Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/34273
|
Title: | 我國IC設計業研發支出遞延效應之探討 |
Authors: | 陳昌民 |
Contributors: | 蘇瓜藤 Su, Robert 陳昌民 |
Keywords: | 研究發展 景氣循環因素 外溢效果 技術知識特質 研發支出遞延效應 R&D economic cycle spillover effect technological knowledge R&D valuation model |
Date: | 2005 |
Issue Date: | 2009-09-18 09:12:14 (UTC+8) |
Abstract: | 本文探討景氣因素、研發外溢效果及技術知識特質對IC設計業研發支出遞延效應之影響。本研究主要採用Lev and Sougiannis (1996)所發展之研發支出遞延效應實證模型,以國內IC設計業上市櫃公司為對象,透過分析產業特性,區分為多應用性IC設計群組及單應用性IC之資訊、通訊及消費性群組,並探討其研發支出遞延效應。研究發現如下:
一、在研發支出遞延效應中,IC設計業受景氣之影響僅限於當期之研發支出;就研發支出效益受影響程度上,IC設計業亦低於其他IC產業。此結果顯示,IC設計業由於具備產品多元化和應用多元等利基市場特性,且在國內是屬於成長型產業,故景氣影響程度不如其他下游產業來的大。
二、多應用性IC設計公司之研發支出所創造之未來效益,比單應用性IC設計公司高。多應用性IC設計公司因為受到研發外溢效果之影響,其當期及遞延一期之研發支出,會比單應用性IC設計公司創造更高之效益。此結果顯示,多應用性IC設計公司投入於不同領域產品之研發支出,存在類似產業內外溢效果,因此亦加強研發支出對未來效益貢獻之程度。
三、資訊類單應用性IC設計公司之研發支出,對未來所創造之效益金額及持續年限,均未優於通訊類及消費類單應用性IC公司。本研究發現,技術路徑相依度及技術變動程度兩種技術知識特質,並不能完全解釋單應用性不同群組之研發支出所創造未來效益的程度,而必須同時考量下游應用市場之目前狀況及未來潛力,才能對其研發支出遞延效應做出更正確之推論。 This thesis analyzes three R&D performance issues of the IC design firms in Taiwan. First, it addresses the effect of the fluctuating economic cycle in the semiconductor sector on the R&D performance of design and non-design firms in the IC industry. Secondly, this study examines the R&D spillover effect on the R&D performance of the multifunctional and single-functional groups of IC design firms. Finally, this study discusses how technological knowledge (path independence and complexity) influences the R&D performance of the three subgroups (computer, communication, and consumer) of single-functional IC design firms.
Three major findings of the study are as follows:
1.The fluctuating economic cycle in the semiconductor sector has less influence on the R&D performance of the IC design firms than that of the IC non-design firms. The fluctuation affects the R&D expenditure of IC design firms only in the current year, but that effect on the IC non-design firms exist in the current year and also the following year. The R&D performance of IC design firms is also less influenced.
2.The multifunctional IC design firms generate more benefit from R&D expenditure than single-functional ones, suggesting that the former group has a stronger R&D spillover effect.
3.Although the computer subgroup of IC design firms possesses high technological path dependence and low technological complexity, its R&D performance is not better than the other subgroups. This finding suggests that technological path dependence and complexity do not fully explain the difference in R&D performance among the three subgroups of single-functional IC design firms. |
Reference: | 中文部分 1.行政院經建會,2002年,「台灣經濟與產業之定義為電子資訊與通訊產品資訊科技產業景氣波動之研究」報告。 2.吳心慈,2000,臺灣生技製藥廠商之技術知識特質與技術網路之研究,國立政治大學科技管理研究所碩士論文。 3.呂承恩,2003,半導體產業學習效果之探討,國立暨南大學經濟學研究所碩士論文。 4.李仁芳、賴建男與賴威龍,1997,台灣IC設計業中技術知識特質與組織動態能耐之研究,科技管理學刊,第三卷第一期,頁37-80。 5.李仁芳與花櫻芬,1997,技術知識類型與知識交流網路模型,科技管理學刊,第二卷第一期,頁75-121。 6.李仁芳與張如蓮,1997,高科技事業中創新類型與組織知識創造之研究,第二屆管理學術定性研究研討會,民國八十六年四月十二日。 7.李淑華,2003,產業價值鏈知識密度與企業績效,國立台灣大學會計學研究所博士論文。 8.周文賢,2002,多變量統計分析,智勝文化事業有限公司出版。 9.林立峰,2001,我國上市的電子公司研發支出與股價之關連性,國立中山大學財務管理學系研究所碩士論文。 10.林富松,1990,研究發展策略與生產力關係之研究,國立政治大學企管研究所博士論文。 11.林銘貴與張如心主編,2001,半導體工業年鑑,經濟部技術處出版。 12.林銘貴與張如心主編,2002,半導體工業年鑑,經濟部技術處出版。 13.林銘貴與張如心主編,2003,半導體工業年鑑,經濟部技術處出版。 14.徐君毅,2001,研發與廣告支出與企業價值變動之因果關係研究,私立東海大學企業管理學系研究所碩士論文。 15.張君豪,1999,研究發展成本、現金流量及盈餘對股票報酬之研究,私立中原大學會計學研究所碩士論文。 16.張恩浩,1991,研究發展之影響因素及其與績效關係之研究,國立台灣大學商學研究所碩士論文。 17.許敬基,2004,台灣IT廠商研發資本與生產效率之關係,國立政治大學中山人文社會科學研究所碩士論文。 18.郭子維,2003,技術知識特質與產業特性對代工關係的影響-以台灣資訊電子產業為例,國立政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。 19.陳弘睿,2000,台灣電腦網路廠商組織知識創造平台之研究,國立政治大學科技管理研究所碩士論文。 20.陳曉嬡,2004,公司特性對研究發展資本比率影響之研究,私立輔仁大學會計系研究所碩士論文。 21.黃則智,2002,專利、研發支出與廠商市值-半導體產業之實證研究,國立台灣大學經濟學系研究所碩士論文。 22.黃雅苓,1999,研究發展支出與經營績效關係即期費用化之探討-以台灣上市公司之電子業與非電子業為例,國立政治大學會計學研究所碩士論文。 23.楊開洋,2001,研究發展投資抵減與企業績效關連性之探討-以我國上市資訊電子業為例,國立台灣大學會計系研究所碩士論文。 24.廖振安,1990,研究發展費用及其會計問題之研究,國立政治大學會計研究所碩士論文。 25.趙耀君,1997,企業研發支出之價值衡量,私立東吳大學會計學系研究所碩士論文。 26.劉正田,1997,研究發展支出之效益及其資本化會計資訊對股票評價攸關性之研究,國立政治大學會計研究所博士論文。 27.劉昱岑,2004,台灣生物科技公司創新行為之研究,國立政治大學科技管理研究所碩士論文。 28.歐進士,1996,我國企業研究發展與經營績效關連性之實證研究,中山管理評論6(2),頁357-386。 29.蔡蕙安與陳致綱,20022,研究發展外溢效果對廠商成本結構之影響-台灣高科技產業之實證分析,經濟論文叢刊,30(2),頁175-204。 30.謝月香,2000,無形資產,國立成功大學會計學系研究所碩士論文。 31.謝慶龍,2000,從PC時代到IA時代日本半導體廠商之技術知識特質與 知識管理作為之研究,國立政治大學經營管理碩士學程碩士論文。 英文部分 1.Abernathy, W.J., and J.M. Utterback. 1978. “Patterns of innovation in technology” Technology Review 80 (7): 40-47. 2.Afuah, A. N. 1998. “Maintaining a competitive advantage in the face of a radical technology change: The role of strategic leadership and dominant logic.” Working Paper, University of Michigan Business School. 3.Bernstein, J. I. 1989. “The structure of Canadian Inter-industry R&D spillovers, and the rates of return to R&D.” Journal of Industrial Economics (March): 315-328. 4.Booz, Allen and Hamilton Inc. 1982. “New products management for the 1980s.” New York: Booz, Allen and Hamilton Inc.. 5.Branch, B. 1974. “Research and development activity and profitability: A distributed lag analysis.” Journal of Political Economy (September/October): 999-1011. 6.Bublitz, B. and M. Ettredge. 1989. “The information in discretion outlays: Advertising, research and development.” The Accounting Review 64: 108-124. 7.Cascini, K. T. 1993. “Varying nations’ accounting standards can make profit evaluations difficult.” Business Forum 18 (Winter/Spring): 55-56. 8.Cockburn, I. and Z. Griliches. 1988. “Industry effect and appropriability measures in the stock market’s valuation of R&D and patents.” American Economic Review 78: 419-423. 9.Cohen, W. and D. Levinthal. 1989. “Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D-implications for the analysis of R&D investment.” Economic Journal 99: 569-596. 10._________ and _________ 1990. “Organizing and leading heavyweight development teams.” Revolutionizing Product Development:Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency and Quality, The Free Press. New York. 11.Evenson, R. and Y. Kislev. 1976. “A stochastic model of applied research.” Journal of Political Economy 84: 265-281. 12.Griliches, Z. 1979. “Issue in assessing the contribution of R&D to productivity Growth.” Bell Journal of Economics 10: 92-116. 13.Hall, B. 1993. “The stock market value of R&D investment during the 1980s.” American Economic Review 83: 259-264. 14.Hendriksen, E. S. 1982. “Intangibles and noncurrent investment.” Accounting Theory, Chapter 16. 4th edition. Illinois: Homewood. 15.Hirshey, M., and J. Weygandt. 1985. “Amortization policy for advertising and R&D expenditures.” Journal of Accounting Research (Spring): 326-335. 16.Iansiti, M. and K. B. Clark 1994. “Integration and dynamic capability: Evidence from product development in automobiles and mainframe computer.” Industrial and Corporate Change 3: 557-605. 17.Kirsch, Robert J., and S. Sakthivel. 1993. “Capitalize or expense?” Management Accounting 74(January): 38-43. 18.Lev, B., and T. Sougiannis. 1996. “The capitalization, amortization, and value-relevance of R&D.” Journal of Accounting and Economics 21: 107-138. 19.Loundder, M., and B. Behn. 1996. “Alternative income determination rules and earnings usefulness: The case of R&D costs.” Contemporary Accounting Research (Fall): 185-205. 20.Megna, P. and M., Klock. 1993. “The impact of intangible capital on tobin’s Q in the semiconductor industry.” American Economic Review (May), 83(2): 265-269. 21.Porter, M. E. 1980. Competitive Sstrategy: Techniques for Aanalyzing Industries and Competitors. The Free Press. New York. 22.Ravenscraft, D., and F. M. Scherer. 1982. “The lag structure of returns to research and development.” Applied Economics 14: 603-620. 23.Scherer, F. M. 1965. “Corporate inventive output, profit and growth.” Journal of Political Economy (May/June): 190-197. Sougiannis, T. 1994. “The accounting based valuation of corporate R&D.” The Accounting Review (January): 44-68. 24.Teece, D. J. 1996. “Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological innovation.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 31: 193-224. 25.Tilton, J. H. 1971. “International diffusion of technology: The case of semiconductors.” Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. 26.Tushman, M.L. and L. Rosenkopf. 1992. “Organizational determinants of technological change: Towards a sociology of technological evolution.” Research in Organizational Behavior 14: 311-347. 27.Vigeland, R. 1981. “The market reaction to SFAS No. 2.” The Accounting Review (April): 309-325. |
Description: | 國立政治大學 會計研究所 92353037 94 |
Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0923530371 |
Data Type: | thesis |
Appears in Collections: | [會計學系] 學位論文
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|