臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

廠商規模、技術能量與經濟成長－台灣實證研究
研究生：賴明彥 指導教授：劉孟俊 博士
徐耀南 博士
中文摘要
台灣向來以經濟體系中有眾多的中小企業著稱。在台灣的經濟體系中，中小企業不論是家數、產值、就業量或是出口創造外匯，一直都扮演著相當重要的角色。雖然過去學者對中小企業與台灣經濟發展的關係都沒有一致的看法，但無庸置疑的中小企業確實是台灣生產以及貿易面的重要部門，直接與間接的促成台灣經濟發展的「奇蹟」。
本研究利用1994年到2000年，台灣23縣市的資料，用以驗證當交易效率改變時，廠商規模將會如何變動。並且結合廠商規模、交易效率與技術能量等變數，探討對經濟表現的影響方向為何？
本研究之實證結果顯示交易效率確實會影響廠商規模，進而藉由改變廠商規模來影響經濟表現；而廠商規模大小對平均家計所得是存在顯著的負向關係，表示廠商規模較小對經濟表現是有利的。當交易效率水準提升與技術能量適時的投入，所帶來的益處對整個經濟體系是有利的。
關鍵詞：廠商規模；技術能量；交易效率；經濟表現

Firm size, Technological Capacity and Economic Performance
Graduate: Ming-Yan Lai Advisor: Dr. Weng-Chun Liu
Dr. Yao -Nan Hsu
Abstract
Taiwan has always been known for its economic system, when consists of a number of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). In this system, SMEs have constantly played a crucial role in terms of number, production value, employment, or generating foreign exchange. In spite of the fact that scholars in the past never reached at any conclusion in agreement on how SMEs are related to Taiwan’s economic development, doubtlessly SMEs indeed served as a vital department towards the production and trade in Taiwan, thus directly or indirectly bring about Taiwan’s so-called “economic miracle”.
In this paper, we use the data of 23 counties in Taiwan from 1994 to 2000 to test the variability of firm’s size when the transaction efficiency change, and base on the variables of firm’s size, transaction efficiency, and technological capacity to investigate the affect of economic performance.
The empirical results in this paper indicate that the transaction efficiency indeed has a significantly positive impact on firm’s size, and by adjust the firm’s size to affect the economic performance. The firm’s size has negative effect to the average of household income. In the other hand, small firm’s size is more advantageous to economic performance. Finally, we find that improve the standard of transaction and input the technological capacity appropriately is more benefit (or profitable) to the whole economy.
Keyword: firm size；technological capacity；transaction efficiency； economic performance.

目 錄
頁次
第一章 續論………………………………………………………..1
第一節 研究動機與目的…………………………………………1
第二節 研究方法…………………………………………………3
第三節 論文結構………………………………………………..4
第二章 文獻回顧………………………………………………....7
第一節 交易成本與廠商規模………………………………....7
第二節 廠商規模與經濟成長……………………………………13
第三節 人力資本與經濟成長……………………………………19
第四節 研究發展與經濟成長…………………………………..22
第五節 小節………………………………………………………23
第三章 實證模型……………………………………………………24
第一節 資料來源與研究期間……………………………………24
第二節 實證模型…………………………………………………25
第四節 實證分析方法……………………………………………35
第五節 最適Panel data 模型的檢定………………………….44
第四章 迴歸結果分析……………………………………………..47
第一節 交易效率與廠商規模之實證結果………………………48
第二節 廠商規模與技術能量影響家計所得之迴歸結果……..50
第五章 結論與研究限制…………………………………………..57
第一節 結論………………………………………………………57
第二節 研究限制與未來方向……………………………………59
參考文獻………………………………………………………………61

參考文獻
一、 中文部分
1.李秀雲、何嫈嫈 (1999) 「人力資本與內生成長-亞洲四小龍和日本的
時間序列分析」
2.余建源 (2001)，台灣戰後的經濟成長與技術進步初探，國立台灣大學
經濟學研究所碩士論文。
3.莊希豐 (1999)，「國內外人力資本與經濟成長─ 臺灣實證分析」，
淡江人文社會學刊，(4)，pp.65-90。
4.周麗娟 (1993)，人力資源與經濟成長— 臺灣之實證分析，國立中央
大學產業經濟研究所碩士論文。
5.鄭雅綺 (1996)，經濟成長與各縣市之成長差異，國立台灣大學經濟學
研究所碩士論文。
6.黃仁德、趙振瑛 (1997)，「人力資本對台灣經濟成長貢獻的評
估」 ，勞資關係論叢，(6)，pp.93-160。
7.莊希豐 (1998)，「臺灣人力資本與經濟成長之分析」，臺灣銀行季
刊，49(3)，pp.243-63。
8.吳東明 (2002)，「中國大陸技術進步與經濟增長關係之研究」，淡江
大學大陸研究所碩士論文。
9.莊希豐、蔡宗豪 (1998)，「政府支出與經濟成長應用於亞太地區」，
台灣企銀季刊，21(4)。
10.陳俊良 (2000) ，「電子商務的發展對中小企業國際化的影響」，國
立臺灣大學國際企業學研究所碩士論文。
二、英文部分
1. Acs, Mocrk and Yeung (1999) "Productivity Growth and Firm Size Distribution," in Acs, Carlsson, and Karlsson, eds., Entrepreneurship, Small & Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Macroeconomy, chapter 13, 367-396, Cambridge University Press.
2. Acs,Z.J.(1992)”Small Business Economic :A Global Perspective, “Challenge,
Nov.-Dec, 35:6, 38-44.
3. Acs, Z. J., and Lee Preston (1997) "Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Technology; and Globalization: Introduction to Special Issue on Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in the Global Economy," Small Business Economics, 9:1, 1-6.
4. Aghion, P. and P. Howitt (1992), "A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction" Econometrica, Vol 60, No. 2, pp 323-351.
5. Alchian, A. and Woodward, H., (1988), “Production, information costs and economic organization,” American Economic Review 62,777-95.
6. Barro, J. Robert. (1990)“Government Spending in a simple model of Endogenous Growth.” Journalof Political Economy, 98(5), partⅡ, pp. S103-25.
7. Barro, J. Robert. (2001) “Human Capital and Growth.” American Economic
Review, (Papers and Proceedings), 91(2), pp. 12-17.
8. Benhabib, Jess and Spiegel, M. Mark. (1994) “The Role of Human Capital in Economic Development: Evidence from Aggregate Cross-Country Data.” Journal of Monetary Economics, October, 34(2), pp. 143-74.
9. Bernanke, S. Ben and Gürkaynak, S. Refet.(2001) “Is Growth Exogenous? Taking Mankiw, Romer and Weil Seriously.” National Bureau of Economic Research (Cambridge, MA) Working Paper No. 8365.
10. Bils, Mark and Klenow, J. Peter. (2000) “Does Schooling Cause Growth？”
American Economic Review, 90(5), pp. 1160-83.
11. Coase, R. H., (1937),“The nature of the firm,”Economic 4, 386-405.
12. Dixit and Stiglitz (1997) "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity," The American Economic Reviews , 67, 297-308.
13. Etsuro Shioji. (2001)“Public Capital and Economic Growth: A Convergence
Approach.” Journal of Economic Growth, 6(3), pp. 205-27.
14. Ethier (1982) "National and International Return to scale in the Modern Theory of
International Trade," The American Economic Reviews, 72:3, 389-405
15. Fujita and Krugman(1995) "When is the Economy Monocentric: von Thunen and
Chamberlin Unified," Regional Science & Urban Economics, 25, 505-528
16. Greene, H. William.(2000) Econometric Analysis. New Jersey: Pretice —Hall, Inc.
17. Hall, E. Robert and Jones, I. Charles. (1999) “Why Do Some Countries Produce
So Much More Output Per Worker Than Others?” Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 114(1), pp. 83-116.
18. Islam, Nazrul.(1995) “Growth Empirics: A Panel Data Approach.” Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 110(4), pp. 1127-70.
19. Krugman, Paul. (1994) “The Myth of Asia’s Miracle.” Foreign Affairs. , 73(6),
pp. 62-78.
20. Liu and Yang (2000) "The theory of irrelevance of size of the firm," Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 42:2 145-165.
21. Lucas, Robert E. Jr. (1978) “On the Size Distribution of Business Firms,” The Bell
Journal of Economics, 9, 508-523.
22. Mankiw, N. Gregory, Romer, David and Weil, N. David. (1992) “A Contribution
to the Empirics of Economics Growth.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2),
pp. 402-37.
23. Milgrom, P., and Robert, J.,( 1992), “Bargaining costs, influence costs, and the
organization of economic activity,”in Alt, J. E. and Shepste K. A., eds., Perspectives on Positive Political Economy, University Press, Cambridge.
24. Romer, Paul（1986）,"Increasing Returns and Long Run Growth." Journal of Political Economy, 90(6): 1002-37
25. Romer, Paul（1990）,"Endogenous Technological Change," Journal of Political
Economy 98, S71-S102.
26. Schumpeter, Joseph A., (1934) The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Sinica.
27. Schumpeter, Joseph A., (1942) Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, New York, MA: Harper and Row.
28. Shaffer, Economics Letters 76 (2002) 195-2030.
29. Stokey, N. L. (1988), "Learning by Doing and the Introduction of New Goods",
Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 96, pp 701-717
30. Zhang (2001) "Scale Effects Versus Theory of Irrelevance of the Size of the Firm:
Empirical Evidence, " International Symposium of Economics of e-Commerce and Networking Decisions, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.