請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/10134完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 鄭秀玲(Show-ling Jang) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Yung-Hsu Tsui | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 崔永序 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-20T21:04:30Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2011-07-08 | |
| dc.date.available | 2021-05-20T21:04:30Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2011-07-08 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2011 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2011-07-08 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Agiobeneobo, TJ. 2000. Market Structure, Concentration Indices and Welfare Cost. Working Paper. 2000.
Bikker, Jacob and Haaf, Katharina. 2002. Competition, concentration and their relationship: An empirical analysis of the banking industry. Journal of Banking & Finance. 2002, Vol. 26, pp. 2191–2214. Breschi, Stefano, Lissoni, Francesco and Malerba, Franco. 2003. Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification. Research Policy. 1 2003, Vol. 32, 1, pp. 3269–3287. Chen, Jennifer H, Jang, Show-ling and Wen, Sonya H. 2010. Measuring technological diversification: identifying the effects of patent scale and patent scope. Scientometrics. 2010, Vol. 84, 1, pp. 265-275. Chen, Yu-Shan and Chang, Ke-Chiun. 2009. Using neural network to analyze the influence of the patent performance upon the market value of the US pharmaceutical companies. Scientometrics. 2009, Vol. 80, 3, pp. 639–657. Clarke, Roger and Davies, Stephen W. 1982. Market Structure and Price-Cost Margins. Economica. New Series, 8 1982, Vol. 49, 195, pp. 277-287. Cowling, Keith and Waterson, Michael. 1976. Price-Cost Margins and Market Structure. Economica. New Series, 8 1976, Vol. 43, 171, pp. 267-274. Forcarelli, Dario and Panetta, Fabio. 2003. Are Mergers Beneficial to Consumers? Evidence from the Market for Bank Deposits. The American Economic Review. 9 2003, Vol. 93, 4, pp. 1152-1172. Garcia-Vega, Maria. 2006. Does technological diversification promote innovation? An empirical analysis for European firms. Reasearch Policy. 3 2006, Vol. 35, 2, pp. 230-246. Hall, Bronwyn . 2005. A Note on the Bias in Herfindahl-type Measures Based on Count Data. University of California at Berkeley : NBER, 2005. Hall, Bronwyn, Jaffe, Adam and Trajtenberg, Manuel. 2005. Market Value and Patent Citations. RAND Journal of Economics. 2005, Vol. 36, 1, pp. 16-38. —. 2001. The NBER patent citations data file: lessons, insights and methodological tools. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper. 2001, 8498. Herfindahl, Orris C. 1950. Concentration in the US Steel lnduslry. Unpublished PhD dissertation. 1950. Hirschman, Albert. 1945. National Power and the Structure of Foreign Trade. Berkeley : University of California Press, 1945. —. 1964. The Paternity of an Index. The American Economic Review. 9 1964, Vol. 54, 5, p. 761. Hu, Albert and Jaffe, Adam. 2003. Patent citations and international knowledge flow: the cases of Korea and Taiwan. International Journal of Industrial Organization. 2003, Vol. 21, pp. 849-880. Jacquemin, Alexis and Berry, Charles. 1979. Entropy Measure of Diversification and Corporate Growth. The Journal of Industrial Economics. 6 1979, Vol. 27, 4, pp. 359-369. Jaffe, Adam and Lerner, Josh. 2001. Reinventing Public R&D: Patent Policy and the Commercialization of National Laboratory. The RAND Journal of Economics. 2001, Vol. 32, 1, pp. 167-198. Jaffe, Adam. 1988. Demand and Supply Influences in R & D Intensity and Productivity Growth. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 8 1988, Vol. 70, 3, pp. 431-437. —. 1986. Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: evidence from firms' patents, profits and market value. The American Economic Review. 1986, Vol. 76, 5, pp. 984-1001. Jang, Show-ling, Chen, Jennifer H. and Tsui, Yung-hsu. 2011. A new index measuring technology diversification. Working Paper. 2011. —. 2010. The decomposition of HHI. Conference Paper. The Development and Research Development Conference, Taipei, 2010. Kwoka, John Jr and Ravenscraft, David. 1986. Cooperation v. Rivalry: Price-Cost Margins by Line of Business. Economica. New Series, 8 1986, Vol. 53, 211, pp. 351-363. Malerba, Franco, Orsenlgo, Luigi and Peretto, Pietro. 1997. Persistence of innovative activities, sectoral patterns of innovation and international technological specialization. International Journal of Industrial Organization. 10 1997, Vol. 15, 6, pp. 801-826. Mayer, Chirstopher and Sinai, Todd. 2003. Network Effects, Congestion Externalities, and Air Traffic Delays: Or Why Not All Delays Are Evil. The American Economic Review. 9 2003, Vol. 93, 4, pp. 1194-1251. Meilak, Chris. 2008. Measuring export concentration: The implication for small states. Bank of Valletta Review. 2008, 37, pp. 35-48. Miller, Douglas. 2006. Technology diversity, related diversification, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal. 7 2006, Vol. 27, 7, pp. 601-619. Nissan, Edward and Caveny, Jennifer. 2005. Aggregate Concentration in Corporate America: The Case of the Fortune 500. The international journal of applied economics. 3 2005, Vol. 2, 1, pp. 132-152. Rhoades, Stephen. 1995. Market share inequality, the HHI, and other measures of the firm-composition of a market. Review of Industrial Organization. 1995, Vol. 10, 6, pp. 657-674. Stigler, George. 1983. The Organization of Industry. Chicago and London : University of Chicago Press, 1983. pp. 33-34. 0-226-77432-5. Straathof, Sebastiaan. 2007. Shannon's entropy as an index of product variety. Economics Letters. 2 2007, Vol. 97, 2, pp. 297-303. Thoenig, Mathias and Verdier, Thierry. 2003. A Theory of Defensive Skill-Biased Innovation and Globalization. The American Economic Review. 6 2003, Vol. 93, 3, pp. 709-728. Trajtenberg, Manuel, Henderson, Rebecca and Jaffe, Adam. 1997. University Versus Corporate Patents: A Window On The Basicness Of Invention. Economics of Innovation and New Technology. 1997, Vol. 5, 1. U.S. Department of Justice and The Federal Trade Commission. 1997. Horizontal Merger Guidelines. [Online] 4 8, 1997. http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/hmg.htm. Vuko, Tina. 2010. Audit Market Structure: The Case of Croatian Listed Companies. The Business Review. 2010, Vol. 15, 2, pp. 266-271. Watanabe, Chihiro, Matsumoto, Chihiro and Hur, Jae-Yong. 2004. Technological diversification and assimilation of spillover technology: Canon’s scenario for sustainable growth. Technological Forecasting & Social Change. 11 2004, Vol. 71, 9, pp. 941-959. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/10134 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | Hall (2005)與Chen, et al. (2010)發現利用赫氏指標 (Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, HHI)衡量技術規模較小企業的技術集中度時，容易產生偏誤。
本文透過討論赫氏指標的演進，討論為何赫氏指標在衡量技術規模較小的企業時容易發生偏誤，並且設計出衡量此一偏誤的方法。透過Qualcomm和Mediatek兩家企業的實際資料，本文能夠利用預先設定的誤差標準，最小赫氏指標誤差距與最小赫氏指標誤差率，判斷能否以赫氏指標衡量該企業的技術集中度。 利用本文發展出的轉換後赫氏指標(Herfindahl-Hirschman Transformed Index, HHT)，我們能夠較為準確的衡量技術規模較小企業的技術集中度，以解決赫氏指標在衡量這些企業技術集中度時，會有大量誤差的問題。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Hall (2005) and Chen, et al. (2010) have discovered that it is easily getting a bias result when using Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) to measure the technology concentration of small-patent-scale firms.
In order to understand how serious the bias is, we established a method to calculate the bias. We have shown that we could distinguish the technology portfolio of firms, whether it is able to be unbiasedly measured by HHI or not, through two new indicators we developed, HHI-error distance and HHI-error ratio, by adapting the real patent data from two semiconductors companies, Qualcomm and Mediatek. Furthermore, we have constructed a new index, Herfindahl-Hirschman Transformed Index (HHT) to measure the technology portfolios of small-patent-scale firms. We have shown that HHT could unbiasedly measure the technology concentration of small-patent-scale firms. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-20T21:04:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-100-R98323056-1.pdf: 568791 bytes, checksum: d50586fdd3def1d45f0928224cce6b25 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 誌謝 i
中文摘要 1 Abstract 2 表目錄 5 圖目錄 6 第一章 前言 7 第二章 赫氏指標 10 2.1. 赫式指標與產業集中度 10 2.2. 赫式指標與技術集中度 12 2.3. 集中度指標與赫氏指標 13 2.4. 赫氏指標的修正 15 2.5. 總專利數M的影響 18 第三章 赫氏指標的誤差 20 3.1. 赫氏指標的上界 20 3.2. 赫氏指標的下界 23 3.3. 赫氏指標誤差距 25 3.4. 最大誤差距比例 27 3.5. 赫氏指標誤差率 29 3.6. 最大誤差率比例 30 第四章 赫氏指標誤差距d和赫氏指標誤差率s的實際應用 33 4.1. 資料來源和計算方法 33 4.2. 實證結果比較 34 4.3. 最大誤差距比例與最大誤差率比例的應用 36 4.4. 小結 38 第五章 赫氏指標的調整與應用 39 5.1. 轉換後赫氏指標(HHT) 39 5.2. HHT的實際應用 41 5.3. HHT與Adjusted Generality Index 44 第六章 結論 45 參考資料 47 附錄 51 附錄一 (HHIU和HHIL的證明) 51 附錄二 (HHIU和HHIL的計算) 53 附錄三 (赫氏指標誤差距及赫氏指標誤差率對M的差分) 53 附錄四 (rd與rs的下界) 54 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.title | 企業多角化程度的衡量－以赫氏指標為例 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Measuring firm's technology diversification: An example from Herfindahl-Hirschman Index | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 99-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 翁明宏(Ming-hung Weng),陳慧如(Jennifer Chen) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 技術多角化,技術專業化,技術集中度,赫氏指標,轉換後赫氏指標, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | technology diversification,technology specialization,technology concentration,Herfindahl-Hirschman Index,Herfindahl-Hirschman Transformed Index, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 56 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2011-07-08 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 經濟學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 經濟學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-100-1.pdf | 555.46 kB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。