轉業研究: 理論與實證

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：179

、訪客IP：3.139.105.231

姓名

朱珊瑩(Shan-Ying Chu) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

產業經濟研究所

論文名稱

轉業研究: 理論與實證
(Three Essays on Industry-Switching: Theory and Empirical Evidence)

相關論文

★ 期間利差與經濟衰退之預測模型-理性預期假設之驗證	★ 台灣、美國總經月數據與台股股價指數之關聯性
★ 台灣資訊電子產業異質性及利潤率之探討	★ 中小企業案件逾期放款之預測
★ 台灣半導體產業經營效率分析－三階段資料包絡分析法之應用	★ 台灣車輛產業經濟附加價值之研究－兼論影響信通交通器材公司經濟附加價值之因素
★ 外人直接投資與研發活動之關聯性-台灣電子相關產業之實證研究	★ 消費性信用貸款授信評量模式之研究
★ 二順位房貸產品風險預警分析	★ 新產品商業化流程之個案研究–以美商3M公司為例
★ 高淨值客戶風險屬性與共同基金投資報酬率之實證研究	★ 台灣加權指數與指數股票型基金風險值之歷史模擬法分析
★ 國際油價、匯率與利率之動態關聯—VECM與VECM-GARCH之應用	★ 主流記憶體之二十年價格模式研究與驗證
★ 以DEA模型分析桃園郵局之營運績效	★ 奢侈稅實施對都會地區房價之衝擊反應分析

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

轉業指的是廠商退出既存產業而參進另一個產業，
它綜合文獻中最常被討論的退出與參進行為而呈現廠商動態的多樣性;
同時，大量的實證資料也顯示轉業是一個普遍的現象。
然而，既存文獻卻非常缺乏對轉業的正式探討。
由於既存文獻忽略了轉業，亦即忽略轉業廠商轉業前與轉業後的狀況，
所以他們無法嚴謹而完整地刻畫廠商的動態決策過程，這進而可能產生對產業發展的錯誤推論。
鑑於此，本論文就聚焦在轉業的理論與實證研究。
首先，我們利用投入產出表中的產業相依係數創立一個轉業程度指標來描述廠商如何進行轉業。
此指標改進傳統分類方法的缺點而能一致地量化個別廠商具異質性的的轉業行為。
在此指標的基礎上，我們接著利用 Heckman 的兩階段估計法以及分量迴歸方法
對 $1986$ 到 $1991$ 年間的台灣電力及電子機械器材製造修配業進行研究。
實證結果顯示產業的成長率與集中度以及廠商年齡、規模與生產力皆會影響廠商的轉業決策。
另外，這些因素對轉業程度的影響效果隨著廠商的轉業程度不同而異。
最後，我們延伸既有的模型，使轉業變成廠商在續留與退出之外另一個內生的選擇。
透過廠商因素、產業因素以及市場條件等的交互作用，轉業模型形成續留、失敗與轉業廠商。
轉業模型的均衡可以解釋在實證上發現但卻被既存廠商動態理論所忽略的一些現象，
同時也可以對產業發展提供正確的推論。

摘要(英)

Industry-switching occurs as ﬁrms exit one industry and then enter another industry.
Due to the combination of exit and entry which are two core issues in traditional industrial
economics, industry-switching shows the multiplicity of ﬁrm dynamics. In addition,
a large number of empirical results display that it spreads widely in reality. However, a
formal study on industry-switching is almost absent from the literature. Owing to the
ignorance of industry-switching, i.e. neglecting industry-switching ﬁrms’ pre-switching
and post-switching situations, existing researches are incapable of rigorously and completely
capturing ﬁrms’ dynamic decision process, which is likely to cause incorrect
inference for industry development. In view of this, this dissertation focuses on the
theoretical and empirical study on industry-switching First, we utilize the interdependence
coeﬃcients in the input-output table to create an industry-switching degree index
(ISDI) to describe how ﬁrms switch among industries. ISDI improves disadvantages
in the traditional categorization method to unify and quantify each individual ﬁrm’s
heterogeneous industry-switching behavior. Based on ISDI, we then employ Heckman’s
two-step estimation and the quantile regression technique to investigate the industryswitching
behavior among Taiwan’s electronics manufacturing industries during 1986 to
1991. Empirical results exhibit that industry growth rate, concentration rate, ﬁrm age,
scale, and productivity aﬀect ﬁrms’ switching decision. Moreover, the eﬀect of each of
these determinants vary with ﬁrms’ degree of industry-switching. At last, we extend
existing theoretical model to allow industry-switching to also be an endogenous decision
other than staying and exiting decisions. In equilibrium, an interaction among ﬁrm
characteristics, industry characteristics, and market conditions shapes the staying, failure,
and industry-switching choices. Our industry-switching model enables us to explain
some stylized facts that are observed by us but can not be interpreted by the literature.
Furthermore, it provides with the correct inference for industry development.

關鍵字(中)

★ 台灣電子業
★ 轉業
★ 轉業程度指標
★ 生產力
★ 台灣製造業

關鍵字(英)

★ industry-switching degree index
★ industry-switching
★ Taiwan's electronics industry
★ Taiwan's manufacturing industries
★ productivity

論文目次

1 Introduction of the Dissertation 1
2 Industry-Switching Behavior and Productivity – The Case of Taiwan’s
Electronics Firms 4
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Industry-Switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.1 The speciﬁcation of the industry-switching behavior . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.2 What motivates us to create ISDI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.3 Interdependence coeﬃcient table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.4 The creature of the ISDI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3 Data and Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3.1 The census data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3.2 Productivity and ﬁrmdynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3.3 The measurement of productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4 EmpiricalModel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.5 Empirical Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.6 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3 The Determinants of A Firm’s Degree of Industry-Switching –
An Investigation via Quantile Regression 28
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2 Industry-Switching Degree Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3 Quantile RegressionMethods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3.1 An introduction to quantile regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3.2 Quantile regression estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3.3 Advantages of quantile regression methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.4 Empirical Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.4.1 Empirical model and data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.4.2 Empirical results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.5 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4 A Theoretical Model of Industry-Switching 47
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.2 The Failure and the Switching-Out Firms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.3 Productivity of Taiwan’sManufacturing Firms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.3.1 Empirical data, 1986 to 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.3.2 Productivity comparison among types of ﬁrms . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.3.3 Results of productivity comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.4 The Classical Exiting Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.4.1 Literature on ﬁrms’ exiting decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.4.2 Model ﬁrms’ exiting decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.4.3 The exiting are less productive than the staying . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.5 A Theoretical Model of Industry-Switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.5.1 A sketch of the industry-switching model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.5.2 The model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.5.3 Equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.5.4 Zero-value and industry-indiﬀ. productivity threshold . . . . . . . 63
4.5.5 Illustrating the industry-switching model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.6 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

參考文獻

Chapter1:
Aw, B. Y., S. Chung, and M. J. Roberts (2000), Productivity and Turnover in the Export
Market: Micro-level Evidence From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, The World
Bank Economic Review, 14 (1), 65-90.
Aw, B. Y., X. Chen, and M. J. Roberts (2001), Firm-level Evidence on Productivity
Diﬀerentials and Turnover in Taiwan’s Manufacturing, Journal of Development
Economics, 66(1), 51-86.
Dunne, T., M. J. Roberts and L. Samuelson (1988), Patterns of Firm Entry and Exit in
U.S. Manufacturing Industries, Rand Journal of Economics, 19(4), 495-515.
Dunne T., and M. J. Roberts (1991), Variation in Producer Turnover Across U.S. Manufacturing
Industries, in P. A. Geroski and J. Schwalbach (eds.), Entry and Market
Contestability: An International Comparison, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 187-203.
Ericson, R. and A. Pakes (1995), Markov-Perfect Industry Dynamics: A Framework for
Empirical Work, Review of Economic Studies, 62, 53-82.
Good, D. H., M. I. Nadiri, and R. Sickles, (1997), Index Number and Factor Demand
Approaches to the Estimation of Productivity. In: Pesaran, H., and P. Schmidt,
22
(Eds.), Handbook of Applied Econometrics: Microeconometrics, (II), 14-80, Blackwell:
Oxford.
Greene, W. H., (2003), Econometric Analysis, Fifth Edition, New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Griliches, Z., and H. Regev, (1995), Firm Productivity in Israeli Industry, Journal of
Econometrics, 66, 175-203.
Hopenhayn, H. (1992), Entry, Exit and Firm Dynamics in Long-Run Equilibrium,
Econometrica, 60, 1127–1150.
Jovanovic, B. (1982), Selection and Evolution of Industry, Econometrica, 50, 649–670.
Kleijweg, A. J. M. and M. H. C. Lever, (1996), Entry and Exit in Dutch Manufacturing
Industries, Review of Industrial Organization, 11(3), 375-82.
Mata, J., (1993), Entry and Type of Entrant: Evidence from Portugal, International
Journal of Industrial Organization, 11, 101-122.
Orr, D., (1974), The Determinants of Entry: A Study of the Canadian Manufacturing
Industries, Review of Economics and Statistics, 56(1), 58-66.
Tybout, J. (2000), Manufacturing Firms in Developing Countries: How Well Do They
Do and Why? Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 11-44.
Van Kranenburg H. L., F. C. Palm, and G. A. Pfann (2002), Exit and Survival in a
Concentrating Industry: The Case of Daily Newspapers in the Netherlands, Review
of Industrial Organization, 21, 283-303.
Chapter2:
Buchinsky M. (2001), Quantile Qegression with Sample Selection: Estimating Women’s
Return to Education in the U.S., Empirical Economics, 26 (1), 87-113.
Chen, J. R., and S. Y. Chu (2004), A Study on Industry-Switching Behavior and Productivity
- The Case of Taiwan’s Electronics Firms, Academia Economic Papers, 32
(3), 413-439.
Dunne, T., M. J. Roberts and L. Samuelson (1988), Patterns of Firm Entry and Exit in
U.S. Manufacturing Industries, Rand Journal of Economics, 19 (4), 495-515.
Koenker and Hallock (2001), Quantile Regression, Journal of Economic Perspectives,
15, 143-156.
Machado, J. A. F.,and J. Mata (2000), Box-Cox Quantile Regression and the Distribution
of Firm Sizes, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15 (3), 253-74.
Mata, J. (1993), Entry and Type of Entrant: Evidence from Portugal, International
Journal of Industrial Organization, 11, 101-122.
Van Kranenburg H. L., F. C. Palm, and G. A. Pfann (2002), Exit and Survival in a
Concentrating Industry: The Case of Daily Newspapers in the Netherlands, Review
of Industrial Organization, 21, 283-303.
Chapter3:
Aw, B. Y., S. Chung, and M. J. Roberts (2000), Productivity and Turnover in the Export
Market: Micro-level Evidence From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, The World
Bank Economic Review, 14 (1), 65-90.
Aw, B. Y., X. Chen, and M. J. Roberts (2001), Firm-level Evidence on Productivity
Diﬀerentials and Turnover in Taiwanese Manufacturing, Journal of Development
Economics, 66(1), 51-86.
Bernard, A. B., S. Redding, and P. Schott (2004), Product Choice and Product Switching,
a revised version of NBER Working Paper, 9789, 1-36.
Chen, J. R., and S. Y. Chu (2004), Study on Industry-Switching Behavior and Productivity
- The Case of Taiwan’s Electronics Firms, Academia Economic Papers, 32 (3),
413-439.
Dunne, T., M. J. Roberts and L. Samuelson (1988), Patterns of Firm Entry and Exit in
U.S. Manufacturing Industries, Rand Journal of Economics, 19(4), 495-515.
Ericson, R. and A. Pakes (1995), Markov-Perfect Industry Dynamics: A Framework for
Empirical Work, Review of Economic Studies, 62, 53-82.
Good, D. H., M. I. Nadiri, and R. Sickles, (1997), Index Number and Factor Demand
Approaches to the Estimation of Productivity. In: Pesaran, H., and P. Schmidt,
(Eds.), Handbook of Applied Econometrics: Microeconometrics, (II), 14-80, Oxford:
73
Blackwell.
Griliches, Z., and H. Regev, (1995), Firm Productivity in Israeli Industry, Journal of
Econometrics, 66, 175-203.
Hopenhayn, H. (1992), Entry, Exit and Firm Dynamics in Long-Run Equilibrium,
Econometrica, 60, 1127–1150.
Jovanovic, B. (1982), Selection and Evolution of Industry, Econometrica, 50, 649–670.
Kleijweg, A. J. M. and M. H. C. Lever, (1996), Entry and Exit in Dutch Manufacturing
Industries, Review of Industrial Organization, 11(3), 375-82.
Mata, J., (1993), Entry and Type of Entrant: Evidence from Portugal, International
Journal of Industrial Organization, 11, 101-122.
Melitz, M. J., (2003), The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate
Industry Productivity, Econometrica, 71, 1695-1725.
Tybout, J. (2000), Manufacturing Firms in Developing Countries: How Well Do They Do and Why? Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 11-44.

指導教授

陳忠榮(Jong-Rong Chen)

審核日期

2005-7-13

推文