廠商成長、排名流動性與研發活動之研究

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：73

、訪客IP：3.15.5.240

姓名

呂文正(Wen-Cheng Lu) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

產業經濟研究所

論文名稱

廠商成長、排名流動性與研發活動之研究
(The Researches on firm growth, rank mobility and R&D activity)

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)

本文利用panel unit root檢定重新探討場商成長與其規模間的關係，在假設廠商間橫斷面相互獨立下，發現Gibrat’s law成立。而在考慮橫斷面相關下，利用Sarno與Taylor之MADF檢定與無母數分析方法，發現拒絕與接受虛無假設的結論不同。另外，本文利用SURADF檢定考慮廠商異質性與橫斷面相關的問題，並以電子產業為例，檢視何者接受Gibrat’s law.
第二章以台灣500大企業為研究對象，並從中區分成33個產業，以每個產業內廠商排名替換機率作為衡量產業流動性的基礎。我們考慮馬可夫鏈(Markov Chain)、吉伯特法則(Gibrat’s Law)與本文所提供的排名上升、不變與下降的三個狀態的馬可夫鏈，作為實際上廠商排名替換的比較基礎。分析的結果指出，三個狀態的馬可夫鏈較為接近實際的移轉機率。由流動性指標顯示，吉伯特法則所估計出的流動性最高。此外，Geroski and Toker (1996) 的方式並不適用於台灣中小企業為主的產業結構，計算流動性時，若僅考慮每一產業前五名的廠商，將高估產業的僵固性。
另外，本文利用上市製造業廠商的資料，探討台灣電子業廠商成長與研發活動的外溢效果之間的關係為何。本文將研發費用轉換為資本存量的觀念，再將研發的外溢效果(spillover effect)分成產業內與產業間的外溢效果，並探討不同的外溢效果對廠商成長的影響。Hall (1987) 認為傳統上研究廠商成長，並以兩期間廠商規模衡量成長與其決定因素間的議題，會受到廠商進入與退出的影響，若不考慮廠商進出的問題，則估計結果將產生存活偏誤。本文以Heckman兩階段估計法，考慮廠商退出與存活偏誤的問題並發現廠齡，整個產業研發支出、廣告和員工薪資對廠商存活的影響為正向。廠商規模、產業間的外溢效果、產業內的外溢效果、出口、整個產業的成長、資本勞動比對廠商成長的影響也為正向。
本文以一內生成長模型為基礎，將研發支出分成自行研發支出與向外購買並支付權利金兩部分，由廠商極大化自身利潤函數，從而推導出自行研發支出與向外購買支出的最適比例，該比例受到某廠商的國內與國外可學習的技術空間、國內與國外技術吸收能力與自行研發或向外購買所能達成的效率所影響。

摘要(英)

In the early empirical studies, many economists focus on the determinant of firm growth but few papers to investigate the time series phenomenon of firm growth. We investigate the Gibrat’s law by using panel unit root test. Panel unit root can increase power in contrast to conventional individual ADF test. At first we use panel unit root test to testify Gibrat’s law under independent and identical distribution. The test results reject the null hypothesis of Gibrat’s law. Independent and identical distribution is not reasonable in real situation. Any firm in a given industry may have some correlation with other firms. The limiting distribution of Im, Pesaran, and Shin(IPS) statistic is invalid and it will produce large distortion. We apply Taylor and Sarno(1998) MADF test to deal with cross-sectional correlation problem and study the issue. We find that the conclusion is not the same.
Next to the finding of chapter 2, we provide further evidence on Gibrat’s law from the panel unit root test of the Taiwan electronic industry. The test results of Gibrat’s law are not the same as previous empirical literature. We use the panel estimation of seemingly unrelated regressions for Augmented Dickey-Fuller tests (SURADF) to consider cross-sectional dependence and heteroscedasticity. The results show that four companies reject Gibrat’s law.
Firm growth will make the change of firm rank. The movement of firm rank is an dynamic indicator for the rigidity of market structure. In Chapter 4, we adopt the top 500 firms as study object, and divides them into 33 industries. We use the probability of the turnover of firm’s ranking in each industry as the basis of measuring industry mobility. We consider Markov chain, Gibrat’s law and three states Markov chain proposed by this study as the comparison basis of the turnover of firms’ ranking. Analytical results indicate that the three states Markov chain has the transition probability that is most close to the ranking true probability. It can be shown that the mobility which is estimated by Gibrat’s law is highest from mobility indicator. In addition, Geroski and Toker (1996) is not suitable for studying Taiwan’s industry mobility by considering top 5 firms in a given industry, it will overestimate industry rigidity.
Chapter 5 uses the Industry, Commerce and Services (ICS) sampling data to surdy the relationship between firm growth and R&D spillover effects considering firm exit behavior. There are a few papers to investigate this issue. We divide the R&D spillover effects into inter-industry and intra-industry spillover effects and apply the Heckman two-stage model to deal with empirical research. We find that firm age, total R&D expenditure, whole industry sales, advertising, and employee’s salary have positive contribution to firm survival. Firm size, inter-industry spillovers, intra-industry spillovers, export, industrial growth, and capital/labor ratio also have positive contribution to firm growth.
The final Chapter is based on an endogenous growth model and we divide an innovation sourcing strategy into an internal source and an external source. With respect to the determinants of the decision by the innovative firm to produce technology itself or to source technology externally, the representative firm maximizes its profit function and the first-order condition can be derived. Based on our model, the optimal ratio of an internal technology-sourcing strategy and external-sourcing strategy can be found. The technology stock of the representative firm to total industry, the technology absorption capacity, and the internal and external R&D efficiencies will all influence the optimal ratio.

關鍵字(中)

★ 研發外溢效果
★ 排名流動性
★ 廠商成長

關鍵字(英)

★ rank mobility
★ firm growth
★ R&
★ D spillover effects

論文目次

Contents
Chapter 1 Preface
1. Introduction…………………………………………………… 4
2. Data Appendix………………………………………………… 9
Chapter 2 Panel Unit Root Tests of Firm Size and Its Growth
1. Introduction……………………………………………………..12
2. Data Description and Treatment…………………………….…. 14
3. Panel Unit Root Method…………………………………….…..15
4. Test Results……………………………………………………...17
Reference……….……………………………………………….….19
Chapter 3 Further Evidence on Gibrat’s Law
1. Introduction……………………………………………………..25
2. Model…………………………………………………………...27
3. Results..…………………………………………………………29
Reference …………………………………………………………..31
Chapter 4 A Study on Rank Mobility of the Taiwan Manufacturing Firms
1. Introduction……………………………………………….…….33
2. Data Sources and Treatment……………………………….……38
3. Basic Model and Estimated Result……………………………...40
4. Conclusion……..…………………………………………….….54
Reference…….…………………………………………….……….58
Chapter 5 Effect of R&D Spillover on the Firm Growth—the Case of Electronic and Electrical Machinery Industry
1. Introduction……………………………………………………..61
2. Empirical Models and Data……………………………………..66
3. Empirical Results……………………………………………….75
4. Conclusion……………...……………………………………….80
Reference …..……………………………………………………..84
Chapter 6 On the Optimal Technology Sourcing Strategy with Spillover Effect
1. Introduction…………………………………………………….88
2. The Model…………………………………………………...…93
3. Conclusion…………………………………………………....104
Reference…….…………………….…………………………….108
Chapter 7 Conclusion…………………………………………………..111

參考文獻

References
Blonigen, B.A., Tomlin K. 2001. Size and growth of Japanese plants in the United States. International Journal of Industrial Organization 19, 931-952.
Breuer, J.B., McNown, R., Wallace M. 1999. Series specific tests for a unit root in a panel setting with an application to real exchange rates. working paper, University of South Carolina.
Breusch, T.S., Pagan, A.R. 1980. The lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Review of Economic Studies XLVII, 239-253.
Chen, J.-R., Lu, W.-C. 2002. Panel unit root tests of firm size and its growth. Applied Economics Letters, forthcoming.
Evans, D.S., 1987. The relationship between firm growth size, and age: estimates for 100 manufacturing industries. The Journal of Industrial economics 35, 567-581.
Hall, B.H., 1987. The relationship between firm size and firm growth in the US manufacturing sector. The Journal of Industrial Economics 35, 583-606.
Im, K.S., Pesaran, M.H., Shin, Y. 1997. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. In: Working Paper. University of Cambridge.
Levin, A., Lin, C.-F. 1992. Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. In: Mimeo. University of California at San Diego.
Levin, A., Lin, C.-F. 1993. Unit root tests in panel data: New results. In: Mimeo. University of California at San Diego.
Liu, J.-T., Tsou, M.-W., Hammitt J.K. 1999. Do small plants grow faster? Evidence from the Taiwan electronics industry. Economic Letters 65, 121-129.
Maddala, G.S., Wu S. 1999. Comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 61, 631-652.
Moon, H.R., Perron B. 2002a. Power comparison of panel unit root tests. In: Working Paper. University of Southern California.
Moon, H.R., Perron B. 2002b. Testing for a unit root in panels with dynamic factors. In: Working Paper. University of Southern California.
O’Connell, P., 1998. The overvaluation of purchasing power parity. Journal of International Economics 44, 1-19.
Phillips, P.C.B., Sul D. 2002. Optimal testing for unit roots in panel data, mimeo, Yale University.
Taylor, M.P., Sarno, L. 1998. The behaviour of real exchange rates during the post-Bretton Woods period. Journal of International Economics 46, 281-312.
Anderson, T. W. and Goodman, L. A. (1957), Statistical inference about Markov chains, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 28, 89-110.
Basawa, I. V. and Parkasa Rao, B. L. S. (1980), Statistical inference for stochastic processes. Academic Press, London.
Blonigen, B. A. and Tomlin, K. (2001), Size and growth of Japanese plants in the United States, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 19, 931-952.
Chen, J.C. and Lin H.L. (1997), Concentration and its changes in Taiwan Industries, Taiwan Economic Review, 25:3, 335-367.
Chen, J.R. (1993), Dynamics of market concentration: testing the dichotomous market structure, Academic Economics Review, 21:2, 375-393.
Chen, J. R. and Yang, C.H. (1997), Dynamic evolution of market structure—the case of Taiwan Manufacturing industries, Academia Economic Papers, 351-373.
George, E. B. (1939), Is Big Business Getting Bigger? Dun’s Review, III, 32.
Geroski, P. and Toker, S. (1996), The turnover of market leaders in UK manufacturing industry, 1979-1986, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 14, 141-158.
Grossack, I., (1965), Towards an integrated measure of static and dynamic measures of industry concentration, Review of Economics and Statistic, 47, 301-308.
Grossack, I., (1972), The concept and measurement of permanent industrial concentration, Journal of Political Economy, 80, 745-760.
Hall, B. H., (1987), The relationship between firm size and firm growth in the US manufacturing sector, The Journal of Industrial Economics, XXXV, 583-605.
Hart, P. E. and Prais, S.J. (1960), The analysis of business concentration, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, XLII
Hymer S. and Pashigian, P. (1962), Turnover of firms as a measure of market behavior, Review of Economics and Statistics, 44, 82-87.
Joskow, J., (1960), Structure Indicia: Rank shift analysis as a supplenment to concentration Ratios, Review of Economics and Statistics, 42, 113-116.
Kaplan, A. D. H., (1964), Big Enterprise in a competitive system, The Brookings Institution, p143.
Kemeny, J. G. and Snell J.A. (1959), Finite Markov chains. Dartmouth College Press.
Padberg, D. I. (1962), The use of markov processs in measuring changes in market structure, American Journal of Agriculture Economics, 44, 189-199.
Rhoades, Stephen A., (1982), Size and rank stability of the 100 largest commercial banks, 1925-78. Journal of Economics and Business, 123-128.
Simons, H. A. and Bonini, C. P. (1958), The size distribution of business firms, American Economic Review, XLVIII, 607-617.
Scherer and Ross (1990), Industrial market structure and economic performance, 3rd, Chapter 3.
Chen, Jong-Rong, Chuang, W.B. and Yang, C.H. (2002), Symmetry and relativity of entry and exit – empirical evidence from Taiwan’s manufacturing industries, Journal of Social Science and Philosophy, 14:1 33-54.
Chuang, Y.C. and Hsu P.F. (1999), Productivity, R&D, and intra-and inter-industry spillovers in Taiwan’s manufacturing industry, Academic Economic Review, 27:3, 407-432.
Almus, M., (2002), What characterizes a fast-growing firm? Applied Economics, 34:12, 149-158.
Baltagi, B., (1999), Econometric analysis of panel data. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester Press.
D’Aspremont, C. and Jacquemin, A., (1988), Cooprative and noncooperative R&D in duopoly with spillovers. The American Economic Review 78:5, 1133-1137.
D’Aspremont, C. and Jacquemin, A., (1990), Cooprative and noncooperative R&D in duopoly with spillovers: erratum. The American Economic Review, 80:3, 641-642.
De Bondt, R. Slaets, P. and Cassiman, B., (1992), The degree of spillovers and the number of rivals for maximum effective R&D, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 10:1, 297-313.
Evans, D.S. (1987a), The relationship between firm growth, size, and age: estimates for 100 manufacturing industries, The Journal of Industrial Economics, 35, 567-581.
Evans, D.S. (1987b), Tests of alternative theories for firm growth, Journal of Political Economy, 95, 657-674.
Greene, W., (2000), Econometric analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Grossman, G.M. and Helpman, E. (1991a), Innovation and growth in the global economy, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT press.
Grossman, G.M. and Helpman, E. (1991b), Quality ladders and product cycles, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 557-586.
Grossman, G.M. and Helpman, E. (1991c), Quality ladders in the theory of growth, Review of Economic Studies, 58, 43-61.
Hall, B.H. (1987), The relationship between firm size and firm growth in the US manufacturing sector, The Journal of Industrial Economics, 35, 583-606.
Hsiao, Cheng, (1999), Analysis of panel data, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Jaffe, A.B. (1986), Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: evidence from firms’patents, profits, and market value, American Economic Review, 76:5, 984-1001.
Jovanovic B. (1982), Selection and the evolution of industry. Econometrica, 50, 649-670.
Kamien, M.I., Muller, I., and Zang, I., (1992), Research joint ventures and R&D cartels, The American Economic Review, 82, 1293-1306.
Leary, D., and Neary, J.P., (1997), Public policy towards R&D in oligopolistic industries, The American Economic Review 87:4, 641-662.
Liu, J.T., Tsou, M.W., Hammit, J., (1999), Do small plants grow faster? Evidence from the Taiwan electronics industry? Economic Letters 65, 121-129.
O’Connell, P. (1998), The overvaluation of purchasing power parity, Journal of International Economics, 44, 1-19
Spence, A.M. (1984), Cost reduction, competition, and industry performance, Econometrica, 52:1, 101-121.
Storey, D.J. (1994), Understanding the small business sector, London: Routledge.
Suzumura, K., (1992), Cooperation and noncooperative R&D in an oligopoly with spillovers, American Economic Review, 82:5, 1307-1320.
Tsai, Kuang-Ti and Hao-Yen Yang (1996), Multilevel-Nested R&D spillovers and their contributions to sectors with different tech levels in Taiwan’s manufacturing industries, Taiwan Economic Review, 24:1, 29-59.
Taylor, M.P. and Sarno, L. (1998), The behavior of real exchange rates during the post-Bretton Woods period. Journal of International Economics, 46, 281-312.
Tether B.S. and Massini S. (1998), Employment creation in small technological and design innovators in the U.K. during the 1980s, Small Business Economics, 11:4, 353-370.
Rajan, R. and Zingales, L. (1998), Financial Dependence and Growth, The American Economic Review, 88, 559-586.
Vander Vennet, R. (2001), The law of proportionate effect and OECD bank sectors, Applied Economics, 33, 539-546.
Aghion, P. and Howitt, P. (1992), A model of growth through creative destruction, Econometrica, LX, 323-351.
Allen, T., (1986), Managing the flow of technology, MIT press, Cambridge, MA, p.317.
Amable, B., and Verspagen B. (1995), The role of technology in market shares dynamics, Applied Economics, 27:2, 197-204.
Audretsch, D.B., Santarelli E., and Vivarelli, M. (1999), Set-up size and industrial dynamics: some evidence from Italian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 17, 965-983.
Aurora, A. and Gambardella, A., (1990), Complementarity and external linkages: the strategies of the large firms in biotechnology, Journal of Industrial Economics, 38, 361-379.
Barney, J.B. and Baysinger, B. (1990), Strategic management in high technology firms, JAI press, 3-14.
Barro, R.J., Mankiw, N., Sala-i-Martin, X., (1995), Capital mobility in neoclassical models of growth. American Economic Review, 85, 103-115.
Barro, R.J., Sala-i-Martin, X., (1992), Convergence. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 223-251.
Baumol, W. (1962), On the Theory of Expansion of the Firms, American Economic Review, 52, 1078-1087.
Bernstein, J.I. and Nadiri, M.I. (1988), Interindustry R&D spillovers rates of return and production in high-tech industries, American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 78:2, 429-434.
Browning, D.C., Beyer, J.M. and Shetletr, J.C. (1995), building cooperation in competitive industry: Sematech and the semiconductor industry, Academy of Management Journal, 38:1, 131-151.
Cabral, L. (1995), Sunk costs, firm size and firm growth, Journal of Industrial Economics, 43, 161-172.
Carlin, W., Glynn, A., and Reenen J. (1998), Export market performance of OECD countries: an empirical Examination of the role of cost competitiveness, Mimeo
Chen, J.R. and Chen W.H. (1992), Effect of R&D spillover on the profit performance of firms — the case of automation industry. Taiwan Economic Reviw, 20:2 155-175.
Cohen, W. and Levin, R. (1989), Empirical studies of innovation and market structure. In: Schmalensee, R.,Willig, R., Handbook of industrial organization. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1060-1107.
Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D., (1990), Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152.
Dolde, W. (1995), Hedging, leverage, and primitive risk, The Journal of Financial Engineering, 4, 187-216.
Garner J.L., Jouahn N., and Richard E.O. (2002), Determinants of corporate growth opportunities of emerging firms, Journal of Economics and Business, 54, 73-93.
Gay, D.G. and Nam, J. (1998), The under-investment problem and corporate derivative use. Financial Management, 27, 53-69.
Geczy, C., Minton, B.A. and Schrand, C. (1997), Why firms use currency derivatives. The Journal of Finance, 52, 1323-1352.
Griliches, Z.J. and Siegel D. (1991), Purchased services, outsourcing, computers and productivity in manufacturing, NBER working 3678.
Grossman, S., and Hart, O., (1986), The costs and benefits of ownership: a theory of vertical and lateral integration. Journal of Political Economy, 94, 690-719.
Grossman, G.M. and Helpman, E. (1991a), Innovation and growth in the global economy, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT press.
Grossman, G.M. and Helpman, E. (1991b), Quality ladders and product cycles, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 557-586.
Grossman, G.M. and Helpman, E. (1991c), Quality ladders in the theory of growth, Review of Economic Studies, 58, 43-61.
Jaffe, A.B. (1986), Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: evidence from firms’ patents, profits, and market value, American Economic Review, 76:5, 984:1001.
Jovanovic, B. (1982), Selection and evolution of industry. Econometrica, 50, 649-670.
Laursen, K. (1999), The impact of technological opportunity on the dynamics of trade performance, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 10, 341-357.
Laursen, K. and Valentina, M. (2000), The importance of technology-based intersectoral linkages for market share dynamics, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 136, 702-723.
Magnier, A. and J. Toujas-Bernate (1994), Technology and trade: Empirical evidence for the major five industrialized countries, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 130:3, 494-520.
Mankiw, N.G., Romer, D., and Weil, D.N. (1992), A contribution to the empirics of economic growth, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 407-437.
Nance, D.R., Smith, C.W.J. and Smithson, C.W. (1993), On the determinants of corporate hedging, The Journal of Finance, 48, 267-284.
Perez-Sebastian, F. (2000), Transitional dynamics in an R&D-based growth model with imitation: Comparing its predictions to the data, Journal of Monetary Economics, 45, 437-461.
Pisano, G., (1990), The R&D boundaries of the firm: an empirical analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 153-176.
Romer, P.M. (1990), Endogenous technological change, Journal of Political Economy, XCVIII, S71-S103.
Rothwell, R. (1991), External networking and innovation in small and medium-size manufacturing firms in Europe. Technovation, 11:2, 93-112.
Shan, W., Walker, G. and Kogut, B. (1994), Interfirm cooperation and start-up innovation in the biotechnology industry, Strategic Management Journal, 15, 387-394.
Spence, A.M. (1984), Cost reduction, competition, and industry performance, Econometrica, 52:1, 101-121.
Solow, R.M. (1956), A contribution to the theory of economic growth, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70, 65-94.
Solow, R.M. (1957), Technical change and aggregate production function, Review of Economic Statistics, 39, 312-320.
Teece, D.J. (1981), The market for know-how and the efficient international transfer of technology, The Annual of the Amercan Academy of Political and Social Science, 81-94.
Teece, D.J. (1986), Profiting from technology innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy, Research Policy, 15:6, 285-305.
Teece, D.J. (1992), Competition, coopration, and innovation organizational arrangements for regimes of rapid technological progress. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 18, 1-25.
Veugelers, V. and Bruno C. (1999), Make and Buy in innovation strategies: evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms, Research Policy, 28, 63-80.
Veugelers, V., (1997), Internal R&D expenditures and external technology sourcing. Research Policy, 26, 303-315.
Williamson, O. (1985), The economic institutions of capitalism, firms, markets, relational contracting. The Free Press, New York.
Yang, Chih-Hai and Jong-Rong Chen, (2002) R&D, patents and productivity evidence from Taiwanese manufacturing firms, Taiwan Economic Review, 27-48.
Young, A., (1994), Lessons from the East Asian NICs: a contrarian view. European Economic Review, 38, 964-973.
Young, A., (1995), The tyranny of numbers: confronting the statistical realities of the East Asian growth experience. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 641-680.

指導教授

陳忠榮(Jong-Rong Chen)

審核日期

2003-7-8

推文