探討青年綠色創業之制度路徑-六國個案研究

Abstract

淨零轉型之時程壓力，加以世代正義之規範性訴求，使青年綠色創業由邊緣現象轉為各國共同關注之政策議題。惟各國之制度支持體系並非依同一套邏輯建立，其形成歷程亦不相同。本研究之基本判斷為：青年綠色創業之制度支持，係由一國既有之創業政策傳統、產業結構與環境治理歷程層層疊加而成；理解一國之現行配置，須回到其形成歷程加以追溯。 據此，本研究之目的有四：其一，界定青年綠色創業之核心概念與判定門檻，並建立個案分析之共同觀察面向；其二，逐一追溯六個國家青年綠色創業制度路徑之起點條件、演進歷程與關鍵轉折；其三，就各國現行之政策工具、支持機制與創業生態系條件，描述其制度配置之實際樣貌；其四，歸納六個個案所呈現之制度路徑形成機制。 方法上，本研究採質性多重個案研究設計，依Yin（2018）之逐案複現邏輯，六國使用相同之分析骨架，惟不建構跨國類型、不進行程度評級，亦不作跨案之因果推論。案例選取依多樣性個案選擇原則，納入分屬不同制度傳統之台灣、新加坡、以色列、荷蘭、丹麥與美國六國。資料來源限於各國官方政策文件、國際組織研究報告與經同儕審查之學術文獻；本研究未進行訪談、問卷或參與式觀察，資料判讀採逐案脈絡化閱讀方式。分析工具為制度理論、路徑依賴理論與創業生態系理論所構成之四面向觀察架構。 研究發現有三。其一，就概念層次而言，青年綠色創業不宜理解為兩個政策標籤之相加，而應理解為一種具制度嵌入性之創業歷程；其判準在於創業行為之環境意涵，而非產業別，因而涵蓋既有產業之綠色轉型。 其二，就路徑形成而言，六個案例之制度路徑並非依同一種方式展開，可歸納為四種樣態：關鍵事件驅動型（以色列）、國家規劃貫穿型（新加坡）、既有制度疊加型（台灣、美國），以及跨部門協作累積型（荷蘭、丹麥）。四者之間存在一項值得記錄之觀察，即形成機制與路徑內容未必一一對應：以色列之機制為單一事件，其後之內容卻高度仰賴市場自主運作；新加坡之機制與內容則由同一套規劃邏輯貫穿。理解一國之制度路徑，須同時掌握其「如何形成」與「形成了什麼」，二者不可互相推論。 其三，就綠色目標進入既有創業支持體系之方式而言，六案可辨識出疊加、轉換與規劃週期更新三種型態。此一辨識使各國支持體系之差異，得以由靜態之配置差異，轉為動態之形成方式差異。 本研究之貢獻，在理論上將青年創業與綠色創業兩條原本分立之研究傳統整合於同一制度分析架構，並以路徑依賴理論說明綠色目標進入既有創業支持體系之方式；在方法上，以逐案複現之多重個案設計取代跨國評比，示範在不進行比較之前提下，個案研究如何仍能產出型態層次之歸納，並就關鍵轉折之辨識採用明確判準且公開檢核結果。 本研究之限制有三：其一，資料來源以官方文件與國際組織報告為主，對未進入政策文件視野之民間自發轉型活動覆蓋有限，此一偏誤之方向為系統性低估；其二，未進行訪談，故本研究之發現應理解為制度層次之路徑描述，而非個體層次之因果推論；其三，六國屬立意抽樣且均為制度相對成熟之經濟體，未納入負案例。

Driven by the compressed timeline of the net-zero transition and by normative claims of intergenerational equity, youth green entrepreneurship has moved from a marginal phenomenon to a shared policy concern across countries. Yet national systems of institutional support are not built on a single logic, nor have they formed in the same way. This study proceeds from the premise that support for youth green entrepreneurship accumulates through successive layers of a country's existing entrepreneurship policy tradition, industrial structure, and environmental governance history; understanding a country's present configuration therefore requires tracing how that configuration came about. The study pursues four objectives: to define the core concepts and inclusion criteria of youth green entrepreneurship and to establish common observational dimensions for case analysis; to trace, country by country, the initial conditions, evolutionary trajectory, and critical junctures of six national institutional pathways; to describe the actual configuration of policy instruments, support mechanisms, and entrepreneurial ecosystem conditions in each case; and to inductively characterize the mechanisms through which these institutional pathways have formed. Methodologically, the study adopts a qualitative multiple-case design following the literal replication logic of Yin (2018). The six cases share a common analytical skeleton, but the study constructs no cross-national typology, applies no ratings, and draws no cross-case causal inferences. Following a diverse-case selection logic, six countries representing distinct institutional traditions are examined: Taiwan, Singapore, Israel, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United States. Data are limited to official national policy documents, international organization reports, and peer-reviewed scholarship; no interviews, surveys, or participant observation were conducted, and data were read contextually within each case rather than reduced to a common scale. The analytical framework combines institutional theory, path dependence theory, and entrepreneurial ecosystem theory into four observational dimensions. Three findings emerge. First, at the conceptual level, youth green entrepreneurship should not be understood as the mere addition of two policy labels but as an institutionally embedded entrepreneurial process; the operative criterion is the environmental import of the entrepreneurial act rather than sectoral classification, and the definition therefore encompasses the greening of established industries. Second, with respect to path formation, the six cases did not develop in a single manner. Four modes are identified: critical-event driven (Israel), sustained national planning (Singapore), layering onto existing institutions (Taiwan, the United States), and cumulative cross-sectoral collaboration (the Netherlands, Denmark). A further observation warrants record: formation mechanism and path content do not map onto one another. Israel's mechanism was a single event, yet its subsequent content came to rest heavily on autonomous market operation; in Singapore, mechanism and content are carried by the same planning logic throughout. Understanding a national pathway thus requires grasping both how it formed and what it formed into. Third, with respect to how green objectives entered existing entrepreneurship support systems, three modes are identified across the six cases: layering, conversion, and content revision within an existing planning cycle. This identification reframes cross-national differences in support systems from static differences in configuration to dynamic differences in mode of formation. The study contributes theoretically by integrating two previously separate research traditions within a single institutional framework and by using path dependence theory to characterize how green objectives enter existing entrepreneurship support systems. Methodologically, it substitutes literal replication for cross-national benchmarking, demonstrating how case research can yield pattern-level induction without conducting comparison, and it applies explicit criteria to the identification of critical junctures while reporting the results of that check openly. Limitations are threefold: reliance on official and international-organization sources produces a systematic downward bias with respect to unrecorded grassroots transition activity; the absence of interviews confines findings to institutional-level description rather than individual-level causal inference; and the six purposively sampled cases are all relatively mature economies, with no negative case included.