臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

科技發展與創新乃是主導國家經濟與技術發展之主要關鍵，面對全球化的市場與技術革命的潛在競爭，如何透過專業研究與政策評估的過程以追求科技領域中發展的優先順序，以至於循求國家創新體系的健全化發展，乃是攸關國家競爭與永續發展的重要因素。近幾年來，我國在科技政策的執行下，政府、產業與學術界投入大量的資源與人力，不論是在學術論文的發表抑或產業科技應用的層面上，皆具有可圈可點的水準與表現，然而許多觀察顯示，我國的科技成果並未完全達成經濟之效益與生活品質之提升，在科學技術發展與市場獲益能力的連結上也存有反差的問題。而歐盟為了追上與美、日在競爭地位上的落差，再加上英國、德國、法國、義大利力圖以創新克服其所面臨的不同障礙與挑戰，進行創新政策的整體規劃與執行，應足以為臺灣創新的學習對象。因此，本研究擬將從此歐盟四大強國在面對挑戰與障礙所採取之對策，以及其嘗試努力的方向與內容當中，找出對我國科技政策與創新政策之政策創新，進而提升臺灣的競爭力。
本研究根據臺灣以及歐盟四大強國：英國、德國、法國、義大利等各國近年來主要科技政策與創新政策的政策路徑(Policy Path)，採用本研究所提出的政策情境矩陣(MIT-HELP Matrix)，分別探討臺灣、英國、德國、法國、義大利等各國其所規劃與執行的科技與創新政策的策略意涵，並且研究他們如何利用科技政策與創新政策所涵蓋的四大構面Human Resource、e-Infrastructure、Law and Regulations、Public & Private Partnership之政策工具來調節三大驅動力Market、Institution、Technology之間的互補性互動，以達成科技與創新政策之國家競爭力目標。
　　分析結果說明了英、德、法、義四國的科技政策與創新政策在透過教育以建立廣大的人才資源基礎，以及在鼓勵產業參與和投資研發活動以創造創新之研發成果方面較為微弱，亦成為影響歐盟落後於美、日的主要關鍵因素。而我國科技政策與創新政策與英、德、法、義相較之下，在教育制度的設計與產業的結合、政府及時回應市場的應變能力與技術交換平台的建置、創造國內外新興需求市場的策略利用、運作公/私部門合作關係之經驗方面較為不足，是形成我國在科技創新表現與英、德、法、義之間具有差異的主要影響因素。
　　最後，針對我國科技政策的創新與創新政策之制定提出以下建議：1、政府應定位清楚自身在國家創新體系之角色；2、為提升民間企業在研發活動的投入，政府應加強誘因制度之設計、透過具前瞻性的研發為基礎，強化回應市場對於基礎環境制度的需求、以及公/私部門合作關係之研究與運行；3、短期積極與國際進行研發合作，以彌補我國基礎研究之不足，進而開創新興之市場，長期則強化研究人才的深耕與蓄積，以增強科技體系之機能；4、透過深入的政策研究，學習跟進先進強國之經驗，並促進政策經濟之交流。而本研究所建構之政策情境矩陣亦可作為日後進行擴大跨國比較的分析工具。

Science and technology has long been growth engine for national wealth and economic wellbeing. The nature of modern economic growth is characterized as long-term technological progress and a continuous process of wealth creation. In the fast changing environment of international cooperation and competition, almost all the country in the world are looking for or expanding the market opportunities through properly designed science and technology policy as well as innovation policy (STI policy henceforth). So are national development and quality of life as targeted as policy goals for every country. Since a nation is not making policy alone in the global village, national policy may face certain need of adaptation with cooperative or competitive counterpart, internally or externally.
This research focuses on evaluating STI policy in selected countries including the biggest four countries of European Union (EU) – United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Italy – and Taiwan. The purpose is to observe how these EU-Big4 countries improve their STI policy in coordinating national science and technology resources and at the same time maintaining their competitive position respectively. An alternative Triple-Helix approach is constructed as the analytical framework while four dimensions of STI policy are examined across countries in concerns. The idea about the Triple-Helix in this thesis is the “Market-Institution-Technology” paradigm, which highlights the characteristics of policy structure in specific or overall economy. The framework is then applied to investigate on the changing innovation structure of Taiwan. In examining on the following four dimensions: Human Resource; e-Infrastructure; Law and Regulations; Public-Private Partnership due to the concerned States, the key policy elements are thus arranged with respect to their STI Policies. While benchmarking the EU-Big4 Member States, the results are contrasted to those opportunities and challenges of STI policy innovation for Taiwan.
The resulting analysis suggests a reformulating and innovating thinking for the revival of STI Policy mechanism in Taiwan and to the newly emerging economies. In specific, educational system may be the most important policy to build up and expanding human resources. On the other hand, they are less weak in encouraging industry to join and invest on R&D activities. This may further weaken the link between technology and the market. And, it might be the most important reason why the EU as a whole posit behind the US and Japan in S&T competitiveness.
It is suggested that for catching up economies as Taiwan, some of the lessons are of valuable. (1) The government should clearly define itself as one in the National Innovation System; (2) to promote the R&D investment in the private sector, incentive mechanism is more important and PPP cooperation may be well utilized to promote the upgrade of the private R&D level; (3) enhancing international cooperation to upgrade the ability in basic research and; (4) the experience of policy research seems waiting to be improved. In this sense, scholarly exchange may be suggested.

中文摘要 I
英文摘要 II
誌 謝 III
目 錄 IV
表 目 錄 VI
圖 目 錄 VII
一、緒　論 1
1.1　　研究背景 1
1.2　　研究動機 3
1.3　　研究目的 8
1.4 章節架構 9
二、文獻探討 10
2.1　　科技政策之意涵 10
2.2　　創新政策與創新體系之意涵 11
2.3　　科技與創新政策之研究 12
2.3.1　經濟合作發展組織(OECD) 12
2.3.2　TrendChart 13
2.3.3　有關臺灣之相關研究 15
2.4　　科技與創新政策的大四構面－人力資源(H)、
e化基礎建設(E)、法制環境(L)、公/私部門的合作關係(P) 15
2.5　　科技與創新政策的三大驅動力－市場(M)、制度(I)與技術(T) 17
三、研究設計 19
3.1　　研究方法與架構 19
3.2　　研究步驟 20
3.3　　研究資料選取與研究限制 20
四、臺灣與英國之政策路徑 21
4.1　　臺灣之政策路徑 21
4.2　　歐盟之政策發展演進 24
4.2.1　歐盟之啟示與四大強國－英、德、法、義 26
4.3　　英國之政策發展背景與路徑 26
4.3.1　發展背景 27
4.3.2　政策路徑 29
五、德國、法國與義大利之政策發展背景與路徑 32
5.1　　德國之政策發展背景與路徑 32
5.1.1　發展背景 32
5.1.2　政策路徑 33
5.2　　法國之政策發展背景與路徑 34
5.2.1　發展背景 34
5.2.2　政策路徑 36
5.3　　義大利之政策發展背景與路徑 38
5.3.1　發展背景 38
5.3.2　政策路徑 40
5.4　　小結 40
六、利用政策情境矩陣進行各國科技與創新政策之比較與檢討 42
6.1　　政策情境分析－臺灣 42
6.2　　政策情境分析－英國 42
6.3　　政策情境分析－德國 43
6.4　　政策情境分析－法國 43
6.5　　政策情境分析－義大利 44
6.6　　綜合比較 50
6.6.1　五國之政策情境矩陣的比較 50
6.6.2　共同特色：中小型企業與區域性發展 52
6.7　　小結－歐盟四大強國之科技政策與創新政策對臺灣的意涵 52
七、結論 52
參考文獻 55

一、中文部分

王連常福、李宏仁，法國、荷蘭兩國科技政策形成之研究，中興大學經濟學研究所，台北：行政院科技顧問組，頁6，1988年。
方玉山，「不惑之齡 ─ 邁入第四十年的近代工程討論會」，第20屆近代工程討論會，台北國際會議中心，2004年。http://www.cie-sf.org/METS/mets40years.html
中華民國行政院主計處，www.dgbas.gov.tw。
任克敏、盧逸仙，「歐體科技政策之探討－兼論與我國科技產品之貿易」，臺灣銀行季刊，卷46，期1，頁28-62，1995年。
行政院國家科學委員會，中華民國科技白皮書（民國92年至95年），2004年。
行政院國家科學委員會，第七次全國科學技術會議大會實錄，2005年。
行政院國家科學委員會，中華民國科學技術統計要覽，2005年。
行政院國家科學委員會，國家科學技術發展計畫（民國94至97年），2005年。
行政院國家科學委員會，www.nsc.gov.tw。
全國科技動態調查，www.nsc.gov.tw/tech/index.asp。
李 實，由甲骨銓證三代科技、財經與管理，台北：新文豐出版公司，頁93，1976年。
李約瑟，中國科學技術史，香港：中華書局香港分局，1982年。
李京文，知識經濟：21 世紀的新經濟型態，北京：社會科學文獻出版社，1998年。
吳必康，權力與知識：英美科技政策史，福州：福建人民出版社，頁1，1998年。
呂正華，「臺灣與南韓產業產業科技政策發展與競爭力之比較研究」，國立台北大學企業管理學系碩士在職班論文，2004年。
林尹註譯，周禮今註今譯，台北：臺灣商務印書館，1983年。
承立平、陳元保，我國邁向先進國家的產業政策之研究－目前政府介入產業研究發展政策之檢討與評估，經濟部工業局，1996年。
施信佑，「從機構功能和創新擴散的觀點比較臺灣與中國大陸國家創新系統之研究」，國立交通大學經營管理研究所博士論文，頁23，2003年。
徐作聖、賴賢哲，科技政策理論與實務，全華，2005年。
許榮富，臺灣科技聯合團隊參加歐盟第六期架構計畫之機制及展望，布魯塞爾，駐歐盟兼駐比利時代表處科技組，2003年。
許榮富，歐盟創新科技政策之新藍圖暨其對臺灣釐定後時代科技研發政策之衝擊與省思，布魯塞爾，駐歐盟兼駐比利時代表處科技組，2004年。
陳井星，「科技發展的政策工具」，科技發展政策論文集，台北：臺灣經濟研究院，頁79，1993年。
國家貿易局經貿資訊網，http://cweb.trade.gov.tw。
曾孝明，臺灣的知識經濟－困境與迷思，群學出版社，2001年。
楊朝祥，「宏觀規劃，全面提昇高教品質」，國家政策論壇，卷92，期1，頁205-213，2003年。
經建會綜合計劃處，邁向創新臺灣」，新聞稿，行政院經濟建設委員會，2004年。
「義大利的國家創新政策體系」，http://www.chuangxin.net ，創新網，2004年。
「義大利科技創新與評估政策」，http://italy.cistc.gov.cn/embassymember，駐義大利使館科技處，2005年。
歐陽振群，「法國科技政策之發展」，科學發展月刊，卷19，期12，頁1818-1827，1991年。
「歐盟科技研究帶動經濟市場」，作者不詳，歐盟科研資訊網站，2004年。
鍾岳勳，「臺灣科技政策決策機制變遷之研究」，臺灣大學政治研究學系碩士論文，頁37-38，2002年。
二、英文部分

Acheson, H. Building a Sustainable National Innovation System, Presented to the Policy Institute Trinity College. Ireland: Dublin, 2003.
Adam, H. J. and P. Eng. “A ‘Hands-on’ Approach to Science, Technology and Innovation Policy,” Simon Fraser University, 2003.
Arrow, K. J., “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention”, In: National Bureau of Economic Research, The Rate and Direction of inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, Princenton University Press, Princeton,1962.
Arundel, A. and Hollanders, H., “Innovation Strengths and Weaknesses,” European Trend Chart on Innovation, Enterprise Directorate-General, European Commission, 2005.
Bisso, R., “Clusters and Development Strategies: Reflections for a Developing Country’s SME Policy,” WP, University of Bologna and Buenos Aires, Italy, 2003.
Blanning, R. W., Bui, T. X. and Tan, M., “National Information Infrastructure in Pacific Asia”, Decision Support Systems, 21, 215-227, 1997.
BMBF & BMWi, Innovation Policy-More Dynamic for Competitive Jobs, 2002.
Bromley, D. A., “Technology Polic y,” Technology in Society, 26, 455-468, 2004.
Carlsson, B. and Stankiewicz, R., “On the Nature, Function and Composition of Technological System,” Technological Systems and Economic Performance, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995.
Chang, P. L. and Shih, H. Y., “The Innovation Systems of Taiwan and China: A Comparative Analysis,” Technovation, 24, 529-539, 2004.
Cheng, A. L.–P., “ICT Industry Development Strategies and the Formation of Industrial Innovation Systems on the Two Sides of the Taiwan Strait,” Int. J. Technology Management, 32, 3/4, 264-276, 2005.
Cheng, A. L.–P. and Lin, J. Y.-C, “An Evaluation on STI Policies and Policy Innovations in Taiwan based on Experiences of Major EU Member States,” Paper accepted and to be presented at the IAMOT 2006 Annual Meeting and Conference in Beijing on May 22-26, 2006.
Chiarvesio, M., Di, M. E. and Micelli, S., “From local networks of SMEs to virtual districts? Evidence from recent trends in Italy,” Research Policy, 33, 10, December, pp. 1509-152, 2004.
Commission of the European Communities, 2004 European Innovation Scoreboard- Country Pages EU25+ Candidate Countries, 2004.
Commission of the European Communities, European Innovation Scoreboard 2004- Comparative Analysis of Innovation Performance, 2004.
Dohse, D., “Technology Policy and the Regions: The Case of the BioRegio Contest,”. Research Policy, 29, 1111-1133, 2000
Dohse, D., “Taking Regions Seriously: Recent Innovation in German Technology Policy,” In Bröcker, J., Dohse, D. and Soltwedel, R. (Eds.), Innovation Cluster and Interregional Competition, Springer, Heidelberg, 2003.
Innovation Report, Competing in the Global Economy: The Innovation Challenge, UK: DTI, 2004.
Edquist, C., “Innovation Policy- A Systemic Approach,” Department of Technology and Social Change, Linkoping University, 1999.
Eickelpasch, A., Kauffeld, M.., Pfeiffer, I.., "The InnoRegio-Program: A New Way to Promote Regional Innovation Networks - Empirical Results of the Complementary Research," ERSA conference papers ersa02p262, European Regional Science Association, 2002.
Eickelpasch, A., Fritsch, M., "Contests for cooperation--A new approach in German innovation policy," Research Policy, 34, 8, pp. 1269-1282, 2005.
European Commission, DG JRC, “Expert Panel on Technology, Knowledge and Learning,” November 2001.
Eurostat website: epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu
Faroult, E., “From Cooperation between to Co-evaluation of Science and Economy,” In Covoseco (Ed.), The State of the Art of Public Private Partnerships in the Five Partner Countries an in Spain, Greece, Ireland and the USA. Document 1, IHP-Strata Programme, EC-DG Research, Brussels, 2002.
Freeman, C., Technology and Economic Progress: Lessons for Japan. London: Printer, 1987.
Graziani, A., L’economia italiana dal 1945 ad oggi. Bologna: Il Mulino, 1979.
Germany BMBF website: www.bmbf.de.
Germany BMWi website: www.bmwi.de.
Hall, B. H., “The Assessment: Technology Policy,” Oxford Review Economic Policy. 18, 1, 2002.
Hahn, Y. H., Yu, P. L., “Towards a New Technology Policy: The Integration of Generation and Diffusion,” Technovation, 19, 177-186, 1999.
Hobday, M, “Innovation in East Asia: Diversity and Development,” Technovation, 15(2), 55-63, 1995.
Hou, C, M., “National Systems Supporting Technical Advance in Industry: The Case of Taiwan,” In Nelson, R. R. (Ed.), National Innovation System- A Comparative Analysis, Oxford University Press, 384-413, 1993.
“IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook,” International Institute for Management Development, 2005.
Inzelt, A., “Capacity Building for S&T&I Policy-making in CEEs, IKU & CIPRE, UNESO,” Paris 24-26, March 2003.
Kulicke, M., “Stärkung der Starken-Öffentliche Förderung spezifischer Aspekte im Innovationsprozess durch regionale fokussierte Netzerke,” In: Koschatzky, K. (Ed.), Innovative Impulse für die Region- Aktuelle Tendenzen und Entwick-lungsstrategien. Karlruhe, 2003.
Luo, Iris Yu-Ling., National Innovation Systems of Taiwan. STIC- National Science Council, 2001.
Mahmood, I. P.and Singh, J., “Technological Dynamism in Asia,” Research Policy, 32, 1031-1054, 2003.
Malerba, F., “The National System of Innovation: Italy,” In: Nelson, Richard R. (Editor): National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 230-259.,1993.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Public Private Partnership: A Guide for Local Government, British Columbia, 1999.
Mustar, P. and Laredo, P., “Innovation and Research Policy in France (1980-2000) or the Disappearance of the Colbertist State,” Research Policy, 31, 1, 55-72, 2002.
Nelson, R. R. (Editor), National Systems of Innovation: A Comparative Study, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
OECD, Problems of Science Policy, Paris: OECD, pp.56, 127, 128, 1968.
OECD, Managing National Innovation Systems, Paris: OECD, 1999.
OECD, Main Science and Technology Indicators, 1, 2005.
OECD, Science, Technology and Industry (STI) Outlook, 2004.
OECD, Science and Innovation Policy: Key Challenges and Opportunities, Paris: OECD, 2004.
Papon, P., “Research Institutions in France: Between the Republic of Science and the Nation-State in Crisis,” Research Policy, 27, 8, 771-780, 1998.
Porter, M. E., The Competitive Advantage of the Nations. New York: The Free Press, 1990.
Porter, M. E. and Stern, S.S., The New Challenge to American’s Prosperity: Findings from the Innovation Index, Council on Competitiveness, Washington, D.D., 1999
Quevreux, A., Innovation: Main Policy Challenges for 2004-2010, Association Nationale de la Recherche Technique, 2004.
Reid, A., “Trends in Innovation Policy in and Enlarged EU: Lessons for Policy Makers,” Presented at Baltic Dynamics 2004. Republic of Latvia: Riga, 2004.
Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., Asselt, M. van, Geels, F.W., Verbong, G.P.J., Molendijk, K., & Notten, P. van, “Transitions & transition management: the case for a low emission energy supply,” ICIS Working Paper (Ext. rep. I01-E001), Maastricht: ICIS, 2001.
Rothwell, R. and Zegveld, W., “Industrial Innovation and Public Policy”, Preparing for the 1980s and the 1990s, Frances Printer, 1982.
Santarelli, E. and Piergiovanni, R., “Analyzing literature-based innovation output indicators: the Italian experience,” Research Policy, 25, 5, 689-711, 1996.
Schmoch, U., Breiner, S., Cuhls, K., Hinze, S. and Műnt, G., “The Organization of Interdisciplinarity: Research Structures in the Areas of Medical Lasers and Neural Networks,” In Reger, G. and Schmoch, U. (Eds). Organization of Science and Technology at Watershed: The Academic and Industrial Perspective. Heidelberg: Physica/ Springer, Series Technology, Innovation, and Policy, 3, 267-372, 1996.
Sirilli, G.. “The Researcher in Italy: A Profession in Search of Recognition,” Research Policy, 16, 329-337, 1986.
Sirilli, G., “Will Italy Meet the Ambitious European Target for R&D Expenditure? Natura Non Facit Saltus,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 17, 509-523, 2004.
Smits, R; Kuhlman, S., “The Rise of Systemic Instruments in Innovation Policy,” Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1, 1/2, 4-30, 2004.
Schmookler, J., Invention and Economic Growth, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1966.
Stern, S.; Porter, Michael E.; Furman Jeffrey L., “The Determinants of National Innovation Capacity,” Nber Working Paper Series, 2000.
Szántó, B., “Science Policy vs. Technology Policy?” Technovation, 16, 8, 411-420, 1996.
Taybe, M. E. (Ed.), UNESCO Science Report 2005, UNESCO, France, 2005.
The Technology Network, The Technet Innovation Initiative and 2005 Innovation policy agenda, TechNet, 2005
TrendChart, Innovation Policy in Europe 2004, European Commision, 2004.
TrendChart, Innovation Strengths and Weaknesses, European Commision, 2005.
TrendChart, European Innovation Scoreboard 2004, European Commision, 2004.
TrendChart, European Innovation Scoreboard 2004, European Commision, 2005.
TrendChart Innovation Policy in Europewebsite: trendchart.cordis.lu.
UK Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) website: www.dti.gov.uk.
White, D., “Innovation Policy and Europe’s Regions”, 4th Innovating Regions in Europe Plenary Conference, 1-7, Ljubljana, 2005.
Wikipedia website: www.wikipedia.org.
World Economic Forum, Global Competitiveness Report 2004-2005, 2004.
World Economic Forum, Global Competitiveness Report 2005-2006, 2005.