國際研發與產業競爭力之研究─兼論國際經濟組織內之知識外溢

International R&D and Industrial Competitiveness: Intra-Organization Spillovers for the OECD

黃思齊(Szu-Chi Huang)

指導教授 ： 陸怡蕙

國立臺灣大學/生物資源暨農學院/農業經濟學研究所/碩士(2012年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2012.01939

摘要

在經濟發展的理論中，技術進步一直是解釋國家之間所得差距的重要因素。由於國際技術外溢與總要素成長力的成長息息相關，因此過去之文獻多著重在世界主要研發國的研發活動，檢視由主要研發國傳遞之國際技術外溢對其他國家之影響。近年來除了衡量透過貿易關係傳遞的直接技術外溢外，更有學者提出不須透過直接貿易關係，無貿易第三國就能間接透過其他貿易夥伴接收主要研發國傳遞之技術外溢的觀點。此外，除了觀察到國際技術外溢對生產力之正向影響，近年來也有部份文獻觀察到負向的效果，並推論此負向技術外溢效果與產業之競爭力相關，但這些文獻均只限於觀點的提出，而未具體地檢視國際技術外溢與產業競爭力之關係。因此，本研究選定1990至2009年之OECD會員國作為觀察對象，並將生產力成長與產業競爭力作一連結，嘗試由直接與間接技術外溢的角度解釋產業競爭力與總要素生產力的變動。
在研究方法上，本研究採用三階段最小平法來分析國際技術外溢對OECD會員國的生產力成長與產業競爭力之影響。本研究之實證模型包含三個重點。首先，本文設定G5加二(即美國、日本、德國、法國、英國與中國及韓國等七國)為主要研發國，並假設主要研發國為唯一的技術外溢來源。在基本模型中，本研究將OECD會員國區分為主要研發國與非主要研發國兩個群組，以觀察直接與間接技術外溢對其生產力成長與產業競爭力之影響。其次，本研究在延伸模型中進一步依是否為主要東亞新興研發國，將技術外溢來源分為中韓與G5兩類，藉以檢視外溢來源國之不同是否會造成技術外溢效果的差異，並與主要文獻做一區隔。最後，本研究在第三組模型設定架構下，依照非主要研發國之生產力成長速度與國家所得水準再進行分組，觀察國際技術外溢對不同類型之國家是否存在影響程度與影響方向上的差異。
本研究之實證結果顯示，不論在生產力成長或產業競爭力之模型中，間接技術外溢效果皆大於直接技術外溢效果，且直接與間接的技術外溢均可能產生負向的影響。此外，當觀察群組之研發存量占國家生產毛額之比例較低時，外溢效果不僅較小，甚至對生產力成長與產業競爭力均產生負向的影響；反之，當非主要研發國積極從事研發活動時，來自主要研發國之技術外溢將有助於成長速度與產業競爭力之提昇。本研究亦觀察到來自G5主要研發國的技術外溢對OECD會員國之影響較大，但中韓等東亞新興研發國之技術外溢效果亦不可忽視。
綜觀言之，本研究的實證結果顯示，不論是直接技術外溢或是間接技術外溢，均是在討論生產力成長與產業競爭力之決定因素時必須納入考量的，且自身研發活動較為積極之國家通常較能接收到正向之技術外溢效果。此外，雖然來自G5主要研發國之技術外溢效果較強，中韓等東亞新興研發國之技術外溢效果仍具有顯著影響力，這些實證結果亦進一步說明國與國之間的貿易為傳遞技術外溢之重要管道。

關鍵字

直接技術外溢 ； 間接技術外溢 ； G5加二 ； 總要素生產力 ； 產業競爭力

並列摘要

In the theory of economic development, technological progress has always been an important factor in explaining the income gap between countries. Since international spillover is closely related to the growth of total factor productivity (TFP), most past literature emphasizes the importance of R&D activities of G5 countries (United States, Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, and France). During the last two decades, international technology spillover transmitted through trade has become the major focus of empirical studies. Among them, several recent studies propose the notion of indirect technology spillover which might be as important as direct spillovers from major R&D countries. By trading with other countries, indirect technological spillover implies that any country can benefit from major R&D country’s available stock even if they do not trade with each other.
Most empirical studies concluded international spillover impact productivity positively, but there are some observed a negative effect, which infer the negative spillover effect is related to the industrial competitiveness. Therefore, in addition to examining international spillovers between the OECD countries during 1990-2009, this study also links productivity growth to industrial competitiveness while attempting to explain the change in TFP growth and industrial competitiveness by direct and indirect technology spillovers.
Assuming G5 plus two (United States, Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Korea and China) as the major R&D countries and these seven countries are the only sources of technology spillover, three-stage least squares method is used in this study to analyze the impact of international technology spillovers on productivity growth and industrial competitiveness of OECD countries. Empirical model in this study consists of three identification strategy. In the basic model, the OECD countries are divided into two groups including major R&D countries and other OECD countries to observe the effect of direct and indirect spillover. Secondly, to take into account possible differences between spillovers from the traditional R&D countries (the G5) and emerging R&D countries (China and Korea), this study further divides the source of technology spillover into two groups (G5 and East Asian NICs). Finally, according to the growth rate and national income, in the third model we divide other OECD countries into 3 groups to investigate if the magnitude and sign of international spillovers will be different for different groups of countries.
The empirical results of this study indicate that the indirect spillover effects are greater than direct spillovers and both the direct and indirect technology spillovers can produce negative effects. When the observed group’s R&D stock takes a smaller proportion in gross national product, the spillover effect is not only smaller but also negative in sign. In contrast, when the other OECD countries actively engage in R&D activities, technology spillover received from the major R&D countries will improve their TFP growth and industrial competitiveness. It is also found that although the spillover effect from G5 countries is much greater, R&D spillovers originated from emerging R&D countries should be explicitly taken into account.
In conclusion, the empirical results of this study demonstrated that both direct and indirect technology spillover effects are major determinants of OECD country’s TFP growth and industrial competitiveness, and countries pursuing active R&D activities usually benefit more from international technology spillover. Moreover, even though trade-related spillover effects from G5 countries is stronger, spillover effects from China and South Korea are still influential factors for the productivity growth and industrial competitiveness in the OECD countries. This study, therefore, provides further evidence supporting the view that trade is an important channel for international transmission of R&D.

並列關鍵字

direct technology spillover ； indirect technology spillover ； G5 plus two ； total factor productivity ； industrial competitiveness

參考文獻

陸怡蕙與施國珍 (2005),「國際研發外溢效果對生產力的貢獻─臺、日、韓三國之比較分析」,《臺灣經濟預測與政策》, 6, 103-130。

邵文賢 (2011),「知識活動與生產力成長─台灣生產農業之實證研究」, 碩士論文, 國立臺灣大學 農業經濟研究所。

Baldwin, R., H. Braconier, and R. Forslid (1999), “Multinationals, Endogenous Growth and Technological Spillovers: Theory and Evidence,” CEPR Discussion Paper, NO. 2155.

Bassanini, A., S. Scarpetta, and P. Hemmings (2001), “Economic Growth: the Role of Policies and Institutions. Panel Data Evidence from OECD Countries,” OECD Economics Department Working Papers, NO. 283.

Bernstein, J. I. (1998), “Factor Intensities, Rates of Return, and International R&D Spillovers: The Case of Canadian and U.S. Industries,” Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, 49, 541-564.