make certain assumptions to determine store branch numbers under different market conditions. Results show that when a product has small levels of substitution, the numbers of store branches are greatest for perfectly competitive markets, and smallest for monopoly markets. Conversely, when a product’s substitution levels are high, the ranking of store branch numbers are (from great to small), monopoly markets, monopolistic competition markets, and perfectly competitive markets. If we step away from economic theories regarding product substitution and market types, and view these products as agricultural goods or necessities, there is empirical evidence that the results above apply under actual market conditions.
Coincidentally, the results of this study mirror the efforts of a particular organic foods chain in Taiwan, which in its initial stage of operations played an approximate government role in that they paid subsidies or provided inputs or technologies to encourage farmers’ willingness to farm. Also, they used unique marketing channels to aid organic foods farmers in lowering disproportional profit gains. This was not only more efficient, but also boosted farmer confidence in the production of organic vegetables; thus were numerous obstacles overcome, and the doors to the Taiwanese organic foods market opened to provide a better way of life for the general public.

摘要…………………………………………………………………………I
英文摘要…………………………………………………………………II
目錄………………………………………………………………………IV

第一章 緒論 …………………………………………………1
第一節 研究背景……………………………………………1
第二節 研究動機……………………………………………2
第三節 研究目的……………………………………………3
第四節 研究流程及本文架構………………………………4
第二章 文獻回顧 ……………………………………………6
第一節 獨占市場……………………………………………6
第二節 獨占性競爭市場……………………………………7
第三節 完全競爭市場 ……………………………………10
第四節 價格競爭 …………………………………………11
第三章 模型假設……………………………………………14
第一節 基本假設 …………………………………………14
第二節 賽局模型 …………………………………………14
第四章 比較分析 ……………………………………………26
第一節 價格數量比較………………………………………26
第二節 分支數比較…………………………………………26
第五章 結論與建議 …………………………………………29
第一節 結論…………………………………………………30
第二節 建議…………………………………………………31
參考文獻 ………………………………………………………32

一、中文部分
1、《今周刊》，782期（2011年12月）。
2、〈全球化經濟〉《台灣經濟研究月刊》，24卷6期（2011年6月）。
3、《有機．光復大地見生機》（台灣：福智之聲出版社，2006年1月一版一刷）。
4、朱梓維，〈有機農業經營模式之探討 ﹣以里仁有機商店供應鏈為例〉，（2010年7月）。
5、林芝嫻，〈政府政策對獨占廠商的影響〉，（2008年7月）。
6、陳正倉、林惠玲、陳忠榮、莊春發，《產業經濟學》（台灣：雙葉書廊有限公司，2011年2月二版）。
7、《商業周刊》，1270期（2012年3月）。
8、曾倩誼，〈市場大小、廠商規模與貿易之研究〉，（2009年7月）。
9、張榕娠，〈創新與模仿：價格競爭與數量競爭〉，（2008年7月）。
10、楊明憲，《個體經濟101》（台灣：滄海書局，2009年1月初版三刷）。
11、葉堯俊，〈台灣生機食品行銷策略 ﹣以個案公司為例〉，（2009年7月）。
12、蔡精強，〈台灣有機農業發展概況與前景〉，（2009年5月）。
二、英文部分
1.Carroll,A. B.,”A Three-dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance,” The Academy of Management Review, (1979), 4(4), pp497-505
2.Chang, M. C., Peng, H. P., and Chang, T. H., ”Comparison of Cournot Monopolistic Competition and Monopoly with Differentiated Products: A Viewpoint of Ramsey Quantity-Variety Pairs.” 2011台灣經濟學年會.
3.Chang, M. C., ”An Asymmetric Oligopolist can Improve Welfare by Raising Price,” Review of industrial Organization, (2010), 36(1), pp75-96.
4.Chang, M. C., and Peng, H. P., “Structure Regulation, Price Structure, Cross Subsidization and Marginal Cost of Public Funds,” The Manchester School, 77(6), 675698.
5.Dixit, A. K. and Stiglitz, J. E., “Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity,” American Economic Review, (1977), 67(3), pp297-308.
6.Dixit, A., ”A model of duopoly suggesting a theory of entry barriers.” Bell Journal of Economics, (1979), 10 (1), pp20-32.
7. Koh, W. T. H., “Market Competition, Social Welfare in an Entry-Constrained Differentiated-Good Oligopoly,” Economics Letters, (2008), 100(2), pp229-233.
8. Spence, A. M., “Product Selection, Fixed Costs, and Monopolistic Competition,” Review of Economic Studies, (1976) 43(2), pp217-236.
9. Shaked, A. and J. Sutton, “Relaxing price competition through product differentiation,” Review of Economic Studies, (1982) 49, pp3-13.
10. Singh, N. and X. Vives,. “Price and quantity competition in a differentiated duopoly,” RAND Journal of Economics,（1984）15, pp.546-554.
11. Stiglitz, J. E., “Potential Competition May Reduce Welfare,” American Econmic Review. Papers and Proceedings, (1981), 71(2), pp184-189.
12. Tirole, J. The theory of industrial organization, (1988). Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
13. Wauthy, X., “Quality Choice in Models of Vertical Differentiation,” Journal of Industrial Economics , (1996), 44(3).