從機構功能和創新擴散的觀點比較台灣與中國大陸國家創新系統之研究

Abstract

自從Freeman對日本科技發展的研究開始，國家創新系統(NIS)成為一個重要的概念。NIS不只提供國家的政策制定者一個規劃國家或區域的創新與競爭力的觀念，它亦吸引眾多研究機構經濟和創新領域的學者注意。一般而言，NIS是由涉及創新的產生、擴散、及運用的各類機構所產生的功能與交互作用所組成。當這些機構與交互作用安排得當，NIS就是一個國家經濟成長的引擎；反之，組織失當以及連結鬆散將會嚴重阻礙國家整體創新的發展。因此，NIS的研究提供政府的科技政策一個新的基礎以及新的方向。 1949年國共戰爭之後，台灣以及中國大陸變成兩個獨立的經濟體。然而，自從1987年台灣政府開放大陸探親之後，即打開兩岸的交流。這樣的交流不只侷限在探親與旅遊方面，更擴展到商業領域。在相似的語言、文化、與歷史、以及地理上相鄰近的前提之下，台灣與中國大陸將會持續互相影響、甚至會在各項科技活動上進行合作。在跨地域資訊交流增加、以及企業R&D國際化之後，創新系統的”國家領域”概念將會變得相對沒有意義。因此，本文的目的是要研究台灣和中國大陸創新系統的相似處與相異處；比較它們之間的相對優勢與劣勢；進而依據研究結果提出相關的政策建議予兩岸的科技政策制定者。 關於NIS研究的批評常是認為NIS所涵蓋的元素與連結太過複雜以致於難以衡量。有鑑於此，本研究特別運用兩種互補的方法來研究並比較台灣與中國大陸的創新系統。首先，本文提出一個質化的研究架構來比較這兩個創新系統，藉以得到一個概括性的了解。為了認識創新系統的結構特徵，有六個機構功能需加以研究：政策制定、R&D執行、R&D財務支援、人力資源發展、技術中介、企業家精神發展等。此外，亦有四個主要的機構間交互作用須被研究以呈現創新系統的動態關係以及效率，即：協同研發合作、非正式交互作用、技術擴散、以及人員流動等。 雖然質化研究得以分別描述一個系統的真實情況，但是它很難以一個整體的面向找出一個系統的本質內涵。此外，由於台灣以及中國大陸均是屬於生產製造導向和追趕型經濟體，創新擴散是這兩個創新系統最重要的驅動力。因此，本研究運用量化分析作為第二種方法，藉以探討這兩個創新系統中產業之間以及和機構、國外市場等次系統之間的創新擴散。首先比較台灣與中國大陸跨產業間創新擴散結構之異同。跨產業間創新擴散之網絡得以附著式R&D流動矩陣來架構以及代理，而該矩陣是以投入產出表和產業別的R&D支出來加以計算得出。接著，運用網絡分析方法，分別在國家層級、群聚層級、產業層級上徹底研究每個產業附著在其技術擴散網絡上的相對結構位置。第二部分，藉由網絡分析方法，擴大探討這兩個系統中產業和機構/國外市場等次系統之間創新互動的結構特徵。 研究結果顯示台灣與中國大陸的創新系統在某些關鍵產業的分布上具有相似性，例如：機械設備、電子零組件等產業均位居創新流動核心的角色；化工、基礎金屬等產業均位處創新流動源頭的地位。然而，兩者之間亦具有顯著的差異，例如：台灣的產業創新擴散系統具有較高程度的系統緊密度以及階層性，以及由於顯著的群聚效應提供其上下游產業間更有效率的創新擴散；反之，中國大陸的產業創新擴散系統其密度較低、較不集中化、群聚效應亦比較不顯著。然而相對而言，中國大陸比較鬆散的產業創新擴散次系統卻由比較高密度的機構次系統以及國外市場次系統連結加以替代。此外，研究亦顯示中國大陸經濟的發展軌跡明顯落後於台灣。藉由此現象，一方面中國大陸當局得以參考台灣技術發展經驗加以從中獲益；另一方面，台灣企業亦可擴展其經營領域遍及中國大陸以提高經濟規模。根據研究顯示，台灣以及中國大陸的創新系統雖有其獨特的特徵，但亦擁有許多的互補能力與資源。因此，這些現象均驅使這兩個系統在未來合作的可能性，因此，本研究最後依據研究所得這兩個系統的相似/相異處以及相對優劣勢，提出將來雙方合作的可行方式，供作兩岸政策制定者的參考。

Since the appearance of Freeman’s work on the technological development of Japan, national innovation systems (NIS) have become a popular concept among policy-makers seeking to develop the innovation and competitiveness of national or regional economies, while also attracting the attention of numerous researchers working on institutional economics and innovation. NIS is generally recognized as comprising complex functions and interactions among various institutions involved in the generation, diffusion, and utilization of innovations. When institutions and interactions organized appropriately, NISs are a powerful engine of economic progress, and otherwise poorly organized and connected they may seriously inhibit the progress of innovation. Therefore, the study of NISs offers new rationales and new approaches for the technology policies of governments. Since the Chinese Civil War in 1949, Taiwan and China have been separated into two independent economies. However, the Taiwan’s government allowed its citizens to travel to Mainland China to visit relatives in 1987, opening up interplay between the two sides not only in the part of visiting relatives and traveling but also in the part of business activities. Given their common language, culture, race and history, plus their geographical proximity, Taiwan and China have been and will continue to influence and even cooperate with each other in science and technology activities. The concept of a “national” innovation system is becoming less meaningful as cross-border linkages and information flows increase along with the internationalization of corporate R&D. Therefore, the objectives of this study are to examine the similarities and differences in the innovation systems of Taiwan and China, to compare their advantages and disadvantages, and finally to propose relevant policy implications based on the results of these comparisons for the policymakers of the two sides. The critics of NISs research argue that the size and linkages of NISs is too complicated to be measured, and therefore, this study employs two complementary approaches to examine and compare the innovation systems of Taiwan and China. First, this study presents a qualitative analytical framework to study and compare the innovation systems of Taiwan and China in order to get an overall examination. For recognizing the structural characteristics of innovation systems, six major functions of generic types of institutions involved in the systems are examined: policy formulation, performing R&D, financing R&D, promotion of human resource development, technology bridging, and promotion of technological entrepreneurship. Not only does it describe the role and performance of particular institutions, but this framework also explores four major interactions among these institutions for illustrating the dynamics and efficiency of innovation systems, that is, R&D collaboration, informal interaction, technology diffusion, and personnel mobility. Although qualitative approaches can separately describe the actual situations of a system, it is difficult to display the essential conditions of a system in an integrated manner. In addition, the innovation diffusion is the main driving force for Taiwanese and Chinese NISs because of their economic nature of catch-up and manufacturing orientation. Therefore, this study employs a quantitative examination as a second approach to address the innovation diffusion within industries and between industrial and institutional/foreign sub-systems of the two economies. In the first part of the quantitative examination, this study compares the structure of intersectoral innovation diffusion in the Taiwanese and Chinese innovation systems. The network of intersectoral innovation diffusion is constructed and proxied by the product-embodied R&D flow matrices calculated by the use of data on input-output tables and sectoral R&D expenditure. The two networks are structurally compared with the help of methodologies derived from the network analysis, which are conducted at the national, cluster and sectoral levels to thoroughly examine the multi-embededness of the sectors situated in a technological diffusion network. In the second part, this study employs the above techniques to compare the network characteristics of innovative interaction between industrial and institutional/foreign sub-systems in both innovation systems. The results show that the two systems have similar distributions of key industries, including the cores, i.e. machinery and equipment, electronic parts and components, and the sources, i.e. chemicals and basic metals, of innovation flows. However, significant differences also exist. For example, the Taiwanese industrial system is characterized by higher degrees of systemic connection and hierarchy, as well as appears capable of more efficient innovation diffusion among vertically related industries due to its more effective clusters, while the Chinese industrial system has lower density, less centralization, and looser clusters. However, China’s looser industrial innovation sub-system is substituted by higher density of institutional and foreign sub-systems. In addition, it also reveals that the developing trajectory of Chinese economy exist a time lag behind Taiwan. On the one hand, Chinese government can benefit from referring to the Taiwanese technological development experience. On the other hand, Taiwanese enterprises can expand their business territories into mainland China to achieve economies of scale. All of these research results reflect that they both have unique characteristics, while also sharing numerous complementary features. Consequently, these phenomena suggest the possibility of future cooperation between the two innovation systems, and then this study proposes possible approaches to achieving cooperation for the two sides. It can offer innovation policy-makers on both sides valuable insights based on the underlying similarities/differences and comparative advantages/disadvantages between the two innovation systems.