臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

「大中華經濟圈」狹義而言，係指中國、台灣與香港。由數據上顯示三邊無論就社會或經貿交流皆有著頻繁地互動關係。再者，由於市場廣大的誘因，中國已成為世界各國多國籍企業在海外直接投資上的最大「地主國」；而經濟整合相當成功的歐洲聯盟中，更因英國、法國、德國、荷蘭與義大利等會員國，已經成為中國15大之貿易對象。因此，本研究係以探究歐盟15國對大中華經濟圈各區域雙邊貿易影響之因素為本研究之首要目的。
在研究方法的選擇上，以Stone and Jeon (1999, 2000) 等學者所提倡之「引力模式」為檢測工具，檢驗雙邊貿易是否與兩國的經濟體成正向關係，與兩國間的地理或文化距離成反向關係。在變數的選擇上，除兩國間的國內生產毛額、人口、海外直接投資、文化距離外，本研究更加入了虛擬變數「殖民因素」來探究兩國或兩地間的貿易互動是否亦會受歷史上殖民關係的有無而影響。經實證結果，除了再次驗證「引力模式」適用於探究雙邊貿易外，更發現曾受殖民或統治的區域與該統治國，在比較之下確實會有較多的經貿關係，亦即類似「貿易區塊」的概念。

“Chinese Economic Area”(CEA) refers narrowly to Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. The statistical data shows that it has frequently interactions in trade and society among these three countries. Mainland China, due to its large market, has become the biggest “host country” for the foreign direct investment of multinational corporations. The members of European Union (EU), mainly including England, France, Germany, Netherlands, and Italy, which had successful economic integration, has become the biggest fifteen trade partners of China. According to this, the main purpose of this study is to discuss the factors, which the fifteen countries of the EU affect the bilateral trade on the regions of Chinese economic area.
The essential method of this study is the “gravity model”, advocated by Stone and Jeon(1999,2000), examining the positive correlativity between the bilateral trade and the two countries’ economies, and the negative correlativity between the bilateral trade and two countries’ distance in geography or in cultures. The variables of this study are the gross domestic product, population, foreign direct investment, and cultural distance. We added the dummy variable “colonization factor” as well, to discuss whether the colonization influences the trade between two countries or two regions. The result shows: (1) The gravity model is suitable for the bilateral trade and (2) The colony and the colonist countries will have more economical and trade relationships as the conception of “trade blocs”.

第一章 緒論…………………………………………………………………1
第一節 研究背景與動機……………………………………………………1
第二節 研究目的……………………………………………………………8
第三節 章節架構與研究流程………………………………………………9
第二章 文獻回顧……………………………………………………………13
第一節 區域經濟整合理論文獻回顧………………………………………13
第二節 引力模型之回顧……………………………………………………26
第三章 研究設計……………………………………………………………39
第一節 研究架構……………………………………………………………39
第二節 模型設定與研究假說………………………………………………40
第三節 變數定義與樣本選取………………………………………………43
第四節 統計分析方法………………………………………………………53
第四章 實證結果與分析……………………………………………………55
第一節 引力模型之驗證……………………………………………………55
第二節 貿易區塊之探究……………………………………………………64
第三節 本章小節……………………………………………………………69
第五章 結論與建議…………………………………………………………74
第一節 理論與實證上之貢獻………………………………………………74
第二節 研究限制……………………………………………………………75
第三節 後續研究建議………………………………………………………76
參考文獻 ……………………………………………………………………82

一、中文部分：
1.余明助（2000），「多國籍企業組織、策略與控制關係之研究－以台商海外子公司為例」，成功大學企業管理研究所博士論文。
2.林志宏（2000），「歐盟經濟整合模式對海峽兩岸政治整合的啟示」，「歐洲整合模式與兩岸糾紛之解決」研討會，中央研究院歐美研究所主辦。
3.林志宏、賴其勛、蔡翠旭與簡倍祥（2001），「台灣創投業之控制策略及其先行因子之研究」，科技管理學刊，第六卷第一期，頁71-103。
4.林昆良（1999），「歐洲經濟暨貨幣聯盟發展之研究」，中山大學中山學術研究所碩士論文。
5.林武郎、陳泰明與郭艾艾（1999），「中國大陸區域經濟的整合與產業發展」，行政院大陸委員會編。
6.林彩梅（1995），「多國籍企業論」，五南出版社。
7.孫啟能（1997），「我國多國籍企業內部網路連結型態與控制機制之研究」，大葉大學事業經營研究所碩士論文。
8.戚中衍（1995），「《大中華經濟圈》之研究」，中山大學中山學術研究所碩士論文。
9.郭錦婷（1999），「《引力模型》應用在雙邊貿易之分析－以亞太國家為例」，政治大學國際貿易研究所碩士論文。
10.黃登興、徐茂炫（1997），「殖民關係與貿易型態在台灣日據時期的驗證」，經濟論文叢刊，第25卷第3期，頁369-399。
11.張亞中（1998），歐洲統合：政府間主義與超國家主義的互動，台北：揚智。
12.張亞中（2000），「兩岸統合論」，台北：生智，頁246-268。
13.張亞中、李英明（2000），「中國大陸與兩岸關係概論」，台北：生智。
14.張清溪、許嘉棟、劉鶯釧與吳聰敏（1995），「經濟學理論與實際」（下冊），台北：漢蘆。
15.曾怡仁、張惠玲（2000），「區域整合理論的發展」，問題與研究，第39卷第8期。
16.曾紀幸、司徒達賢與于卓民（1999），「多國籍企業網路組織類型管理機制選擇之關係－在台外商公司之產品交易實證研究」，管理學報，第15卷第1期，頁1-26。
17.彭賜瑛（1993），「華南經濟圈之研究」，中山大學中山學術研究所碩士論文。
18.趙琪（2001），「資源控制與交易成本海外子公司控制機制之影響－台灣企業與大陸子公司之實證研究」，中山管理評論，第九卷第一期，頁87-109。
19.賴靜惠、陳燕鑾、吳文彬與李思亮等譯（1997），「商用統計學」，台北：文京。
二、英文部分：
1. Anderson, D.R., Sweeney, J., and Williams(1998),”Statistics for Business and Economics 7e”, South-Western College Publishing.
2. Arrindell W.A., Hatzichristou, C., Wensink, J., Rosenberg, E., Twillert, B., Stedema, J. and Meijer, D.(1997), “Dimensions of National Culture as Predictors of Cross-national Differences in Subjective Well-being,” Person, individ. Diff., Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.37-53.
3. Baldwin, R. and Wyplosz, C. (2000), “The Economics of European Integration,” Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, Ch. 3, pp.1-17
4. Barlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1989), “Managing Across Boarders,” Cambridge: HBS Press, M.A.
5. Bela Belassa(1961), “The Theory of Economic Integration,” Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, p1.
6. Clark, T. and Pugh, D.S.(2001), “Foreign Country Priorities in the Internationalization Process: A Measure and an Exploratory Test on British Firms,” International Business Review, Vol. 10, pp. 285-303.
7. Cui, G. (1998), “The Emergence of the Chinese Economic Area (CEA): A Regiocentric Approach to the Markets,” Multinational Business Review, spring, pp. 63-72.
8. Eichengreen, B. and Irwin, D.A.(1995), “Trade Blocs, Currency Blocs and the Reorientation of World Trade in the 1930s”, Journal of International Economics, Vol. 38, pp. 1-24.
9. Gencturk, E.F. and Aulakh, P.S. (1995), “The Use of Process and Output Controls in foreign Markets,” Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 755-786.
10. Ghoshal, S. and Nohria, N. (1989), “Internal Differentiation within Multinational Corporations,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol.10, No.4, pp. 323-338.
11. Hamilton, R.D. and Kashlak, R.J. (1999), “National Influences on Mulinational Corporation Control System Selection,” Management International Review, Vol. 39, February, pp. 167-189.
12. Hill, C.W.L. (1997), “International Business: Competing in the Global Marketplace,” Irwin Inc. co., USA.
13. Kogut, B. and Singh H. (1988), “The Effect of National Culture on the Choice of Entry Mode,” Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 411-431
14. Krueger, A.O (2000), “NAFTA’s effects: A Preliminary Assessment,” The World Economy, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 761-775.
15. Lin, X. and Germain, R. (1998), “Sustaining Satisfactory Joint Venture Relationship: The Role of Conflict-Resolution strategy,” Journal of International Business, Studies, 1st quarter.
16. Marchan, R., Welch, D. and Welch, L. (1996), “Control in Less-hierarchical Multinationals: The Role of Personal Networks and Informal Communication,” International Business Review, Vol. 5, No.2, pp. 137-150.
17. Mátyás, L.(1997), “Proper Economic Specification of the Gravity Model,” The World Economy, Vol. 20, pp. 363-369.
18. Mátyás, L.(1998), “The Gravity Model: Some Econometric Consideration,” The World Economy, Vol. 21, pp. 397-401.
19. Nirmalya, K.(1996), “The Power of Trust in Manufacturer-Retailer Relationship,” Harvard Business Review, 1996.
20. Nobel, R. and Birkinshaw, J. (1998), “Innovation in Multinational Corporations: Control and communication Patterns in International R&D Operations,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19, pp. 479-496.
21. Roth, K., Schweiger, D. and Morrison, A.J. (1991), “Global Strategy Implementation at the Business Unit Level: Operational Capabilities and Administrative Mechanism,” Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 22, No.3, pp. 361-394.
22. Snell, S.A. (1992), “Control Theory in Strategic Human Resource Management: the Mediating Effect of Administrative Information,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 292-327.
23. Stone, S.F. and Jeon, B.N. (1999), “Gravity-Model Specification for Foreign Direct Investment: A Case of the Asia-Pacific Economies,” Journal of Business and Economic Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1, Spring, pp. 33-42.
24. Stone, S.F. and Jeon, B.N. (2000), “Foreign Direct Investment and Trade in the Asia-Pacific Region: Complementary, Distance and Regional Economic Integration,” Journal of Economic Integration, Vol. 15, No. 3, September, pp. 460-485.
25. Wei, Y., Liu, X., Parker, D. and Vaidya K. (1999), “The Regional Distribution of Foreign Direct Investment in China,” Regional Studies, Vol. 33, No. 9, pp. 857-867.