兩岸數位內容產業政策比較分析

Abstract

本研究使用政策分析模式為主要架構，以台灣和中國大陸為研究對象，建構跨國數位內容產業政策比較分析模型。首先，以次級資料蒐集各國數位內容政策發展脈絡，歸納整理至Rothwell及Zegveld的創新政策工具。再者利用專家問卷找出產業發展所需的政策工具。最後，分析比較現有政策與產業所需的政策工具，給予兩岸未來數位內容產業發展政策相關建議與方向。 研究結果發現兩國數位內容產業創新政策工具傾向會根據發展目的的不同而有所差別。台灣的政策偏向「資訊服務」、「財務金融」和「科學與技術發展」；而中國大陸的政策偏向「公營事業」、「公共服務」和「財務金融」。另外，利用產業創新需求要素分析模式及產業專家之意見調查，分析歸納出台灣在發展數位內容產業應加強的政策有「公營事業」、「法規與管制」、「租稅優惠」、「貿易管制」、「海外機構」；而中國大陸應加強的政策工具為「資訊服務」、「法規與管制」、「租稅優惠」、「貿易管制」、「海外機構」。 台灣的數位內容產業正值快速成長期，建議台灣政府應加強「公營事業」、「貿易管制」、「海外機構」等政策工具，目的為透過政府力量，提高產業合作比率；發展海外市場，讓數位內容產業成為主要經濟動能來源。中國大陸的數位內容產業主要產值來源以內銷為主，且中國大陸政府過去僅追求數位內容產值成長，導致國內市場呈現「重量不重質」的情況，為提升中國大陸數位內容產業成長，建議中國大陸政府應由相關法規制訂著手，強化市場功能，以提升產品品質，再規劃海外發展時程，優先提供與加強「貿易管制」、「海外機構」等政策工具，宣揚中華文化、提升國際影響力。

This thesis reports on a strategic analysis of the development of digital content industry. Using Rothwell and Zegveld’s model of industrial innovation policy as a starting point, this research compares innovation policy of Taiwan and China. Then, using the expert questionare and interview find out the Industrial Innovation Requirements and Policy Tools. Finally, comparing with both types of policy instruments, we have several suggestions for development of Taiwan’s and China’s digital content industry. The results show that national preferences for innovation policy differ from the goal of different countries.Japan prefers to use “Information Services”, “Educations and Training”, and “Laws and Regulations”, whereas Korea prefers to “Laws and Regulations” , “Educations and Training”, and“Financial”. What’s more, evaluating the Industrial Innovation Requirements and Policy Tools leads to a conclusion that the most critical categories of policy instruments. In Japan, there are “Public Service”, “Public Enterprises”, “Financial”, “Trade Controlling”, and “Overseas subsidiaries”. In Korea, there are “Taxation”, “Trade Controlling”, and “Overseas subsidiaries”. The work suggests that Japan’s government proposes overseas roadmap of digital content industry.Furthermore, Japan’s government should put more emphasis on the following policy instruments-“Trade Controlling”, and “Overseas subsidiaries” to enhance cultural influence. However, Korea’s government needs to improve industrial cooperation and the economical importance of digital content industry. Therefore, Korea’s government should put more emphasis on the following policy instruments-“Public Enterprises”, “Trade Controlling”, and “Overseas subsidiaries”.More specifically, the corresponding policy instruments in support of developing IIRs are provided in the conclusion of this thesis.