請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/94297完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 張國暉 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Kuo-Hui Chang | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 曾維宏 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Wei-Hung Tseng | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-08-15T16:40:49Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2024-08-16 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2024-08-15 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2024 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2024-08-05 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 壹、中文
中央通訊社（2023）。〈童子賢：台灣須探討科技業與國際地緣政治關係〉。https://www.cna.com.tw/news/afe/202309270094.aspx。檢索日期：2023/9/28。 中央通訊社（2023）。〈蔡總統：台灣有機會發展完整生態系 成為國際AI重鎮〉。https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/202309270290.aspx。檢索日期：2023/9/28。 中華民國軟體協會（2022）。《2022資訊服務產業白皮書》。 王振寰（2010）。《追趕的極限：臺灣的經濟轉型與創新》。高雄市：巨流。 王偉霖（2022）。〈科技基盤建構法制支援計畫〉。臺北市：行政院科技會報辦公室。 王睦鈞（2018）。〈優化「首席評議專家」機制，帶動科技計畫治理革新〉，《臺灣經濟研究月刊》41(10)：33-40。 主計總處（2022）。《國情統計通報（第031號）》。 石振國（2011）。〈從科技治理體系觀點省思新竹科學園區的治理困境〉，《政策研究學報》(11)：207-236。 朱斌妤、高偲凱（2012）。〈科技政策資訊品質評選架構〉，《中山管理評論》20(3)：811-849。 朱敬一（2012）。〈國科會挑戰：30年後科技產業如何布局，30年後憶我們如憶李國鼎」〉。聯合報，12月20日，A21版。 行政院國家科學委員會（2007）。《科學技術白皮書（民國96年至99年）》。 吳佩蓁（2018）。〈創新生態系發展趨勢及芬蘭新創企業案例〉，《臺灣經濟研究月刊》41(8)：24-32。 吳思華、吳豐祥、蕭瑞麟、溫肇東、許牧彥、張瑜倩、黃意丹、呂秀珍、蔡亞琳、卓欣怡（2013）。〈第九次全國科技會議議題先期研究計畫及子計畫一：科技、人文與跨領域整合相關議題研究〉（國科會整合型研究計畫NSC100-3011-P-004-001-MY2）。臺北市：行政院國家科學委員會。 吳政忠（2007）。〈科技決策與管理機制的精進〉，行政院第27次科技顧問會議－我國科技發展系統之精進。臺北市：行政院科技顧問組。12月18日。 吳嘉苓（2019）。〈訪談法〉，瞿海源等（主編），《社會及行為科學研究法：質性研究法》，頁33-62。臺北市：東華書局。 吳叡人（譯），Anderson, B.（原著）（2010）。《想像的共同體：民族主義的起源與散布》。臺北市：時報文化。 吳學良、洪世章、郭佳怡、黃明超（2006）。〈科技競爭力之研究〉（國科會個別型研究計畫NSC94-3011-P-006-001）。臺北市：行政院國家科學委員會。 李仲彬（2017）。〈政策創新的影響因素：我國地方政府的分析（1999-2013）〉，《東吳政治學報》35(2)：139-206。 李沛錞（2019）。〈我國科研能量分析與科技政策規劃之整合模式研究〉（鼓勵新進教師申請科技部專題研究計畫成果報告）。 李宗榮、施奕任（2004）。〈發展型網絡演變路徑的差異：比較台灣與新加坡的公、私部門間企業網絡的變遷〉，《問題與研究》48(4)：53-81。 李亭林（2008）。〈區域創新系統下談社會網絡的學習與能力建構〉，《公共行政學報》(26)：141-157。 汪建南（2014）。〈台灣創新體系與政策的探討及建議〉，《國際金融參考資料》67: 60-107。 周桂田、徐健銘、林怡均（2017）。〈科技治理模式創新委託研究計畫〉（財團法人國家實驗研究院科技政策研究與資訊中心結案報告PG10506-0132）。臺北市：財團法人國家實驗研究院。 周瑋祺（2014）。〈瑞典推動產業創新發展之研析〉，《科技法律透析》26(8)：32-49。 承立平、吳惠林（2011）。〈論我國科技政策評估機制與決策支援體系之建構〉，《科技管理學刊》16(3)：77-107。 林文斌（2008）。〈台灣“發展型國家”的調適或轉型？政府、金融與企業間關係的考察〉，《政治科學論叢》(37)：95－149。 施奕任（2009）。〈政經發展與政商關係：新加坡的政聯企業與政商互動〉，《政治科學論叢》(39)：159-202。 施奕任（2011）。〈新加坡全球城市國家建構及其國家控制的政治官僚模式〉，《政治科學論叢》(48)：63-108。 柯承恩、孫智麗、吳學良、黃奕儒、鄒篪生（2011）。〈科技前瞻與政策形成機制：以農業科技前瞻為例〉，《科技管理學刊》16(3)：1-28。 科技政策諮詢專家室計畫管理暨溝通平台（2019）。〈關於科技政策諮詢專家室〉。https://pao.stpi.narl.org.tw/public/about。檢索日期：2023/10/9。 科技部（2017）。《國家科學技術發展計畫（民國106年至109年）》。 科學月刊（2023）。〈我國的科技政策遭遇什麼困難？〉。https://www.scimonth.com.tw/archives/5202。檢索日期：2023/10/9。 胡太山、張素莉（2001）。〈技術基礎設施、產業聚群與與地方創新網絡建構之初探︰以新竹科學園區暨周邊地區為例〉，《建築與規劃學報》2(1)：27-42。 夏春祥（1997）。〈文本分析與傳播研究〉，《新聞學研究》(54)：141-166。 孫智麗（2014）。〈因應人口結構變遷下之科技發展規劃：論科技前瞻與決策支援系統〉，《前瞻與科技管理》4(1)：1-40。 徐文復、廖明芳（2000）。〈傳統產業的新春天〉，《管理雜誌》，12月，124-126。 徐進鈺（1998）。〈流動的鑲嵌：新竹科學工業園區的勞動力市場與高科技發展〉，《台灣社會研究季刊》(35)：75-118。 國家科學及技術委員會（2021）。《國家科學技術發展計畫（民國110年至113年）》。 國家科學及技術委員會（2022）。〈國家科學及技術委員會科技辦公室設置要點〉。 國家科學及技術委員會（2023）。《科學技術白皮書（民國112年至115年）》。 張國暉（2019）。〈從政府治理到轉型研究及風險治理：來自系統，科技與頑強問題的新刺激〉，《思與言：人文與社會科學期刊》57(3)：233-285。 畢恆達（2010）。《教授為什麼沒告訴我》。小畢空間出版社。 許家豪、羅於陵、林品華、張書豪（2012）。〈創新、學習與核心能耐塑造的國家系統〉。臺北市：國家實驗研究院科技政策研究與資訊中心。 郭耀煌、許華欣（2017）。〈科技計畫管理機制之研析〉，《國土及公共治理季刊》5(3)：8-19。 陳宏志（2014）。〈國際科研補助模式與我國經濟部科技專案之創新〉，《科技法律透析》26(9)：45-67。 陳良治（2012）。〈國家與公共研究機構在產業技術升級過程中的角色及演化：台灣工具機業〉，《人文及社會科學集刊》24(1)：19-50。 陳怡伶、黎德星（2010）。〈新自由主義化、國家與住宅市場〉，《地理學報》(59)：105-131。 陳秉立、閻永祺、孔憲法（2016）。〈南部科學園區創新平台形成之政策網絡分析〉，《建築學報》17(1)：25-52。 陳啟光、陳玉真、于長禧、蔡政和（2006）。〈政府機關之間為民服務創新作為擴散過程之探討〉，《品質學報》13(3)：329-343。 陳智凱（2008）。〈社會資本與知識經濟競爭力〉，《資訊管理學報》15(4)：79-97。 曾詠青、丁艾薇（2018）。〈衡量與促進創新系統〉，《管理與系統》25(4)：537-570。 游美惠（2000）。〈內容分析、文本分析與論述分析在社會研究的運用〉，《調查研究》(8)：5-42。 黃鼎佑（2022）。〈自由貿易下全球供應鏈之禁止強迫勞動作法探討，《臺灣勞工季刊》(69)：25-33。 黃德源（2008）。〈跨越藩籬？還是劃地自限？「國家型科技計畫」之後設敘事分析〉，《公共行政學報》(27)：43-82。 楊明玲、解鴻年（2012）。〈法國科學園區之創新策略評述〉，《公共事務評論》13(1)：27-44。 經濟部中小企業發展署（2023）。《112年中小企業白皮書》。 廖坤榮（2004）。〈台灣與南韓金融監理制度改革〉，《問題與研究》43(5)：59-85。 監察院新聞稿（2017）。〈政府推動創新創業有年，惟政策目標不明、缺乏橫向聯繫、制度環境與文化氛圍亦待改進〉，06月07日。https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=124&s=8050。 劉逸群（2013）。〈解析芬蘭創新建立台灣企業創新之路〉，《品質月刊》49(2)：8-11。 蔡志宏（2018）。〈推動跨部會國際科技活動計畫〉。臺北市：行政院科技會報辦公室。 蔡偉銑（2014）。〈新竹科學園區政策過程的重新檢視〉，《人文及社會科學集刊》26(3)：427-481。 蔡銘謙（2004）。〈從「創新」的觀點探討政府治理之因應〉，《人事月刊》39(2)：62-69。 鄭爲元（1999）。〈發展型“國家”或發展型國家“理論”的終結？〉，《台灣社會研究季刊》(34)：1-68。 駐瑞典台北代表處經濟組、趙化成（2024）。〈瑞典新創企業較其他歐盟會員國更具吸引力〉，經濟部國際貿易署，2024年2月23日。https://www.trade.gov.tw/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeID=45&pid=779047&areaID=4&infotype=1&country=55Ge5YW4&history=&PointWork=1 駐歐盟科技組（2019）。〈科技部陳良基部長拜會瑞典創新局，了解瑞典如何輔導創新研究成為創新大國〉，國家科學與技術委員會，2019年8月26日。https://www.nstc.gov.tw/folksonomy/detail/beeca32d-9a19-4433-acc9-b067435e97b2?l=ch 盧文民、王宗誠、吳秀華（2012）。〈國家研發組織績效及其影響因素之研究〉，《管理與系統》19(3)：561-587。 戴元峰（2009）。〈「國際科技政策觀測」對國家決策的重要性〉，《科技發展政策報導》(2)：70-75。 韓保中（2013）。〈我國地方政府創新治理研究初探〉，《文官制度》5(4)：139-181。 瞿宛文（2011）。〈民主化與經濟發展－台灣發展型國家的不成功轉型〉，《台灣社會研究季刊》(84)：243-288。 羅於陵（2008）。〈我國政府科技治理機制之課題與發展方向〉，《研考雙月刊》32(4)：104-113。 羅愛雁、張雅雯、陳嬿竹、李宜憲（2023）。〈我國科技計畫中長期績效追蹤評估指引研析〉。臺北市：財團法人國家實驗研究院。 蘇大鈞（2018）。《企業型國家:行政院國家發展基金在產業創新中的角色》。臺北市：國立臺灣大學政治學系，碩士論文。 貳、英文 Alkemade, F., Hekkert, M. P., and Negro, S. O. (2011). “Transition policy and innovation policy: friends or foes?” Environmental innovation and societal transitions, 1(1): 125-129. Andersen, P. D., Borup, M., Borch, K., Kaivo-oja, J., Eerola, A., Finnbjörnsson, T., Øverland E., Eriksson E. A., Malmér T., and Mölleryd, B. A. (2007). Foresight in Nordic innovation systems. Oslo, Norway: Nordic Innovation Centre. Andersson, G., K. Larsen and A. Sandström (2010). Vinnväxt at theHalfway Mark: Experiences and Lessons Learned. Stockholm, Sweden: VINNOVA. Arnold, E., Luukkonen, T., Boekholt, P., Nooijen, A., Javorka, Z., and Zuijdam, F. (2013). Evaluation of the Academy of Finland. Helsinki, Finland: Department for Higher Education and Science Policy, Ministry of Education and Culture. Asheim, B. T., and Moodysson, J. (2017). “Innovation policy for economic resilience: The case of Sweden.” Innovation Studies, 5. Åström, T., Arnold, E., Stern, P., Jondell, M., Assbring, M. T., Håkansson, A., Henningsson, K., and Grudin, M. (2014). “The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research: An analysis of its impact and systemic role.” Technopolis Group: 13-25. Bach, L., and Matt, M. (2005). “From economic foundations to S&T policy tools: a comparative analysis of the dominant paradigms.” Innovation policy in a knowledge-based economy: Theory and practice: 17-45. Beaudry, C., Burger-Helmchen, T., and Cohendet, P. (2021). “Innovation policies and practices within innovation ecosystems.” Industry and Innovation, 28(5): 535-544. Bello, M., Caperna, G., Damioli, G., Smallenbroek, O., and Steffen, M. (2023). Tracking country innovation performance: The Innovation Output Indicator 2022. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Bessant, John, and Rush, Howard. (1995). “Building bridges for innovation: the role of consultants in technology transfer.” Research Policy, 24(1): 97-114. Bitard, P., Edquist, C., Hommen, L., and Rickne, A. (2008). “The paradox of high R&D input and low innovation output: Sweden.” WP Lund Universitiy Paper, 14. Borrás, S., and Edler, J. (2020). “The roles of the state in the governance of socio-technical systems’ transformation.” Research Policy, 49(5). Borrás, S., and Edquist, C. (2013). “The choice of innovation policy instruments.” Technological forecasting and social change, 80(8): 1513-1522. Breznitz, Dan and Ornston, Darius (2013). “The Revolutionary Power of Peripheral Agencies.” Comparative Political Studies, 46(10):1219-1245. Carlsson, B., and Stankiewicz, R. (1991). “On the nature, function and composition of technological systems.” Journal of evolutionary economics, 1: 93-118. Chaminade, C., and Edquist, C. (2006). “Rationales for public policy intervention from a systems of innovation approach: the case of VINNOVA.” CIRCLE, Lund University: 1-25. Chung, S. (2003). “Innovation in Korea.” In Larisa V. Shavinina (ed.), The international handbook on innovation, pp. 890-903. Pergamon. Coenen, L., Grillitsch, M., Hansen, T., and Moodysson, J. (2017). “An innovation system framework for system innovation policy: the case of Strategic Innovation Programs (SIPs) in Sweden.” Research and Competences in the Learning Economy, 8. Coenen, L., Grillitsch, M., Hansen, T., Miörner, J., and Moodysson, J. (2017). “Policy for system innovation-the case of Strategic Innovation Programs in Sweden.” Papers in Innovation Studies. Dalpé, R., DeBresson, C., and Xiaoping, H. (1992). “The public sector as first user of innovations.” Research policy, 21(3): 251-263. David, P. A., Hall, B. H., and Toole, A. A. (2000). “Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence.” Research policy, 29(4-5): 497-529. Davila, T., Epstein, M., and Shelton, R. (2012). Making innovation work: How to manage it, measure it, and profit from it. FT press. De Vries, H., Bekkers, V., and Tummers, L. (2016). “Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda.” Public administration, 94(1), 146-166. Dutta, S., Lanvin, B., Wunsch-Vincent, S., and León, L. R.（2022）. Global Innovation Index 2022: What is the future of innovationdriven growth? Geneva, Switzerland: World Intellectual Property Organization Edler, J., and Fagerberg, J. (2017). “Innovation policy: what, why, and how.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1): 2-23. Edquist, C. (2001). “The Systems of Innovation Approach and Innovation Policy: An account of the state of the art.” Paper presented at the DRUID conference, Aalborg, June. Edquist, C., and Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2012). “Public Procurement for Innovation as mission-oriented innovation policy.” Research policy, 41(10): 1757-1769. Edquist, C., and Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2015). The Innovation Union Scoreboard is Flawed: The case of Sweden–not being the innovation leader of the EU. Lund University, CIRCLE-Centre for Innovation Research. Ejermo, O., and Kander, A. (2006). The Swedish Paradox. DRUID Summer Conference on Knowledge, Innovation and Competitiveness: Dynamics of Firms, Networks, Regions and Institutions, Copenhagen Business School, June. Elsner, W., Heinrich, T., and Schwardt, H. (2014). The microeconomics of complex economies: Evolutionary, institutional, neoclassical, and complexity perspectives. Academic Press. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2024). European innovation scoreboard 2024. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2024). Science, research and innovation performance of the EU – A competitive Europe for a sustainable future. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Eurostat (2022). “Share of innovative enterprises, 2018-2020.” https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?oldid=583598. Retrieval Date: 2024/7/2. Ezell, S., Spring, F., and Bitka, K. (2015). The Global Flourishing of National Innovation Foundations. Washington, D.C., U.S.: Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Fagerberg, J. (2017). “Innovation policy: Rationales, lessons and challenges.” Journal of Economic Surveys, 31(2): 497-512. Fagerberg, J. (2018). “Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: A comment on transformative innovation policy.” Research Policy, 47(9): 1568-1576. Fagerberg, J., and Fosaas, M. (2014). Innovation and innovation policy in the Nordic region. Oslo, Norway: Center for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo. Foray, D., Goddard, J., Beldarrain, X. G., Landabaso, M., McCann, P., Morgan, K., Nauwelaers C., and Ortega-Argilés, R. (2012). Guide to research and innovation strategies for smart specialisations. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Freeman, C. (1995). “The ‘National System of Innovation’in historical perspective.” Cambridge Journal of economics, 19(1): 5-24. Giertz, E., Rickne, A., Rouvinen, P., Ali-Yrkkö, J., Arvidsson, N., Broström, A. and Ylä-Anttila, P. (2015). Small and beautiful-The ICT success of Finland and Sweden. Stockholm, Sweden: VINNOVA. Godin, B. (2008). “Innovation: the History of a Category.” Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation. Working Paper No. 1 GÖRAN, R., FERNSTRÖM, L., and GUPTA, O. (2005). National innovation systems: finland, sweden and australia compared. Fremantle, Western Australia: Australian Business Foundation. Grabert, M. (2012). “The University-Innovation Nexus in Finland.” Go8 Backgrounder 29. Group of Eight (NJ1). Grillitsch, M., Hansen, T., Coenen, L., Miörner, J., and Moodysson, J. (2019). “Innovation policy for system-wide transformation: The case of strategic innovation programmes (SIPs) in Sweden.” Research Policy, 48(4): 1048-1061. Guerzoni, M., and Raiteri, E. (2015). “Demand-side vs. supply-side technology policies: Hidden treatment and new empirical evidence on the policy mix.” Research Policy, 44(3): 726-747. Gusev, Y. V., Polovova, T. A., and Pinsky, A. I. (2021). “Sustainable Development of the Innovation System in the Context of the Sixth Technological Paradigm.” Proceedings at the 2021 International Scientific and Practical Conference on Sustainable Development of Regional Infrastructure. Gust-Bardon, N. I. (2015). “The structural and functional analysis of innovation systems: outline of the Polish case.” International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 6(1): 31-60. Hajighasemi, A., Oghazi, P., Aliyari, S., and Pashkevich, N. (2022). “The impact of welfare state systems on innovation performance and competitiveness: European country clusters.” Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(4). Harper, D. A., and Endres, A. M. (2016). “Innovation, recombinant capital and public policy.” Supreme Court Economic Review, 23(1): 193-219. Helsinki Smart Region. https://helsinkismart.fi/. Retrieval Date: 2024/8/1。 Howlett, M., and Ramesh, M. (2003). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Oxford: UK: Oxford University Press. International Trade Centre（2022）. “Trade Map.” https://www.trademap.org/Index.aspx. Retrieval Date: 2023/11/1。 Jacob, M. (2006). “Utilization of social science knowledge in science policy: Systems of Innovation, Triple Helix and VINNOVA.” Social Science Information, 45(3): 431-462. Jacobsson, S., and Bergek, A. (2004). “Transforming the energy sector: the evolution of technological systems in renewable energy technology.” Industrial and corporate change, 13(5): 815-849. Jaffe, A. B., Newell, R. G., and Stavins, R. N. (2005). “A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy.” Ecological economics, 54(2-3): 164-174. Jaumotte, F., and Pain, N. (2005). “From innovation development to implementation: Evidence from the community innovation survey.” OECD Economics Department Working Papers, 458. Jessop, B. (2005). “The Entrepreneurial City: Re-imaging localities, redesigning economic governance, or restructuring capital?” In N. Jewson, and S. MacGregor (eds.), Transforming cities, pp. 28-41. London, UK: Routledge. Jørgensen, M. B. (2011). “Understanding the research–policy nexus in Denmark and Sweden: The field of migration and integration.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 13(1): 93-109. Kaivo-oja, J., and Marttinen, J. (2008). “Foresight systems and core activities at national and regional levels in Finland 1990–2008.” Helsink, Finland: Finland Futures Research Centre, Turku School of Economics. Kassen, M. (2017). “Understanding transparency of government from a Nordic perspective: open government and open data movement as a multidimensional collaborative phenomenon in Sweden.” Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 20(4): 236-275. Kassen, M. (2022). Open data governance and its actors. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Kattel, R., and Mazzucato, M. (2018). “Mission-oriented innovation policy and dynamic capabilities in the public sector.” Industrial and corporate change, 27(5): 787-801. Koch, P., and Hauknes, J. (2005). “On innovation in the public sector–today and beyond.” Publin Report, 20. Kokko, A. (2010). The Swedish Model. In Fosu, A. K. (Ed.), Development success: historical accounts from more advanced countries (pp. 73-114). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Kuhlmann, S., and Rip, A. (2014). The challenge of addressing Grand Challenges. EU Commission. Laranja, M., Uyarra, E., and Flanagan, K. (2008). “Policies for science, technology and innovation: Translating rationales into regional policies in a multi-level setting.” Research policy, 37(5): 823-835. Larrue, P. (2021). “The design and implementation of mission-oriented innovation policies: A new systemic policy approach to address societal challenges.” OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers. Lee, K., Lee, J., and Lee, J. (2021). “Variety of national innovation systems (NIS) and alternative pathways to growth beyond the middle-income stage: Balanced, imbalanced, to growth beyond the middle-income stage: Balanced, imbalanced, catching-up, and trapped NIS”. World Development, 144. Liu, T. K., Chen, J. R., Huang, C. C., and Yang, C. H. (2013). “E-commerce, R&D, and productivity: Firm-level evidence from Taiwan.” Information Economics and Policy, 25(4): 272-283. Liu, X., and White, S. (2001). “Comparing innovation systems: a framework and application to China’s transitional context.” Research policy, 30(7): 1091-1114. Lopez-Rubio, P., Roig-Tierno, N., and Mas-Verdu, F. (2021). “Assessing the origins, evolution and prospects of national innovation systems.” Journal of the Knowledge Economy: 1-24. Lundberg, Erik. (1985). “The Rise and Fall of the Swedish Model.” Journal of Economic Literature, 23(1): 1-36. Lundvall, B. Å. (1992). Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. New York, US: Pinter. Lundvall, B. Å. (2016). “Contributions to the learning economy: Overview and context. The learning economy and the economics of hope.” In Lundvall, B. Å. (ed.), The learning economy and the economics of hope, pp. 3-16. London: Anthem Press. Maggor, E. (2021). “The politics of innovation policy: Building Israel’s “neo-developmental” state.” Politics & society, 49(4): 451-487. Mahroum, S. (2012). “Innovation Policies and Socio-economic Goals: An analytic-diagnostic framework.” INSEAD. Maican, F. G., Orth, M., Roberts, M. J., and Vuong, V. A. (2022). “The dynamic impact of exporting on firm R&D investment.” Journal of the European Economic Association, 21(4): 1318-1362. Makó, C., and Illéssy, M. (2015). “Innovation Policy Review. National and European experience.” The QuInnE project: 1-51. Mazzucato, M., and Semieniuk, G. (2017). “Public financing of innovation: new questions.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1): 24-48. Miettinen, R. (2013). Innovation, human capabilities, and democracy: Towards an enabling welfare state. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Moore, M., and Hartley, J. (2009). “Innovations in governance.” In Stephen P. Osborne (ed.), The new public governance?, pp. 52-71. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Mowery, D. C. (2010), “Military R&D and Innovation.” In B. N. Hall and N. Rosenberg (eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, pp.1219-56. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Mytelka, L. K., and Smith, K. (2002). “Policy learning and innovation theory: an interactive and co-evolving process.” Research policy, 31: 1467-1479. Nelson, R. R. (ed.). (1993). National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. OECD (2005). Governance of Innovation Systems: Volume 1: Synthesis Report. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD (2005). Governance of Innovation Systems: Volume 2: Case Studies in Innovation Policy. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD (2005). Oslo manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. (3rd ed.). Paris and Luxembourg: A joint publication of Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development and the Statistical Office of European Communities. OECD (2012). OECD science, technology and innovation outlook. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD (2016). OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: Sweden 2016. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD (2016). Working Party on Innovation and Technology Policy: Innovation Polices for System Transformation. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD (2017). OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: Finland 2017. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD (2023). OECD science, technology and innovation outlook. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Oosterlynck, S., Kazepov, Y., Novy, A., Cools, P., Sarius, T., and Wokuvitsch, F. (2015). “Local social innovation and welfare state restructuring: analysing their relationship.” Antwerpen, Poverty, Social Policy and Innovation, (15). Parker, K., Winskel, M., and Kerr, N. (2022). The role and impact of innovation agencies: An international review. Edinburgh,UK: The University of Edinburgh. Petkovšek, V., and Cankar, S. S. (2013). “Public sector innovation in the European Union and example of good practice.” Paper presented at the Active Citizenship by Knowledge Management & Innovation, proceedings of the Management, Knowledge and Learning International Conference, Zadar, Croatia, June 19-21. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., and Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). “Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology.” Administrative science quarterly,41(1): 116-145. Rammel, C., and van den Bergh, J. C. (2003). “Evolutionary policies for sustainable development: adaptive flexibility and risk minimising.” Ecological economics, 47(2-3): 121-133. Rothwell, R. (1982). “Government innovation policy: Some past problems and recent trends.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 22(1), 3-30. Rudskaia, I., and Rodionov, D. (2018). “The concept of total innovation management as a mechanism to enhance the competitiveness of the national innovation system.” Proceedings of the 2018 1st International Conference on Internet and e-Business, Singapore, April 25-27. Schlaile, M. P., Urmetzer, S., Blok, V., Andersen, A. D., Timmermans, J., Mueller, M., Fagerberg J., and Pyka, A. (2017). “Innovation systems for transformations towards sustainability? Taking the normative dimension seriously.” Sustainability, 9(12). Schot, J., and Steinmueller, W. E. (2016). Framing innovation policy for transformative change: Innovation policy 3.0. Brighton, UK: University of Sussex. Schröter, A. (2009). “New rationales for innovation policy? A comparison of the systems of innovation policy approach and the neoclassical perspective.” Jena Economic Research Paper Series, 33. Schwaag-Serger, S., Dachs, B., Kivimaa, P., Lazarevic, D., Lukkarinen, J., Stenberg, L., and Weber, M. (2023). “Transformative innovation policy in practice in Austria, Finland and Sweden.” OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers. Schwaag-Serger, S., Wise, E., and Arnold, E. (2015). National research and innovation councils as an instrument of innovation governance. Stockholm, Sweden: VINNOVA. Sørensen, E., and Torfing, J. (2011). “Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector.” Administration & society, 43(8): 842-868. Stennett, A. (2011). “EU Innovation Policy–Best Practice.” Research and Information Service Research Paper. Suurna, M., and Kattel, R. (2010). “Europeanization of innovation policy in Central and Eastern Europe”. Science and Public Policy, 37(9): 646-664. Szpor, A., Havas, A., Czesaná, V., Slušná, Ľ., and Balog, M. (2014). Innovation Policies in the Visegrad Countries. Visegrad innovate. Takalo, T. (2013). “Rationales and instruments for public innovation policies.” Bank of Finland Research Discussion Paper, (1). Tiits, M., Kalvet, T., and Mürk, I. (2015). “Smart specialisation in cohesion economies.” Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 6: 296-319. UNESCO (1970). Science and Technology in Asian Development (1st), Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Valovirta, Ville. and Lehenkari, Janne. (2014). “The Impact of Tekes Activities on Wellbeing and Environment”, Technical Report, 5-88. Vasin, S. M., and Gamidullaeva, L. A. (2017). “Development of Russian innovation system management concept.” Инновации, 5(223): 34-40. Vinnova（2022）. www.vinnova.se. Retrieval Date: 2023/8/11。 Weber, K. M., and Rohracher, H. (2012). “Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework’.” Research policy, 41(6): 1037-1047. White, G., and Wade, R. (1988). “Developmental states and markets in East Asia: an introduction.” Gordon White and Robert Wade (eds.), Developmental States in East Asia, pp. 1-29. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Whitley, R. D. (2001). “National innovation systems.” InSmelser, N. J. and Baltes, B. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. pp. 10303--10309. Ylä-Anttila, P., and Palmberg, C. (2007). “Economic and industrial policy transformations in Finland.” Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 7: 169-187. Zheng, X., and Cai, Y. (2022). “Transforming Innovation Systems into Innovation Ecosystems: The Role of Public Po | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/94297 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究以常年在國際創新指標表現強勁的國家－瑞典與芬蘭，透過官方報告及相關學術研究之「次級資料分析」，以「創新系統管理」（System Innovation Management, SIM）中的五大面向（制度、知識、技術、財務、需求）找出其創新政策、創新治理機制之相關作為。以期從此些引導性／領航機構（pilot agency）案例當中，更好地揭示SIM的實務運用情形，提供臺灣參考。研究發現，制度面向上，不同於瑞典、芬蘭高度自主性的治理機制而缺乏協調，國科會已從縱向執行部會轉型為橫向協調整合之委員會。然臺灣雖有層級嚴謹的科技專案評議制度，但應著重於長期績效追蹤評估。而知識及技術面向上，雖然臺灣研發總支出占GDP為三者之最，常年在硬體製造上表現亮眼。然以出口導向、中小企業為主的經濟體系，受限於規模，將面臨強大的升級轉型壓力。這也表現在臺灣資訊服務業尚不發達、同時也必須解決國內人才斷層、市場規模及需求較小的問題上。未來政府在擬訂創新政策，首先應根本地定義創新為何。除了激勵新知識與技術的產生之外，更要強化產－官－學間的創新網絡，一同商討共同面臨的社會挑戰。此外，提出有系統、能供評估及監測的治理機制亦相當重要。這不能僅靠國家的介入、或提供經濟上的措施，而需考慮更廣泛的政策組合、涵融更多元的行動者，提出解決社會問題的政策工具與想法，並有制度地排入政治議程當中。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | This study analyzes secondary data to understand the five aspects of system innovation management (SIM)—system, knowledge, techniques, finance, and demand—in the innovation policies and management mechanisms of Sweden and Finland, both of which perform strongly in international innovation indices. By examining cases from lead/pilot agencies, we aim to provide the Taiwanese government with practical references for SIM implementation. Research has shown that in terms of system, Sweden and Finland have highly self-governing mechanisms that lack coordination, whereas Taiwan’s National Science and Technology Council (NTSC) has transformed from a vertical executive ministry to a horizontal and integration committee. Despite NTSC has the rigorous hierarchical system for reviewing technology projects, greater emphasis should focus be placed on long-term performance tracking and evaluation. Moreover, in terms of knowledge and techniques, Taiwan’s total expenditure on research and development as a percentage of GDP is higher than that of Sweden and Finland, and it performs exceptionally in hardware manufacturing. However, the small- and medium-sized business economic system, which is export-oriented, may face issues with upgrading and transformation due to its capability. This is also evidenced by issues such as an underdeveloped information service industry, a talent gap, small market size, and low demand. We suggest that the government clearly define what constitutes innovation before formulating policies. In addition to stimulating the production of new knowledge and techniques, it is necessary to strengthen the innovation networks between industry, government, and academia to collaboratively address common societal challenges. The formation of such a network requires not only governmental intervention or economic measures but also an extensive policy mix, diverse agents, innovative ideas, policy instruments addressing social problems, and systematic integration into the political agenda. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2024-08-15T16:40:49Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2024-08-15T16:40:49Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 碩士學位論文學術倫理暨原創性聲明書 II
碩士學位論文口試委員會審定書 III 摘要 IV Abstract V 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景 1 第二節 研究動機 2 第三節 研究目的 4 第四節 研究問題 5 第五節 論文章節安排說明 6 第二章 國家機構與創新 9 第一節 何謂創新？ 9 壹、 創新概念、意義、與類型 9 貳、 社會科學中的創新研究 11 第二節 為何公部門需要／能影響創新？ 12 壹、 公部門影響創新的源起 13 貳、 臺灣發展型國家特色於創新治理中的優勢 14 參、 瑞典與芬蘭福利國家特色於創新治理中的優勢 16 第三節 公部門如何影響創新？ 17 壹、 創新治理 17 貳、 創新政策 21 第四節 系統性的創新 23 壹、 系統的定義 23 貳、 系統中的行動者 24 參、 系統的運作依據 26 第五節 創新系統的制度化實踐 28 壹、 國家創新系統 28 貳、 創新系統管理緣起 31 參、 創新系統管理的相關研究 34 第三章 研究設計 37 第一節 研究途徑 37 第二節 研究方法 38 第三節 研究架構 39 第四節 研究對象 45 第五節 資料來源 46 第四章 使用創新系統管理以變革之國家分析—瑞典 53 第一節 瑞典創新系統概述 53 第二節 瑞典創新系統管理之分析與檢討 55 壹、 制度 55 貳、 知識 57 參、 技術 59 肆、 財務 61 伍、 需求 65 第三節 小結 66 第五章 使用創新系統管理以變革之國家分析—芬蘭 69 第一節 芬蘭創新系統概述 69 第二節 芬蘭創新系統管理之分析與檢討 70 壹、 制度 70 貳、 知識 73 參、 技術 76 肆、 財務 79 伍、 需求 80 第三節 小結 82 第六章 瑞典與芬蘭之創新系統管理對臺灣之啟示 85 第一節 臺灣創新系統政策與發展之分析與檢討 85 壹、 制度 85 貳、 知識 90 參、 技術 94 肆、 財務 96 伍、 需求 97 第二節 瑞典創新系統管理對臺灣之啟示 98 第三節 芬蘭創新系統管理對臺灣之啟示 100 第四節 小結 101 第七章 結論 105 第一節 政策建議 105 第二節 研究限制與後續研究建議 105 參考文獻 107 壹、中文 107 貳、英文 113 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.title | 以創新系統管理觀點探討瑞典與芬蘭創新治理機制： 兼論國家科學及技術委員會作為創新領航機構的可能 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Examining Swedish and Finnish Innovation Governance Mechanisms with System Innovation Management (SIM): What Could Taiwan’s National Science and Technology Council Learn? | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 112-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 黃令名;劉秋婉 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Ling-Ming Huang;Chiu-Wan Liu | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 創新生態,創新系統署,科技創新署,國科會,科技部,科會辦, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Innovation Ecosystem,VINNOVA,TEKES,NSTC,Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST),Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), | en |
| dc.relation.page | 124 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202403035 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2024-08-08 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 國家發展研究所 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 國家發展研究所 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-112-2.pdf | 7.06 MB | 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。