我國與歐盟主要國家在科技與創新政策之比較研究

Abstract

科技發展與創新乃是主導國家經濟與技術發展之主要關鍵，面對全球化的市場與技術革命的潛在競爭，如何透過專業研究與政策評估的過程以追求科技領域中發展的優先順序，以至於循求國家創新體系的健全化發展，乃是攸關國家競爭與永續發展的重要因素。近幾年來，我國在科技政策的執行下，政府、產業與學術界投入大量的資源與人力，不論是在學術論文的發表抑或產業科技應用的層面上，皆具有可圈可點的水準與表現，然而許多觀察顯示，我國的科技成果並未完全達成經濟之效益與生活品質之提升，在科學技術發展與市場獲益能力的連結上也存有反差的問題。而歐盟為了追上與美、日在競爭地位上的落差，再加上英國、德國、法國、義大利力圖以創新克服其所面臨的不同障礙與挑戰，進行創新政策的整體規劃與執行，應足以為臺灣創新的學習對象。因此，本研究擬將從此歐盟四大強國在面對挑戰與障礙所採取之對策，以及其嘗試努力的方向與內容當中，找出對我國科技政策與創新政策之政策創新，進而提升臺灣的競爭力。 本研究根據臺灣以及歐盟四大強國：英國、德國、法國、義大利等各國近年來主要科技政策與創新政策的政策路徑(Policy Path)，採用本研究所提出的政策情境矩陣(MIT-HELP Matrix)，分別探討臺灣、英國、德國、法國、義大利等各國其所規劃與執行的科技與創新政策的策略意涵，並且研究他們如何利用科技政策與創新政策所涵蓋的四大構面Human Resource、e-Infrastructure、Law and Regulations、Public & Private Partnership之政策工具來調節三大驅動力Market、Institution、Technology之間的互補性互動，以達成科技與創新政策之國家競爭力目標。 分析結果說明了英、德、法、義四國的科技政策與創新政策在透過教育以建立廣大的人才資源基礎，以及在鼓勵產業參與和投資研發活動以創造創新之研發成果方面較為微弱，亦成為影響歐盟落後於美、日的主要關鍵因素。而我國科技政策與創新政策與英、德、法、義相較之下，在教育制度的設計與產業的結合、政府及時回應市場的應變能力與技術交換平台的建置、創造國內外新興需求市場的策略利用、運作公/私部門合作關係之經驗方面較為不足，是形成我國在科技創新表現與英、德、法、義之間具有差異的主要影響因素。 最後，針對我國科技政策的創新與創新政策之制定提出以下建議：1、政府應定位清楚自身在國家創新體系之角色；2、為提升民間企業在研發活動的投入，政府應加強誘因制度之設計、透過具前瞻性的研發為基礎，強化回應市場對於基礎環境制度的需求、以及公/私部門合作關係之研究與運行；3、短期積極與國際進行研發合作，以彌補我國基礎研究之不足，進而開創新興之市場，長期則強化研究人才的深耕與蓄積，以增強科技體系之機能；4、透過深入的政策研究，學習跟進先進強國之經驗，並促進政策經濟之交流。而本研究所建構之政策情境矩陣亦可作為日後進行擴大跨國比較的分析工具。

Science and technology has long been growth engine for national wealth and economic wellbeing. The nature of modern economic growth is characterized as long-term technological progress and a continuous process of wealth creation. In the fast changing environment of international cooperation and competition, almost all the country in the world are looking for or expanding the market opportunities through properly designed science and technology policy as well as innovation policy (STI policy henceforth). So are national development and quality of life as targeted as policy goals for every country. Since a nation is not making policy alone in the global village, national policy may face certain need of adaptation with cooperative or competitive counterpart, internally or externally. This research focuses on evaluating STI policy in selected countries including the biggest four countries of European Union (EU) – United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Italy – and Taiwan. The purpose is to observe how these EU-Big4 countries improve their STI policy in coordinating national science and technology resources and at the same time maintaining their competitive position respectively. An alternative Triple-Helix approach is constructed as the analytical framework while four dimensions of STI policy are examined across countries in concerns. The idea about the Triple-Helix in this thesis is the “Market-Institution-Technology” paradigm, which highlights the characteristics of policy structure in specific or overall economy. The framework is then applied to investigate on the changing innovation structure of Taiwan. In examining on the following four dimensions: Human Resource; e-Infrastructure; Law and Regulations; Public-Private Partnership due to the concerned States, the key policy elements are thus arranged with respect to their STI Policies. While benchmarking the EU-Big4 Member States, the results are contrasted to those opportunities and challenges of STI policy innovation for Taiwan. The resulting analysis suggests a reformulating and innovating thinking for the revival of STI Policy mechanism in Taiwan and to the newly emerging economies. In specific, educational system may be the most important policy to build up and expanding human resources. On the other hand, they are less weak in encouraging industry to join and invest on R&D activities. This may further weaken the link between technology and the market. And, it might be the most important reason why the EU as a whole posit behind the US and Japan in S&T competitiveness. It is suggested that for catching up economies as Taiwan, some of the lessons are of valuable. (1) The government should clearly define itself as one in the National Innovation System; (2) to promote the R&D investment in the private sector, incentive mechanism is more important and PPP cooperation may be well utilized to promote the upgrade of the private R&D level; (3) enhancing international cooperation to upgrade the ability in basic research and; (4) the experience of policy research seems waiting to be improved. In this sense, scholarly exchange may be suggested.