(3.235.191.87) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/13 04:43
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:王曉雯
研究生(外文):Hsiao-Wen Wang
論文名稱:跨組織關係之研究:盜用、轉撥計價與供應鏈合作
論文名稱(外文):Misappropriation, Transfer Pricing and Supply Chain Coordination
指導教授:王泰昌王泰昌引用關係
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:會計學研究所
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:會計學類
論文種類:學術論文
畢業學年度:92
語文別:英文
論文頁數:124
中文關鍵詞:供應鏈合作資訊分享垂直分工Nash談判解盜用轉撥計價
外文關鍵詞:Supply chain coordinationNash bargaining solutionTransfer pricingMisappropriationInformation sharingVertical disintegration
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:207
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
論文提要

本論文聚焦於代工關係中,承包商投機行為如何影響契約主之外包決策與資訊分享策略。在論文的第一部份,即論文的第3章,作者延伸Baiman和Rajan (2002b) 的模式;分析契約主如何在承包商較佳的生產效率與盜用可能性之間進行取捨,並據以決定最佳的自製外包決策。研究結果顯示,當有盜用風險,契約主對於是否將創新資訊揭露給承包商知曉存在著兩個門檻。此項發現一般化Baiman和Rajan (2002b) 一個揭露門檻之研究結論。作者因此建議,只有當投入研發活動所獲得的創新落入兩個門檻之內,契約主才會有誘因與承包商組成有效率的協同供應鏈。本章的結論顯然可以為常見之實務現象-公司策略選擇外包低階產品並且自行生產高階產品,提供適當的學理解釋。另一方面,當契約主具有自行製造產品能力,作者探討契約主的此項能力對於契約主-承包商關係之策略意涵。本章亦將訴訟議題引入分析模型內,並且檢驗承包商之潛在盜用行為對於契約主自製外包決策的影響效果。第3章其餘的研究結果有:(1)當不存在資訊盜用風險,無論是締約雙方或是整個社會,將因契約主採取較有效率的協同供應鏈策略(外包新產品)而獲益。簡言之,在供應鏈內,採取”垂直分工”的生產方式將較採用”垂直整合”者有效率。(2)當存在盜用風險時,無論是契約主的夥伴關係決策,或者是締約雙方之相關投資決策,在與社會最適水準相比較後,確實顯示著扭曲現象。此項論點與Verrecchia (1983) 一致,即契約主會考量揭露創新資訊之相關財產成本後,再行決定是否將創新資訊分享給承包商知曉。締約雙方的談判力亦將因存在著資訊盜用風險而發生變化。(3)與Cachon and Fisher (2000) 以及諸多實務倡導者的論點一致,作者強調,資訊分享在協同供應鏈內扮演著相當重要角色,即資訊分享可有效減緩締約雙方的誘因扭曲問題,並且進一步提昇供應鏈之整體績效。此外,作者建議,施政者若能嚴格立法並且貫徹執行以充分保障契約主的創新成果,社會福趾則可因此而增進。(4)相較於沒有自行製造產品之能力,研究結果顯示,契約主具有此項能力時,將會有誘因進行較多的R&D投資。
在論文的第二部份,即論文的第4章,作者將承包商視為一家採取完全分權的組織,並且據以延伸第3章之分析模型。作者發展一個資訊不對稱模型,將契約主之創新活動、承包商的投機行為與轉撥計價制度整合進供應鏈架構之內。作者使用這個模型來檢視各種不同轉撥計價制度對於供應鏈合作的影響效果,並且進一步比較變動成本轉撥計價制度和完全成本轉撥計價制度的優劣。第4章的研究結果為:(1)當締約雙方存在誘因問題時,供應鏈將會發生資訊扭曲、無效率交易和投資不足等現象。這些因為誘因問題所引發的不良後果,在完全成本轉撥計價制度下將更形惡化。換言之,變動成本轉撥計價制度較能減緩供應鏈內各個締約者之誘因問題。(2)除潛在盜用風險,承包商的會計制度和會計方法選擇亦將會影響契約主的外包決策,並進一步影響整個供應鏈之績效。(3)變動成本轉撥計價制度於達成供應鏈合作上將較完全成本轉撥計價制度為佳。
總而言之,本論文建議契約主將會把一些重要的因素,如(1)締約雙方之相對生產效率,(2)創新的內含價值,(3)承包商之盜用可能性,和(4)承包商採行之會計制度等,納入整體決策考量後,再行決定最佳之外包策略。上述結論與交易成本經濟理論之論點一致。
Misappropriation, Transfer Pricing and Supply Chain Coordination

Opportunism on the part of the subcontractor in a contractor-subcontractor relationship is the focus of research in this dissertation. In the first part of the dissertation, chapter 3, we extend Baiman and Rajan (2002b) with an incorporation of contractors’ internal production option and study how contractors’ make/buy decisions are affected by subcontractors’ superior production efficiency and misappropriation. We show that there exist two thresholds in the contractor’s innovation disclosure strategy when incorporating an internal production capability for the contractor. This generalizes the result of Baiman and Rajan (2002b). Specifically, the contractor will organize an efficient coordinated supply chain only when innovations fall between the two thresholds. Our results explain why firms strategically outsource low-end products and produce high-end products themselves in practice. We also explore the implications for contractor-subcontractor relationships when alternative manufacturing sources are introduced into the supply chain. In addition, we incorporate the legal environment and examine the impact of subcontractors’ opportunism on contractors’ make/buy decision in that context. The results are as follows. Our baseline case shows that in the absence of misappropriation, both the contracting parties and society can benefit from organizing a coordinated supply chain and employing an outsourcing strategy. In addition, it is a more efficient way to adopt the production pattern of vertical disintegration for supply chains. Second, the contractor’s choice of relationships and each party’s investment decisions are socially suboptimal when the possibility of misappropriation exists. Third, our results explain the role of information sharing in improving the performance of the supply chain. We show that stricter legislation to protect the contractor’s innovations will increase social welfare. Finally, we show that introducing a capability to produce in-house increases the incentive for the contractor to invest more in R&D activities.
In the second part of the dissertation, we extend the scenario of chapter 3 and consider the subcontractor as a decentralized firm. We propose an asymmetric model to study the role of transfer pricing schemes in coordinated supply chain. We use the model to examine the impact of various transfer pricing schemes on supply chain efficiency. Specifically, we conduct a performance comparison between the variable-cost transfer pricing scheme and the full-cost transfer pricing scheme. The results of chapter 4 indicate that there exist information distortions, inefficient trades and holdup problems in the supply chain when incentive problems exist among the contracting parties. Second, we suggest that in addition to the misappropriation, the subcontractor’s accounting system and accounting choices will affect the contractor’s sourcing decisions, and in turn, influence the supply chain performance. Third, we find that the variable-cost transfer pricing scheme performs better in achieving the supply chain coordination.
Generally speaking, the key message delivered in this dissertation is that contractors will take some crucial factors into account in deciding their own make/buy and sourcing decisions. Such relevant factors include the relative production efficiency of contracting parties, the underlying value of innovation, the possibility of subcontractors’ misappropriation, and subcontractors’ accounting choices.
Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction………….……………..…….…….………………………...1

Chapter 2 Literature Review……...……………….……..……………………….10

2.1 Researches on supply chains…………………………….…….……………….10

2.2 Researches on transfer pricing………………………………..………………..17

2.3 Researches on transfer pricing and supply chain coordination…………..….23

Chapter 3 Opportunism in Inter-firm Relationships: Make or Buy and
Supply Chain Coordination

3.1 Introduction…..……………………………….………….……………..…..…..25

3.2 The model…………………………………………….…….…………………....30

3.3 The equilibrium analysis………….……………………..……………..………37

3.4 Concluding remarks………………………………………….………...………55


Chapter 4 The Role of Transfer Pricing Schemes in Coordinated Supply Chains

4.1 Introduction……………………………….…………….………………………57

4.2 The model………………………..………………………………………….…...61

4.3 The equilibrium analysis……………………………………….………………71

4.4 Concluding remarks……………………………………………..……………...95

Chapter 5 Conclusion……………………………….………………..…………….97

5.1 Discussion…………………………….……………………………….…………97

5.2 Research limitation and suggestion for future study…………………….…...99


Appendix of chapter 3……………………………………..………………………100

Appendix of chapter 4……………………………………..………………………109

References………………………………………..………………….………….…..117
References
Alles, M., and S. Datar. 1998. Strategic Transfer Pricing. Management Science 44 (4): 451-461.
Amershi, A. H., and P. Cheng. 1990. Intrafirm Resource Allocation: The Economics of Transfer Pricing and Cost Allocations in Accounting. Contemporary Accounting Research 7 (1): 61-99.
Anctil, R. M., and S. Dutta. 1999. Negotiated Transfer Pricing and Divisional vs. Firm-wide Performance Evaluation. The Accounting Review 74 (1): 87-104.
Anderson, S. W., D. Glenn, and K. L. Sedatole. 2000. Sourcing Parts of Complex Products: Evidence on Transactions Costs, High-powered Incentives and Ex-post Opportunism. Accounting, Organizations and Society 25: 723-749.
Andersson, J., and J. Marklund. 2000. Decentralized Inventory Control in a Two-level Distribution System. European Journal of Operational Research 127: 483-506.
Baiman, S., P. E. Fischer, and M. V. Rajan. 2000. Information, Contracting, and Quality Costs. Management Science 46 (6): 776-789.
Baiman, S., P. E. Fischer, and M. V. Rajan. 2001. Performance Measurement and Design in Supply Chains. Management Science 47 (1): 173-188.
Baiman, S., and M. V. Rajan. 2002 (a). Incentive Issues in Inter-firm Relationships. Accounting, Organizations and Society 27: 213-238.
Baiman, S., and M. V. Rajan. 2002 (b). The Role of Information and Opportunism in the Choice of Buyer-Supplier Relationships. Journal of Accounting Research 40 (2): 247-278.
Baldenius, T. 2000. Intrafirm Trade, Bargaining Power, and Specific Investments. Review of Accounting Studies 5: 27-56.
Baldenius, T., N. Melumad, and S. Reichelstein. 2003. Integrating Managerial and Tax Objectives in Transfer Pricing. Working Paper.
Baldenius, T., S. Reichelstein, and S. A. Sahay. 1999. Negotiated versus Cost-Based Transfer Pricing. Review of Accounting Studies 4: 67-91.
Binmore, K., A. Rubinstein, and A. Wolinsky. 1986. The Nash Bargaining Solution in Economic Modeling. Rand Journal of Economics 17 (2): 176-188.
Bockem, S., and U. Schiller. 2004. Transfer Pricing and Hold-ups in Supply Chains. German Economic Review 5(2): 211-230.
Buzzell, R. D., and G. Ortmeyer. 1995. Channel Partnerships Streamline Distribution. Sloan Management Review 36(3): 85-95.
Cachon, G. P. 2003. Supply Chain Coordination with Contracts. Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, 11: Supply Chain Management: Design, Coordination and Operation (A. G. De Kok and S. C. Graves, eds.). North-Holland.
Cachon, G. P. 2004. The Allocation of Inventory Risk in a Supply Chain: Push, Pull, and Advance-Purchase Discount Contracts. Management Science 50 (2): 222-238.
Cachon, G. P., and M. Fisher. 2000. Supply Chain Inventory Management and the Value of Shared Information. Management Science 46 (8): 1032-1048.
Cachon, G. P., and P. T. Harker. 2002. Competition and Outsourcing with Scale Economies. Management Science 48 (10): 1314-1333.
Cachon, G. P., and M. Lariviere. 2001. Contracting to Assure Supply: How to Share Demand Forecasts in a Supply Chain. Management Science 47 (5): 629-646.
Canel, C., and B. M. Khumawala. 1997. Multi-period International Facilities Location: An Algorithm and Application. International Journal of Production Research 35 (7): 1891-1910.
Chen, F. 1999. Decentralized Supply Chains Subject to Information Delays. Management Science 45 (8): 1076-1090.
Chen, F., Z. Drezner, J. K. Ryan, and D. Simchi-Levi. 2000. Quantifying the Bullwhip Effect in a Simple Supply Chains: The Impact of Forecasting, Lead Times, and Information. Management Science 46 (3): 436-443.
Chopra S., and P. Meindl. 2001. Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning, and Operation. Prentice Hall.
Clemons, E. K., and L. M. Hitt. 2001. Poaching and the Misappropriation of Information: An Analysis of Relationship Risks in Information-Intensive Production. Working Paper, University of Pennsylvania.
Cooper, R., and R. Slagmulder. 2004. Interorganizational cost management and relational context. Accounting, Organizations and Society 29: 1-26.
Croom, S., P. Romano, and M. Giannakis. 2000. Supply Chain Management: An Analytical Framework for Critical Literature Review. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 6: 67-83.
Das, T. K., and B. Teng. 1998. Resource and Risk Management in the Strategic Alliance Making Process. Journal of Management 24 (1): 21-43.
Dekker, H. C. 2003. Value Chain Analysis in Interfirm Relationships: A Field Study. Management Accounting Research 14: 1-23.
Demski, J. S., and D. E. Sappington. 1993. Sourcing with Unverifiable Performance Information. Journal of Accounting Research 31 (1): 1-20.
Edlin, A. S., and S. Reichelstein. 1995. Specific Investment Under Negotiated Transfer Pricing: An Efficiency Result. The Accounting Review 70 (2): 275-291.
Edlin, A. S., and S. Reichelstein. 1996. Holdups, Standard Breach Remedies, and Optimal Investment. American Economic Review 86 (3): 478-501.
Emmons, H., and S. Gilbert. 1998. Returns Policies in Pricing and Inventory Decisions for Catalogue Goods. Management Science 44 (2): 276-283.
Ernst & Young. 2003. Transfer Pricing 2003 Global Survey.
Fisher, M., K. Ramdas, and Y.-S. Zheng. 2001. Ending Inventory Valuation in Multiperiod Production Scheduling. Management Science 45 (5): 679-692.
Gavirneni, S., R. Kapuscinski, and S. Tayur. 1999. Value of Information in Capacitated Supply Chains. Management Science 45 (1): 16-24.
Ghosh, D. 2000. Complementary Arrangements of Organizational Factors and Outcomes of Negotiated Transfer Price. Accounting, Organizations and Society 25: 661-682.
Gilley, K. M., C. R. Greer, and A. A. Rasheed. 2004. Human Resource Outsourcing and Organizational Performance in Manufacturing Firms. Journal of Business Research 57(3), 232-240.
Gjerdrum, J., N. Shah, and L. G. Papageorgiou. 2002. Fair Transfer Price and Inventory Holding Policies in Two-enterprise Supply Chains. European Journal of Operational Research 143: 582-599.
Greco, J. 1997. Outsourcing: The New Partnership. The Journal of Business Strategy 18 (4): 48-54.
Halperin, R. M., and B. Srinidhi. 1991. U.S. Income Tax Transfer-Pricing Rules and Resource Allocation: The Case of Decentralized Multinational Firms. The Accounting Review 66 (1): 141-157.
Harris, M., C. H. Kriebel, and A. Raviv. 1982. Asymmetric Information, Incentives and Intrafirm Resource Allocation. Management Science 28 (6): 604-620.
Hart, O., and J. Moore. 1990. Property Rights and the Nature of the Firm. The Journal of Political Economy 98 (6): 1119-1158.
Heinkel, R. 1981. Uncertain Product Quality: The Market for Lemons with an Imperfect Testing Technology. The Bell Journal of Economics 12 (2): 625-636.
Hirshleifer, J. 1956. On the Economics of Transfer Pricing. The Journal of Business 29 (3): 172-184.
Holmstrom, B. 1979. Moral Hazard and Observability. The Bell Journal of Economics 10 (1): 74-91.
Holmstrom, B., and Tirole, J. 1991. Transfer Pricing and Organizational Form. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 7 (2): 201-228.
Horngren, C. T., S. M. Datar, and G. Foster. 2003. Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis. Prentice Hall.
Hung, F., and J. Robertson. 3/11/2003. Intel Maintains Chipset Grip As It Readies Centrino. EBN 1353 (http://www.ebnonline.com).
Kachelmeier, S. J., and K. L. Towry. 2002. Negotiated Transfer Pricing: Is Fairness Easier Said than Done?. The Accounting Review 77 (3): 571-593.
Kaplan, R. S., and A. A. Atkinson. 1998. Advanced Management Accounting. Prentice Hall.
Krishnan, H., R. Kapuscinski, and D. A. Butz. 2004. Coordinating Contracts for Decentralized Supply Chains with Retailer Promotional Effort. Management Science 50 (1): 48-63.
Kulp, S. C. 2002. The Effect of Information Precision and Information Reliability on Manufacturer-Retailer Relationships. The Accounting Review 77 (3): 653-677.
Kulp, S. C., H. L. Lee, and E. Ofek. 2004. Manufacturer Benefits from Information Integration with Retail Customers. Management Science 50 (4): 431-444.
Kurt Salmon Associates. 1993. Efficient Consumer Response: Enhancing Consumer Value in the Grocery Industry. Food Marketing Institute, Washington, DC.
Laios, L., and S. Moschuris. 1999. An Empirical Investigation of Outsourcing Decisions. The Journal of Supply Chain Management Winter: 33-41.
Lambert, D. M., M. A. Emmelhainz, and J. T. Gardner. 1999. Building Successful Logistics Partnerships. Journal of Business Logistics 20 (1): 165-181.
Lambert, R. A. 2001. Contracting Theory and Accounting. Journal of Accounting and Economics 32(1): 3-87.
Lee, H., K. C. So, and C. S. Tang. 2000. The Value of Information Sharing in a Two-Level Supply Chain. Management Science 46 (5): 626-643.
Lee, H., and S. Whang. 1999. Decentralized Multi-Echelon Supply Chains Subject: Incentive and Information. Management Science 45 (5): 633-640.
Li, L. 2002. Information Sharing in a Supply Chain with Horizontal Competition. Management Science 48 (9): 1196-1212.
Li, S., and K. R. Balachandran. 1997. Optimal Transfer Pricing Schemes for Work Averse Division Managers with Private Information. European Journal of Operational Research 98: 138-153.
Lim, W. S. 2001. Producer-Supplier Contracts with Incomplete Information. Management Science 47 (5): 709-715.
Maloni, M. J., and W. C. Benton. 1997. Supply Chain Partnerships: Opportunities for Operations Research. European Journal of Operational Research 101: 419-429.
Narasimhan, R., and J. Jayaram. 1998. Causal Linkages in Supply Chain Management: An Exploratory Study of North American Manufacturing Firms. Decision Sciences 29 (3): 579-605.
Nash, J. F. 1950. The Bargaining Problem. Econometrica 18 (2): 155-162.
Novak, S., and S. D. Eppinger. 2001. Sourcing by Design: Product Complexity and the Supply Chain. Management Science 47 (1): 189-204.
Quinn, J. B., and F. G. Hilmer. 1994. Strategic Outsourcing. Sloan Management Review 35 (4): 43-55.
Ronen, J., and K. R. Balachandran. 1988. An Approach to Transfer Pricing under Uncertainty. Journal of Accounting Research 26 (2): 300-314.
Ronen, J., and G. McKinney. 1970. Transfer Pricing for Divisional Autonomy. Journal of Accounting Research 8: 99-112.
Sahay, S. A. 2003. Transfer Pricing Based on Actual Cost. Journal of Management Accounting Research 15: 177-192.
Sahin, F., and E. P. Robinson. 2002. Flow Coordination and Information Sharing in Supply Chains: Review, Implications, and Directions for Future Research. Decision Sciences 33 (4): 505-536.
Seal, W., J. Cullen, A. Dunlop, T. Berry, and M. Ahmed. 1999. Enacting a European Supply Chain: A Case Study on the Role of Management Accounting. Management Accounting Research 10: 303-322.
Shapley, L. S. 1953. A Value for n-Person Games, pp. 307-317 in Contributions to the Theory of Games, Volume II (H. W. Kuhn and A. W. Tucker, eds.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sislian, E., and A. Satir. 2000. Strategic Sourcing: A Framework and a Case Study. The Journal of Supply Chain Management Summer: 4-11.
Smith, M. J. 2002. Ex Ante and Ex Post Discretion over Arm’s Length Transfer Prices. The Accounting Review 77 (1): 161-184.
Steensma, H. K., and K. G. Corley. 2001. Organizational Context as a Moderator of Theories on Firm Boundaries for Technology Sourcing. Academy of Management Journal 44(2): 271-291.
Stump, R. L., and J. B. Heide. 1996. Controlling Supplier Opportunism in Industrial Relationships. Journal of Marketing Research 33(4): 431-441.
Tang, R. Y. W. 1992. Transfer Pricing in the 1990s. Management Accounting 73: 22-26.
Tirole, J. 1999. Incomplete Contracts: Where Do We Stand?. Econometrica 67 (4): 741-781.
Trent, R. J., and R. M. Monczka. 1998. Purchasing and Supply Management: Trends and Changes throughout the 1990s. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 34(4): 2-11.
Ugarte, A., and S. Oren. 2000. Coordination of Internal Supply Chains in Vertically Integrated High-tech Manufacturing Organizations (HTMOs). International Journal of Production Economics 67: 235-252.
Van Mieghem, J. A. 1999. Coordinating Investment, Production, and Subcontracting. Management Science 45 (7): 954-971.
Vaysman, I. 1996. A Model of Cost-based Transfer Pricing. Review of Accounting Studies 1: 73-108.
Vaysman, I. 1998. A Model of Negotiated Transfer Pricing. Journal of Accounting and Economics 25: 349-384.
Verrecchia, R. E. 1983. Discretionary Disclosure. Journal of Accounting Economics 5: 179-194.
Vidal, C. J., and M. Goetschalckx. 2001. A Global Supply Chain Model with Transfer Pricing and Transportation Cost Allocation. European Journal of Operational Research 129: 134-158.
Wathne, K. H., and J. B. Heide. 2000. Opportunism in Interfirm Relationships: Forms, Outcomes, and Solutions. Journal of Marketing 64: 36-51.
Wei, D. 2004. Inter-Departmental Cost Allocation and Investment Incentives. Review of Accounting Studies 9: 97-116.
Wieleberg, S. 2000. Negotiated Transfer Pricing, Specific Investment, and Optimal Capacity Choice. Review of Accounting Studies 5: 197-216.
Williamson, O. E. 1979. Transaction-cost Economics: The Governance of contract Relations. Journal of Law and Economics 22: 233-261.
Williamson, O. E. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, relational Contracting. New York: The Free Press.
Yoshino, M. Y., and U. S. Rangan. 1995. Strategic Alliances: An Entrepreneurial Approach to Globalization. Harvard Business School Press.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. [16] 李正吉,1981,“英文字母教學”,英語教學,6卷,2期,頁26-30。
2. [24] 林原宏,1996,“知識結構分析-徑路搜尋、多向度量尺和集群分析的方法論探討”,測驗統計年刊,4輯,頁47-69。
3. [23] 林至誠,2000,“拼音之後,閱讀之前:談字母拼讀之後續練習”,英語教學,24卷,4期,頁68-74。
4. [18] 李櫻,2000,“談兒童英語教學中的發音問題”,英語教學,25卷,2期,頁4-15。
5. [22] 林至誠,1998,“淺談英文字母之教法”,英語教學,22卷,3期,頁67-73。
6. [15] 宋德忠、林世華、陳淑芬、張國恩,1998,“知識結構的測量:路徑蒐尋法與概念構圖法的比較”,教育心理學報,30卷,2期,頁123-142。
7. [14] 余民寧、陳嘉成、潘雅芳,1996a,“概念構圖法在測驗教學上的應用”,中國測驗學會測驗年刊,43輯,頁195-212。
8. [12] 余民寧、林曉芳、蔡佳燕,,2001,“國小學生數學知識結構認知診斷評量之研究”,教育與心理研究,24期,頁263-302。
9. [6] 王春展,1997,“專家與生手間問題解決能力的差異及其在教學上的啟示”,教育研究資訊,5卷,2期,頁80-92,3月。
10. 黃台心 (1997)“臺灣地區本國銀行成本效率之實證研究──隨機邊界模型之應用”人文及社會科學集刊,第9卷,第1期,頁85-123.
11. 林炳文 (2001)“台灣地區商業銀行合併效率性之分析 ”風險管理學報,第3卷,第1期,頁1-21.
12. [27] 林曉芳,2001,“知識表徵與概念學習之研究-以路徑蒐尋網路分析為評量工具”,教育與心理研究,24期,頁233-234。
13. [30] 張新仁,1993,“奧斯貝的學習理論與教學應用”,教育研究雙月刊,32卷,頁215-244。
14. [35] 許玟斌、楊晉民,1998,“國小自然科評量-在家考試”,測驗統計簡訊雙月刊,23期,頁14-22。
15. [36] 陳嘉甄,2001,“國小學童自然科知識結構之測量”,教育與心理研究,24期,頁327-344。
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔