臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

台灣加入WTO後，面對市場的開放與自由競爭，傳統產業的競爭力與生存受到極大的挑戰，本研究以與我們民生息息相關的傳統產業──水泥業之8家上市公司作為研究對象，就水泥反傾銷稅課徵前後期間(87年至94年)來進行產業的經營效率評估。此採用資料包絡分析法來分析整個水泥產業與個別廠商於受傾銷前後期間之經營效率與效率變動及Malmquist生產力變動的情形，衡量傾銷前後經營效率的表現。
經分析整體水泥產業現況，水泥業的生產力與生產技術均有進步，且傾銷後較傾銷前佳。雖然其技術效率不彰，但在生產技術的大幅改善下，並不影響整體生產力的進步。另就技術效率觀察，整個研究期間之技術效率衰退，主因傾銷前純粹技術效率的退步與傾銷後規模效率的衰退所致。換言之，管理效率不彰、規模效率的衰退為技術效率衰退之主因。經實證發現此一因素係因廠商企業結構之改變，導致規模效率與技術效率為無效率所致。
整個研究期間與傾銷前水泥廠商之效率值中，具有效率的單位近三分之一，無效率的單位有５個，這５個單位之平均效率值達99.1%，其經濟上之意義即多浪費了0.9%的資源。傾銷後之無效率的單位有６個，平均效率值達99.13%，其經濟之涵義為多浪費了0.87%的資源。可見即使傾銷後之無效率單位較傾銷前多，但在資源使用上，事實上是有改善的。傾銷後達成效率之廠商數雖較傾銷前減少，然而，就各項效率之改善度來看，傾銷後的這段期間確實大為提高。
影響水泥業經營效率的因素很多，而傾銷後之利得亦僅為原因之一，然本研究僅針對傾銷前後的財報數據以DEA進行分析之結果與水泥工會歷年的水泥銷售量作比較，發覺傾銷前後生產力的改善進步與生產數量有正向關係，因此，我國對國外傾銷的業者課以傾銷稅，確實對我國水泥產業有正向的利益與成長。

Traditional industries, whose competitiveness and sustainability has encountered great challenges after Taiwan joined WTO, is facing tremendous pressure from market opening and free competition. In this regard, we chose 8 firms from Taiwan's cement industry that closely linked with people's livelihood to be the research objective. As cement industry has experienced the anti-dumping wave of the world and relevant lawsuit has been settled in Taiwan, this study evaluates the operational efficiency during the dumping period (from 1998 to 2005). In this paper, we utilize Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and Malmquist Productivity Index to analyze and detect the change of relative efficiency for both individual firms and cement industry as a whole, before and after anti-dumping duty was imposed during the aforementioned period.
With respect to TFP and TEC indexes of the cement industry, the low total factor productivity (TFP) of the industry is caused by inefficiency in technology and production. According to the result from concrete diagnosis, we conclude that both TFP and TEC of the cement industry have significantly improved after anti-dumping duty was imposed. Although the technology used in cement industry is inefficient, both TFP and TEC are not affected. For EC index, technical efficiency of the cement industry declined due to technological inefficiency before dumping took place and deterioration in economy of scale after dumping occurred, which were resulted from the change in enterprise structure.
Before dumping occurred, nearly 1/3 of the firms were operating efficiently, with 5 firms being inefficient. The average efficiency ratio of the 5 firms is 99.1%, indicating that 0.9% of the resource was wasted in economic terms. After dumping occurred, 6 inefficient firms were found, with average efficiency ratio slightly rose to 99.13%. Therefore, although the number of inefficient firms increased after dumping took place, the use of resources improved.
The operational efficiency of cement industry can be affected by various factors, one of them being the gains from imposing anti-dumping duty. In this research, financial figures from the cement industry before and after dumping occurred were analyzed with DEA method to be compared with historical figures, and we conclude that improvements in productivity were positively correlated with the amounts of production. In summary, imposing anti-dumping duties to foreign dumping firms was in the interest of domestic cement industry.

目 錄

目錄………………………………………………………………………………………………I
圖目錄………………………………………………………………………………………………II
表目錄…………………………………………………………………………………………………III
附表目錄………………………………………………………………………………………………V

第一章 緒論
第一節 研究背景………………………………………………………………………………3
第二節 研究動機………………………………………………………………………………4
第三節 研究目的………………………………………………………………………………4
第四節 研究範圍………………………………………………………………………………5
第五節 論文架構與流程………………………………………………………………………8
第二章 我國水泥業之產業發展
第一節 我國水泥業產業特性與發展沿革………………………………………………………10
第二節 供需概況與產業現況…………………………………………………………………12
第三章 理論基礎及文獻探討
第一節 理論基礎…………………………………………………………………………………21
第二節 相關文獻…………………………………………………………………………………57
第三節 本章結論…………………………………………………………………………………64
第四章 實證結果與分析
第一節 效率與效率變動估計方法之架構與理論……………………………………………65
第二節 投入、產出變數的選擇………………………………………………………………69
第三節 效率與效率變動估計之結果與分析…………………………………………………71
第四節 敏感度估計結果分析…………………………………………………………………83
第五節 本章結論…………………………………………………………………………………98
第五章 結論與建議
第一節 結論……………………………………………………………………………………100
第二節 建議……………………………………………………………………………………101

參考文獻
一、中文文獻……………………………………………………………………………………103
二、英文文獻……………………………………………………………………………………104
三、網站…………………………………………………………………………………………106

一、中文文獻

1.朱珮宏，〈台灣地區生技產業經營績效研究－DEA方法與Malmquist生產力指數之應用〉，佛光人文社會學院經濟學研究所碩士論文，民國92年。
2.呂詩虹，〈台灣水泥業市場獨占力之分析─加碼檢定法之應用〉，國立台灣科技大學企業管理研究所碩士論文，民國92年。
3.辛志中，《競爭政策通訊》，台北：行政院公平交易委員會競爭政策資料及研究中心，第10卷第2期（民國95年3月），頁5-9。
4.李建華、陳琇，〈財務管理與診斷〉，台北：清華管理科學圖書中心，民國85年。
5.林安鎮，〈生產力-成本-獲利力網圖在經營績效評估之應用〉，淡江大學管理研究所碩士論文，民國71年。
6.洪明暉，〈專業電子代工服務廠之經營效率與購併分析-DEA之應用〉，國立台灣大學國際企業研究所碩士論文，民國90年。
7.洪海玲，〈以資料包絡分析法作製造業之營運效率分析〉，國立成功大學工業管理科學系研究所碩士論文，民國91年。
8.莫海鳴，〈台灣水泥業經營策略與經營績效之相關研究―PIMS 分析法之實證應用〉，淡江大學管理科學研究所碩士論文，民國77年。
9.徐孟詩，〈我國新興科技產業經營績效之研究--以光電產業為例及財務分析之觀點〉，國立臺灣大學國際企業學研究所碩士論文，民國89年。
10.高強、黃旭男、Toshiyuki Sueyoshi，〈管理績效評估資料包絡分析法〉，台北：華泰文化事業股份有限公司，民國92年。
11.黃玉英，〈經濟學精要及題庫〉，台北：前鋒出版社，民國75年。
12.黃金瑞，〈產業調查報導—台灣水泥工業之現況與展望〉，《產業經濟》，第225期（民國89年5月），頁35-68。
13.黃智輝，〈世界貿易組織與進口救濟(續篇)〉，台北：台北圖書有限公司，民國95年。
14.黃德舜，〈企業財務分析－企業價值的創造及評估〉，台北：華泰文化事業公司，民國87年。
15.馮秀鳳，〈半導體產業經營效率之研究—資料包絡分析法之應用〉，中原大學會計研究所碩士論文，民國91年。
16.蔡嘉倩，〈水泥業之評價程序--以亞泥為例〉，《貨幣觀測與信用評等》，第29期（民國90年5月），頁77-82。
17.劉以德，〈企業營運績效、財務槓桿與研究發展費用之關聯性研究(以電子業為例) 〉，中原大學會計研究所碩士論文，民國91年。
18.賴文玲，〈我國TFT-LCD產業經營效率之研究 –以資料包絡分析法〉，世新大學經濟學研究所碩士論文，民國93年。
19.謝美雀，〈應用資料包絡分析法之光電產業生產系統生產力實證研究〉，大葉大學工業工程與科技管理學系碩士在職專班碩士論文，民國94年。
20.顏瑞志，〈台灣印刷電路板產業之營運及整合效率之研究--資料包絡分析法之應用〉，國立交通大學工業工程與管理研究所碩士論文，民國93年。



二、英文文獻

1.Anonymous (2006), “The Importance of Financial Ratio and Benchmark Analysis”, Supply House Times. Troy: Mar 2006. Vol. 49, Iss. 1, pp.68-69.
2.Banker, RD, A. Charnes and W. Cooper (1984), “Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis”, Management Science, Vol. 30, pp. 1078-1092.
3.Burki, A.A. and Terrell, D. (1998), “Measuring Production Efficiency of Small Firms in Pakistan.” World Development, Vol. 26.1, pp. 155-169.
4.Cave, D. W., Christensen, L. R. And Diewert, W. E. (1982a), “The Economic Theory of Index Numbers and the Measurement of Input, Output, and Productivity”, Econometrica, Vol. 50, pp. 1392-1414.
5.Charnes, A. and Cooper, W. W. (1962), “Programming with Linear Fractinals”, Naval Res. Logistics uarterly, Vol. 9, pp. 181-186.
6.Charnes, A. and L. Neralic (1989), “Sensitivity Analysis in Data Envelop Analysis”, Glasnik Mathematicki, Vol. 24, No. 44, pp. 221-226.
7.Charnes, A. and William W. Cooper (1984), “The non-Archimedian CCR Ratio for Efficiency Analysis: A Rejoinder to Body and Fare”, International European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 15, pp. 333-334.
8.Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, A. Y. Lewin, R. C. Morey, and J. Rousseau (1985), “ Sensitivity and StabilityAnalysis in DEA,” Annals of Operation Research, Vol. 2, pp. 139-165.
9.Charnes, W. W. Cooper and E. Rhodes (1978), “Measuring the efficiency of decision making units”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 2, pp. 429-444.
10.Coelli, T.J. (1996b), “A Guide to DEAP Version 2.1: A Data Envelopment Analysis (Computer) Program,” CEPA Working Paper 96/08, Armidale: Department of Econometrics, University of New England.
11.Cooper, W. W., L. Seiford, and K. Tone (2000), Data Envelopment Analysis –A Comprehensive Text with Models、Application、References, and DEA- Solver Software.
12.David I. Rosenbaum and Supachat Sukharomana (2001), “Oligopolisticpricing over the deterministic market demand cycle: some evidence from the US Portland cement industry”, International Journal of Industrial Organization 19, 863-884.
13.Farrell, M.J. (1957), “The Measurement of Productive Efficiency”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 120, pp. 253-290.
14.Fatemi, A., A. S. Desai, and J. P. Katz (2003). “Wealth Creation and Managerial Pay: MVA and EVA as Determinants of Executive Compensation.” Global Finance Journal 14, 159-170.
15.Ginoglou, D., K. Agorastos, and T. Hatzigagios (2002), “Predicting Corporate Failure of Problematic Firms in Greece with LPM, LOGIT, PROBIT and Discriminant Analysis Models.” J. Financial Management and Analysis 15, 1-15.
16.Golany, B. and Y. Roll (1989), “ An Application Procedure of DEA,” OMEGA, Vol.17, No.3, pp. 237-250.
17.Griffith, J. M. (2004), “The True Value of EVA.” J. Applied Finance 14, 25-29.
18.Ivette Jans and David I. Rosenbaum (1996), “Multimarket contact andpricing: Evidence from the US cement industry”, International Journal of Industrial Organization 15, 391-412.
19.Koller, II, R.H., & Weiss L.W. (1989), “Price leyels and seller concentration the case of Portland cement”, In Weiss, L.W.(Ed.) Concentration and Price. MIT Press, Cambridge, 17-40.
20.Lisbeth Funding la Cour and H. Peter Møllgaard (2000), “Test of (abuse of ) domination: The Danish cement industry”, Copenhagen Business School Solbjerg Plads 3, DK-2000 Frederiksberg.
21.Mcbride, M. (1981), “The nature and source of economies of scale in cement production”, Southern Economic Journal 48, 105-115.
22.Muhamme Mercan,Arnold Reisman,Reha Yolalan,Ahmet Burak Emel (2003), “The effect of scale and mode of ownership on the financial performance of the Turkish banking sector：results of a DEA-based analysis”,Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 37, pp.185-202.
23.Roll, Y., B. Golany, & D.Seroussy (1989), “Measuring the Efficiency of Maintenance Units in the Israeli Air force.” European Journal of Operational Research, 43(2), pp. 301-317.
24.Rosenbaum, D,I. (1994), “Efficiency v. collusion: evidence cast in cement”, Review of Industrial Organization 9, 379-392.
25.Seiford, L. M. and R. M. Thrall (1990), “Recent Developments in DEA: the Mathematical Programming Approach to Frontier Analysis,” Journal of Economics, 46, pp. 7-38,1990.
26.Stern, J. M. and J. S. Shiely (2001), “The EVA Challenge: Implementing Value-Added Change in an Organization”, John Wiley & Sons Inc.
27.Zaima, J. K., H. F. Turetsky, and B. Cochran (2005), “The MVA-EVA Relationship: Separation of Market Driven Versus Firm Driven Effects.” Review of Accounting and Finance 4, 32-49.












三、網站

1.華南永昌綜合證券網站：http://www.entrust.com.tw/
2.公開資訊觀測站，http://newmops.tse.com.tw/。
3.台灣經濟新報資料庫。
4.台灣經濟研究院產經資料庫，http://www.tier.org.tw/