台灣生技醫藥產業的制度變遷

本文檢視台灣在發展生技醫藥產業時面臨之制度變遷的過程。首先，本文的主要發現為：在1990年代，台灣生技醫藥產業因跟隨先進國家的制度變遷而對產業產生重要的影響。其次，這些制度的再結構是為了適應全球性的調節(regulations)規範。本文將從行動者的權力關係來解釋，具有權力的行動者如何治理無權力的行動者來檢視灰色和重疊的領域，探討台灣生技醫藥產業的制度變遷。第三，為了更清楚理解台灣生技醫藥產業發展的過程，本研究從區分權力關係的變遷，包含具有權力及無權力兩種；以及從調節、資金、基礎建設和技術的四項推動力所形成八項架構的類型，來進一步概念化生技醫藥產業是一項政治驅動系統的動態變遷，並且分析這八項權力關係是透過許多行動者建立而形成。此外，本文也將從技術和領域的觀點來探討本土的大型製藥廠為了維持資金、基礎建設和技術的運作，前往中國大陸投資的行動。

關鍵字

制度；生技醫藥產業；創投；群聚；技術

並列摘要

The main task of this article is to investigate the role of institutional change in the development of Taiwan's bio-pharmaceutical industry. The major findings of this paper are first, in the 1990s the local's bio-pharmaceutical institution followed as the advanced national one played a leading role, and the advanced nations' institutional changes eventually became the most important global participant. Secondly, those institutions were restructured to adapt to the regulations globally. This article attempts to explain the gray and overlapping zone to investigate the role of institutional change in the development of Taiwan's bio-pharmaceutical industry. The explanation occurs as a result of changes in the power relationships among agents, or in the consequences desired by agents who are powerful enough to govern in bargaining with powerless ones. Thirdly, to be able to take due account of this, this research suggests to distinguish between power relationship of change, which may include either powerfulness or powerlessness, and impulses of change, which may include fund, infrastructure, and technology. It is to the exploration of eight types of changes that conceptualize properly current development in the political economy of Taiwan bio-pharmaceutical industry which is an outstanding example of the dynamism of the policy-driven system. These types of power relationship are built by heaps of agents. Moreover, in order to maintain the linkage to the market and technology, some agents began to invest in mainland China especially some local big Pharmas. In this article, technology and territorization are both used to explain the motivations of those firms to boarder-crossing.