帳號:guest(44.222.249.19)          離開系統
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  

詳目顯示

以作者查詢圖書館館藏以作者查詢臺灣博碩士論文系統以作者查詢全國書目
作者(中文):林湘琪
論文名稱(中文):Market Structure and R&D Investment: an Empirical Study on Taiwanese Manufacturing Industry
論文名稱(外文):競爭與廠商創新投資-台灣製造業之實證研究
指導教授(中文):李宜
指導教授(外文):Lee,Yi
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立清華大學
系所名稱:經濟學系
學號:9772512
出版年(民國):99
畢業學年度:98
語文別:英文
論文頁數:50
中文關鍵詞:R&D投資創新市場競爭
外文關鍵詞:R&D investmentsInnovationCompetition
相關次數:
  • 推薦推薦:0
  • 點閱點閱:22
  • 評分評分:*****
  • 下載下載:6
  • 收藏收藏:0
How does product market competition affect innovation? It is widely be-
lieved that there exist two opposite effects in market; one is Schumpeterian effect
stating that competition attenuates the innovative incentive of laggard firms and
the other is escape-competition effect depicting that competition urges neck-and-
neck firms to innovate. Based on Ahigon’s model (2005), this article applies Tai-
wanese manufacturing industry data from 1997 to 2004 and confirms that there
exists an inverted-U shaped relation between competition and innovation. And
the R&D-size relation is positive in Taiwan which is consistent with Schumpeter’s
hypothesis. Unexpectedly, firm experience has a negative effect on innovation in
Taiwanese electronics industries since the life cycle of their products is relatively
shorter. Hence, younger firms invest more in R&D for the sake of taking the pre-
emptive competitive position. In addition, we show a strong evidence that internal
R&D investments and external technology outsourcing are complementary to each
other in Taiwanese manufacturing firms.
1 Introduction 7
2 Literature Review 11
2.1 Monotonic Relation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 Non-monotonic Relation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3 Inverted-U Shaped Relation between PMC and Innovation: Escape-
competition effect & Schumpeterian effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3 The Data 17
3.1 Basic Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2 Measuring Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.3 Independent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4 Methodology & Empirical Results 27
4.1 Introduction of Tobit Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.2 Theoretical Prediction and Empirical Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.2.1 Probit Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.2.2 Tobit Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5 Concluding Remarks 39
References 42
Appendix 47

.1 Details about the Lerner Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
.2 Marginal Effect of Tobit Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
.3 The Amount of R&D Expenditure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Reference
[1] Abernathy, W., and Clark, K. Mapping the winds of creative destruction.
Research Policy 14 (1985), 3–22.
[2] Acs, Z. J., and Audretsch, D. B. Innovation, market structure, and firm
size. The Review of Economics and Statistics 69, 4 (Nov. 1987), 567–574.
[3] Aghion P., Christopher Harris, P. H., and Vickers, J. Competition,
imitation and growth with step-by-step innovation. Review of Economic
Studies 68 (2001), 467–492.
[4] Aghion Phillippe, N. B., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., and Howitt,
P. Competition and innovation: An inverted-U relationship. The Quarterly
Journal of Economics 120, 2 (May 2005), 701–728.
[5] Amiti, M., and Khandelwal, A. K. Competition and quality upgrading.
NBER Working Paper Series No. 15503 (Nov. forthcoming).
[6] Audretsch, D. B., and Acs, Z. J. Innovation and size at the firm level.
Southern Economic Journal 57, No.3 (1991), 739–744.
[7] Balasubramanian, N., and Lee, J. Firm age and innovation. Industrial
and Corporate Change 17 (2008), 1019–1047.
[8] Blundell R., Rachel Griffith, J. V. R. Market value and innovation
in a panel of british manufacturing firms. The Review of Economic Studies
66 (1999), 529–554.
[9] Cassiman, B., and Veugelers, R. In search of complementarity in innovation
strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. management
science 52 (2006), 68–82.
[10] Chang-Yang Lee, T. S. Schumpeter’s legacy: A new perspective on the
relationship between firm size and R&D. Research Policy 34 (2005), 914–931.
[11] Cohen, W. M., and Klepper, S. A reprise of size and R&D. The Economic
Journal 106, 437 (July 1996), 925–951.
[12] Cohen, W. M., and Levin, R. C. Handbook of Industrial organization–
Empirical Studies of Innovation and Market Structure, vol. 2. Elsevier Science
Publishers B.V., 1989.
[13] Dasgupta, P., and Stiglitz, J. Industrial structure and the nature of
innovation activity. The Economic Journal 90 (1980), 266–293.
[14] Freeman, C. Networks of innovators: A synthesis of research issues. Research
Policy 20 (1991), 499–514.
[15] Graves, S. B., and Langowitz, N. S. Innovation productivity and returns
to scale in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal
14 (1993), 593–605.
[16] Huergo, E., and Jaumandreu, J. How does probability of innovation
change with firm age? Small Business Economics 22 (2004), 193–207.
[17] Jaffe, A. B. Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence
from firms’ patents, profits, and market value. The American Economic Review
76 (1986), 984–1001.
[18] Johnston, J., and DiNardo, J. Econometric Methods. McGraw-Hill
Companies, 2007.
[19] Kamien, M. I., and Schwartz, N. L. Market Structure and Innovation.
Cambridge university press, 1982.
[20] Lee, C.-Y. A new perspective on industry R&D and market structure. The
Journal of Industra Economics 53 (2005), 101–122.
[21] Levin Richard C., W. M. C., and Mowery, D. C. R&D appropriability,
opportunity, and market structure: New evidence on some Schumpeterian
hypothesis. American Economic Review 75 (1985), 20–24.
[22] Lunn, J., and Martin, S. Market structure, firm structure and research
and development. Quarterly Review of Economics and Business 26 (1986),
31–44.
[23] Nickell, S. J. Competition and corporate performance. The Journal of
Political Economy 104 (1996), 724–746.
[24] Olsson, O. Technological opportunity and growth. Journal of Economic
Growth 10 (2005), 35–57.
[25] Phillips, A. Patents, potential competition, and technical progress. The
American Economic Review 56 (1966), 301–310.
[26] Raquel Ortega-Argil´es, M. V., and Voigt, P. R&D in SMEs: a
paradox? Samll Business Economics 33 (2009), 3–11.
[27] Rosenberg. Research and market share: A reappraisal of the Schumpeter
hypothesis. The Journal of Industrial Economics 25, 2 (Dec. 1976), 101–112.
[28] Rothwell R., C. Freeman, A. H. V. J. A. R. J. T. Sappho updated:
Project sappho. Research Policy 3 (1974), 258–291.
[29] Scherer, F. Firm size, market structure, opportunity, and the output of
patented inventions. American Economic Review 55 (1965a), 1097–1125.
[30] Scherer, F. Size of firm, oligopoly, and research: a comment. Canadian
Journal of Economics and Political Science 31 (1965b), 256–266.
[31] Scherer, F. M. Market structure and the employment of scientists and
engineers. The American Economic Review 57, 3 (Jun 1967), 524–531.
[32] Schumpeter, J. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper and Row,
NY, 1942.
[33] Shrieves, R. E. Market structure and innovation: A new perspective.
Journal of Industrial Economics 26 (1978), 329–346.
[34] Tsai, K.-H., and Wang, J.-C. External technology sourcing and innovation
performance in LMT sectors: an analysis based on the Taiwanese
technological innovation survey. Research policy 38 (2009), 518–526.
[35] Tushman, M. L., and Anderson, P. Technological discontinuities and
organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 31 (1986),
439–465.
[36] William J. Abernathy, K. B. C. Innovation: Mapping the winds of
creative destruction. Research Policy 14 (1985), 3–22.
[37] Yang, C.-H., and Huang, C.-H. R&D, size and firm growth in Taiwan’s
electronics industry. Small Business Economics 25 (2005), 477–487.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
* *