臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本文嘗試以U.S. News and World Report發表的全美大專院校排名來衡量美國50個州的人力資本品質，並建立線性迴歸模型來驗證人力資本對當地企業創新能力的影響。兩個模型中分別以公司的研發集中度與引用次數加權專利數目做為依變數，代表公司對創新的投入意願以及表現。結果發現大學排名不論是對當地公司的研發集中度或加權專利數目皆有顯著但些微的解釋力，甚至對加權專利數目的影響略高於研發集中度。我將主要原因歸於兩種，一是企業可靠地區優勢招募到當地名校的畢業生，進而提高公司人力資本品質，二是企業較有機會透過與當地大學的產學合作專案來提升公司的創新表現。

This research adopts new measurement of human capital in each state with best colleges ranking published by U.S. News and World Report. I form two linear regression models to test the hypothesis that human capital in terms of university ranking plays an important role in local industrial innovation. R&D intensity and citation-weighted patents are used as two dependent variables in the models, R&D intensity represents company’s willingness to invest in innovation while patents represent the innovation performance. From the OLS estimation results, the colleges ranking has significant but slightly influence on either R&D intensity or citation-weighted patents, and the effect on patents is slightly higher than R&D intensity. I conclude it with two explanations. First, company has geographic advantage to recruit local graduates and improve human capital. Secondly, company is more likely to acquire knowledge spillovers through industry-university cooperative research projects with local universities.

致謝 i
中文摘要 iii
英文摘要 iv
第一章 緒論 1
第二章 文獻探討 6
第三章 樣本及研究方法 10
第一節 公司研發 10
第二節 專利數目 10
第三節 人力資本的衡量 12
第四節 實證模型 13
第四章 實證結果 16
第一節 OLS估計結果 16
第二節 模型強韌性檢驗 19
第五章 結論 22
參考文獻 24
表一、樣本統計資料 28
表二、1988-2015年各州大學排名分數統計資料 29
表三、自變數與依變數相關係數矩陣 30
表四、研發集中度的OLS迴歸估計結果 31
表五、加權專利數目的OLS迴歸估計結果 32
表六、公司規模分群子樣本檢驗 34
表七、產業別分群子樣本檢驗 36
圖一、1988-2015年各州大學排名平均分數 29
圖二、各產業研發支出加總 38
圖三、各產業專利數目加總 39

1.Acs, Z. J., & Audrestch, D. B. (1991). Innovation and size at the firm level. Southern Economic Journal, 57(3), 739-744.
2.Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1992). Real effects of academic research: Comment. The American Economic Review, 82(1), 363-367.
3.Bania, N., Calkins, L. N., & Dalenberg, D. R. (1992). The effects of regional science and technology policy on the geographic distribution of industrial R&D laboratories. Journal of Regional Science, 32(2), 209-228.
4.Bartel, A. P., & Lichtenberg, F. R. (1987). The comparative advantage of educated workers in implementing new technology. The Review of Economics and statistics, 1-11.
5.Becker, G. S. (1994). Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education (3rd Edition). The University of Chicago Press.
6.Bhagat, S., & Welch, I. (1995). Corporate research & development investments international comparisons. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19(2), 443-470.
7.Bound, J., Cummins, C., Griliches, Z., Hall, B. H., & Jaffe, A. B. (1984). Who does R&D and who patents?. R&D, Patents, and Productivity, 21-54.
8.Comanor, W. S. (1967). Market structure, product differentiation, and industrial research. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 81(4), 639-657.
9.Feldman, M. P., & Florida, R. (1994). The geographic sources of innovation: technological infrastructure and product innovation in the United States. Annals of the association of American Geographers, 84(2), 210-229.
10.Galbraith, C., & De Noble, A. F. (1988). Location decisions by high technology firms: A comparison of firm size, industry type and institutional form. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13(2), 31-48.
11.Glasmeier, A. (1991). Technological discontinuities and flexible production networks: The case of Switzerland and the world watch industry. Research policy, 20(5), 469-485.
12.Hall, B. H. (1992). Investment and Research and Development at the Firm Level: Does the Source of Financing Matter? (No. w4096). National Bureau of Economic Research.
13.Hall, B. H., Griliches, Z., & Hausman, J. A. (1986). Patents and R and D: Is there a lag?. International Economic Review, 265-283.
14.Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. The RAND Journal of Economics, 16-38.
15.Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Kim, H. (1997). International diversification: effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms. The Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 767-798.
16.Holmström, B. R. (1989). Agency costs and innovation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 12, 305-327.
17.Jaffe, A. B. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms'' patents, profits and market value. American Economic Review, 76, 984-1001.
18.Jaffe, A. B. (1989). Real effects of academic research. The American Economic Review, 957-970.
19.Jensen, M. C. (1986). Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. The American Economic Review, 76(2), 323-329.
20.Jensen, M. C. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. The Journal of Finance, 48(3), 831-880.
21.Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4), 525-544.
22.Kogan, L., Papanikolaou, D., Seru, A., & Stoffman, N. (2012). Technological Innovation, Resource Allocation, and Growth (No. w17769). National Bureau of Economic Research.
23.Leiponen, A. (2005). Skills and innovation. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23(5), 303-323.
24.Lundvall, B. Ä., & Johnson, B. (1994). The learning economy. Journal of industry studies, 1(2), 23-42.
25.Malecki, E. J. (1997). Technology and Economic Development: The Dynamics of Local, Regional, and National Competitiveness (2ed Edition). Longman Pub Group.
26.Markusen, A. R., Hall, P. H., & Glasmeier, A. (1986). High Tech America: The What, How, Where, and Why of the Sunrise Industries. Boston: Allen & Unwin.
27.McGuirk, H., Lenihan, H., & Hart, M. (2015). Measuring the impact of innovative human capital on small firms’ propensity to innovate. Research Policy, 44(4), 965-976.
28.Mohnen, P., & Röller, L. H. (2005). Complementarities in innovation policy. European Economic Review, 49(6), 1431-1450.
29.Premus, R. (1982). Location of High Technology Firms and Regional Economic Development: A Staff Study. US Government Printing Office.
30.Rees, J., & Stafford, H. A. (1986). Location: their relevance for understanding high-technology complexes. Technology, regions, and policy, 23.
31.Rogers, M. (2004). Networks, firm size and innovation. Small Business Economics, 22(2), 141-153.
32.Schumpeter, J. A. (1912). Theory of Economic Development. Berlin.
33.Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry Into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle (Vol. 55). Transaction Publishers.
34.Scherer, F. M. (1965). Firm size, market structure, opportunity, and the output of patented inventions. The American Economic Review, 55(5), 1097-1125.
35.Soboleva, I. (2010). Paradoxes of the measurement of human capital. Problems of Economic Transition, 52(11), 43-70.
36.Varga, A. (1998). University Research and Regional Innovation: A Spatial Econometric Analysis of Academic Technology Transfers (Vol. 13). Springer Science & Business Media.