臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

過去十餘年來，台灣勞動者之教育水準不斷增加，但所提升的教育水準是否能夠完全契合勞動市場上的需求則尚無定論。過去的總體模型，皆假設教育水準的提昇會增加經濟體系人力資本的累積，本文主要探討，教育水準提升是否能夠完全反映人力資本的累積，亦即探討勞動市場中「學用配合度」高低，對經濟成長的影響效果。「學用配合度」除了會影響勞動者的薪資外，還會影響到勞動者在工作上不滿程度，這些均會使勞動者之生產力提升或降低，本文關注在「學用配合度」的存在對於勞動者生產力的影響效果，進而探討對整體經濟的影響效果。本文利用1978－2010年共三十三年的人力運用調查資料，建構五種方法衡量「學用配合度」的總合指標，另外擴充內生成長模型，將「學用配合度」的指標加入內生成長模型當中，採用Cobb-Douglas型態以一階差分的方式進行台灣「學用配合度」與經濟成長關係之研究。
實證估計結果發現：以不同方式衡量「學用配合度」指標來探討與經濟成長關係，「學用配合度」指標與經濟成長呈現正向顯著關係，隨著一個國家之「學用配合度」越低，表示勞動者之生產力在勞動市場上越沒有效率，其對經濟成長負面影響效果越高，使整體經濟成長率趨於緩慢，影響效果介於-1.68%至-17.74%之間。即使控制其他總體變數作頑強性分析（robustness test）。

In recent decades, the workers in Taiwan have improved their educational attainment remarkably, but it is not sure that their educational attainment can fit the demand of the labor market or not. Previous macroeconomic models assume that higher educational attainment can raise the human capitals accumulation. In this study, we focus on the issue regarding the degree of knowledge application and economic growth rate. The degree of knowledge application might influence the wage payments of the workers and the work satisfaction, which are the key points of the workers’ productivity. We discuss the issue of the interaction between “the degree of knowledge application” and the labor’s productivity, and explore the effects on the overall economy. In this study, we use the data of the Manpower Utilization Survey of Taiwan from 1978 to 2010 and construct five measurements for the aggregate degrees of knowledge application. We first expand the endogenous growth model, where the Cobb-Douglas technology is assumed. Empirically, the relationship between the degrees of knowledge application and the economic growth is studied.
The empirical results demonstrate that using different ways to measure the relationship between “the degree of knowledge application” and the economic growth can obtain a positive and significant result. The lower “the degree of knowledge application” is, the more inefficient the labor market and the higher the negative effect on economic growth, ranging from -1.68% to -17.74%. We further control for other macroeconomic variables to do the robustness test. The above negative findings still apply.

目錄
中文摘要......................................................................................................................................i
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................ii
誌謝...........................................................................................................................................iii
目錄............................................................................................................................................iv
圖表目錄....................................................................................................................................vi
一、 序論...................................................................................................................................1
二、 文獻回顧...........................................................................................................................4
2-1 人力資本對經濟成.....................................................................................................4
2-2 配適度程度對經濟體影響.........................................................................................6
2-3 配適度程度之衡量方法.............................................................................................6
三、 實證結果方法...................................................................................................................9
3-1 理論模型.....................................................................................................................9
3-2 實證模型...................................................................................................................13
四、 資料來源與變數分析.....................................................................................................15
4-1 資料來源...................................................................................................................15
4-2 樣本資料分析...........................................................................................................16
4-2-1 勞動配適程度指標－LMIA..............................................................................16
4-2-2 勞動配適程度指標－LMIB..............................................................................16
4-2-3勞動配適程度指標－其他LMI指標...............................................................17
4-2-4其他總體變數....................................................................................................18
4-3 變數資料建構...........................................................................................................20
4-3-1勞動配適程度指標－LMIA...............................................................................20
4-3-2勞動配適程度指標－LMIB至LMIE.................................................................21
4-3-3其他總體變數......................................................................................................22
4-4 δ教育報酬的估算....................................................................................................24
五、 實證結果分析...................................................................................................................26
5-1 LMIA對經濟成長的影響..........................................................................................26
5-2 LMIB～LMIE對經濟成長的效果............................................................................28
5-3 頑強分析--- 以LMIA指標為例.............................................................................29
5-3-1 控制其他總體變數............................................................................................30
5-3-2 控制政府變數....................................................................................................31
六、 結論...................................................................................................................................34
參考文獻...................................................................................................................................36
附錄一 主計處現行人力低度運用「教育與職業不相稱」之判別標準...............................38
附錄二 人力運用調查之職業分類標準...............................................................................40
附錄三 其他總體變數建構與資料來源...............................................................................44
附錄四 認知能力變數...........................................................................................................45
附錄五 Eindex2：衡量不同勞動配適程度對經濟成長影響...............................................47
附錄六 Eindex2：控制政府變數，衡量LMIA的影響效果..................................................48
附錄七 Eindex2：控制政府變數，衡量LMIA的影響效果..................................................49

﹝1﹞張雅棻、官德星，「總要素生產力與經濟成長：台灣的實證研究」，經社法制論叢，第36 期，民國94 年7 月。
﹝2﹞蔡憲唐和韋伯韜，「人力低度運用衡量方法之研究」，行政院主計處委託研究，民國93年11月。
﹝3﹞王昭蓉，「台灣地區民眾失業率與高教低就之研究」， 國立台東師院，碩士論文，民國89年。
﹝4﹞Alba-Ramírez, A. , “ Mismatch in the Spanish Labor Market: Overeducation? ” , The Journal of Human Resources, Vol.28, No. 2, pp. 259-278, Spring 1993.
﹝5﹞Becker et al, “The trade-off between fertility and education: evidence from before the demographic transition” , Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 15, pp. 177-204, August 2009.
﹝6﹞Burris, B. H. , “The Human Effects of Underemployment” Social Problems, Vol. 31, No. 1, October 1983.
﹝7﹞Chia-Yu Hung, “Overeducation and undereducation in Taiwan” Journal of Asian Economics, Vol. 19, Issue 2, pp. 125-137, April 2008.
﹝8﹞Gregory C. Chow, “Accounting for Economic Growth in Taiwan and Mainland China: A Comparative Analysis” Journal of Comparative Economics, Vol. 30, Issue 3, pp. 507-530, September 2002.
﹝9﹞Gundlach et al, “Second Thoughts on Development Accounting” Applied Economic, Vol. 34, Issue11, pp. 1359-1369, July 2002.
﹝10﹞Groot, W. and H. M. Brink, “Overeducation in the Labor Market: A Meta-Analysis” Economics of Education Review, Vol. 19, Issue 2, pp. 149-158, April 2000.

﹝11﹞Hanushek,E. and L.Woessmann, “The Role of Cognitive Skills in Economic Development” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 46, No. 3, September 2008.
﹝12﹞Hartog, J. , “Over-education and earnings: where are we, where should we go?” Economics of Education Review, Vol. 19, Issue 2, pp. 131-147, April 2000.
﹝13﹞Heckrnan, J. and P. Klenow, “Human Capital Policy” mimeo. , University of Chicago, December 1997.
﹝14﹞Halaby, C.N. , “Overeducation and Skill Mismatch” Sociology of Education, Vol.67, No. 1, pp. 47-59, January 1994.
﹝15﹞Krueger, A. and M. Lindahl, “Education for Growth Why and For Whom?” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XXXIX, pp. 1101-1136, December 2001.
﹝16﹞Liu, C. and J. M. Armer, “Education’s effect on economic growth in Taiwan” Comparative Education Review, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp.304-321, August1993.
﹝17﹞LUCAS, R. E. , “On the mechanics of economic development” Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 22, pp. 3-42, February 1988.
﹝18﹞Temple, J. , “A positive effect of human capital on growth” Economics Letters, Vol. 65, pp. 131–134, October 1999.
﹝19﹞Sicherman, N. , “Overeducation in the labor market” Journal of Labor Economics , Vol.9, No. 2, pp. 101-122, April 1991.
﹝20﹞Tallman, E.W. and P. Wang, “Human capital and endogenous growth evidence from Taiwan” Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 34, Issue1, pp. 101-124, August 1994.
﹝21﹞Uzawa, H. , “Optimum technical change in aggregative model of economic growth” International Economic Review, Vol. 6, No.1, pp. 18-31, January 1965.
﹝22﹞Wolbers, M. , “Job Mismatch and their Labor-Market Effects among School-Leavers in Europe” European Sociological Review, Vol. 19, Issue3, pp. 249-266, 2003.
﹝23﹞Yih-Chyi Chuang, “The Role of Human Capital in Economic Development: Evidence from Taiwan” Asian Economic Journal, Vol. 13, Issue2, pp. 117-143, June 1999.