請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/10233完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 陸怡蕙 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Chung-Wei Ding | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 丁仲緯 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-20T21:12:31Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2011-08-22 | |
| dc.date.available | 2021-05-20T21:12:31Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2011-08-22 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2011 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2011-08-19 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 于若蓉、劉育昇,2004。「薪獎制度在工作團隊內的誘因效果:臺灣房屋仲介業的實證分析」,『經濟論文叢刊』。32卷,4期,395-416。
士林區農會,2010。「農會組織系統」。(http://www.slfa.org.tw/indexin.htm) (2011/4/8) 行政院農業委員會,2005。「農業推廣機關(構)評鑑獎勵辦法簡介」,『農政與農情』。157期。臺北:行政院農業委員會。(http://www.coa.gov.tw/view.php?catid=9387)(2011/4/9) 行政院農業委員會,2010。「第三屆金推獎得獎單位名單」。臺北:行政院農業委員會。(http://aoe.cpc.org.tw/award99roster.htm)(2011/4/8) 行政院農業委員會農糧署,2006。「全國十大績優農業產銷班評選實施計畫」。臺北:行政院農業委員會農糧署。(http://www.afa.gov.tw/tenclassic_index.asp?CatID=43)(2011/4/8) 行政院農業委員會農糧署,2008。「94年全國十大績優農業產銷班及優良產銷班名單」。臺北:行政院農業委員會農糧署。(http://www.afa.gov.tw/tenclassic_index.asp?CatID=9)(2011/4/8) 行政院農業委員會農糧署,2008。「95年全國十大績優農業產銷班及優良產銷班名單」。臺北:行政院農業委員會農糧署。(http://www.afa.gov.tw/tenclassic_index.asp?CatID=5)(2011/4/8) 行政院農業委員會農糧署,2008。「96年全國十大績優農業產銷班及優良產銷班名單」。臺北:行政院農業委員會農糧署。(http://www.afa.gov.tw/tenclassic_index.asp?CatID=97)(2011/4/8) 行政院農業委員會農糧署,2009。「98年全國十大績優農業產銷班及優良產銷班名單」。臺北:行政院農業委員會農糧署。(http://www.afa.gov.tw/tenclassic_index.asp?CatID=127)(2011/4/8) 行政院農業委員會臺灣農家要覽增修訂三版策劃委員會,2005。『臺灣農家要覽-綜合篇(企劃與輔導)』。臺北:行政院農業委員會。 吳明哲,2003。「臺灣地區農會信用部經營效率之評估」,『產業金融季刊』。119期,41-62。 吳明敏,2001。「農會的課題和對策」,『臺灣農業的挑戰與對策』。245-252。臺北:財團法人臺灣智庫。 李青萍,2000。「影響農會信用部經營績效之因素與擠兌前後經營績效變化之研究」,『農業金融論叢』。44期,49-93。 林東清,2003。『知識管理』。臺北:智勝文化。 邱湧忠,2000。「100歲農會的省思」。『農政與農情』。95期,48。 邱皓政,2008。『量化研究與統計分析』。臺北:五南。 胡龍騰、張鎧文、楊仁鈴,2008。「你,願意分享嗎?公部門組織成員知識分享行為之底蘊」,『東吳政治學報』。26卷3期:57-114。 夏道維,2007。「公部門人員知識分享行為之初探」,『人文社會學報』。3期,73-120。張靜貞、賴怡君,1999。「農會信用部的效率評估與風險管制」,『農業金融論叢』。42期,33-58。 陳恆鈞、張國偉,2006。「組織協力與組織績效之研究:以雲林縣蔬菜產銷班為例」,『公共行政學報』。19期1-54。 陳柏琪,2008。「臺灣農會經營績效之評估─多部門資料包絡法之應用」。博士論文,臺灣大學農業經濟學系。 陸怡蕙,2011。「農會組織學習與經營績效之研究-以農會推廣部門為例」。國科會研究專題計畫報告,NSC98-2410-H-002-057,臺灣大學農業經濟系。 陸怡蕙、黃芳玫、張竣翔、簡毓寧,2010。「創新技術採用之影響因素研究-以香蕉生產者之知識累積與資訊取得為例」,『農業經濟叢刊』。16卷1期:33-77。 彭雅惠,2004。「臺灣金融機構效率之評估:銀行業之購併效率與生產力分析及農會信用部之績效評估與影響因素」。博士論文,交通大學管理科學研究所。 黃晶瑩,1998。「基層農會推廣人員專業能力之需求評估」,『中華農學會報』。182期,111-123。 詹萬進,2005。「臺灣農會超市經營效率之研究-資料包絡分析法之應用」,碩士論文,世新大學傳播管理學研究所。 廖坤榮,2005。「非政府組織執行公共政策的績效評估:以臺灣農會為例」,發表於「績效評估之方法與工具」學術研討會。嘉義:中正大學。11月25日。 臺北市農會,2010。『今日的臺北市農會』。臺北:臺北市農會。 臺灣省農會,2010。『臺灣區各級農會年報,99年版』。臺中:臺灣省農會。 臺灣農業推廣學會,2010。『2010農業推廣工作人員名冊』。臺中:臺灣農業推廣學會。 劉育昇、于若蓉,2007。「工作團隊內的同儕效果:臺灣房屋仲介經紀人的分析」,『經濟論文叢刊』。35卷,2期,183-212。 劉宜君,2004。「政府部門應用知識網路之研究-以阿瑪斯號洩油事件為例之分析」,『公共行政學報』。13期,27-58。 劉春初,2002。「臺灣地區農會信用部風險管理與效率評估之研究」,『農業經濟半年刊』。71期,2-18。 劉清榕、劉怡君,2005。「臺灣農會發展與功能: 評價、借鑑與反省」,『農民組織學刊』。7期,1-27。 鄭竣鴻、廖淑容,2007。「鄉村產業之知識管理之研究-以民雄鳳梨產業為例」發表於第四屆農村規劃學術研討會。臺中:中興大學。5月18日。 鄭嘉慶,1997。「擠兌風波與景氣波動關係之探討—信用合作社之實證分析」,『基層金融』。35期,23-53。 盧永祥、傅祖壇,2005。「臺灣地區農會整體經營效率之分析」,『農業經濟叢刊』。11卷,1期,35-64。 簡明哲、陳鈺琪,2005。「臺灣基層農會信用部之經營績效分析:金融重建基金設置前後之比較」,『存款保險資訊季刊』。18卷,2期,55-74。 Alexander, C., Piazza, M., Mekos, D. and Valente, T., 2001. “Peers, Schools, and Adolescent Cigarette Smoking,” Journal of Adolescent Health, 29(1): 22-30. Ammermueller, A. and Pischke, J. S., 2009. “Peer Effects in European Primary Schools:Evidence from PIRLS,” Journal of Labor Economics, 27: 315-348. Aslund, O. and Fredriksson, P., 2009. “Peer effect in Welfare Dependence-Quasi-Experiment Evidence,” Journal of Human Resources, 44(3): 799-825. Arrow, K. J., 1962. “The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing,” The Review of Economic Studies, 29(3): 155-173. Azoulay, P., Zivin, J. S. G. and Wang, J., 2010. “Superstar Extinction,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(2): 549-589. Bahk, B.-H. and Gort, M., 1993. “Decomposing Learning by Boing in New Plants,” The Journal of Political Economy, 101(4): 561-583. Bandiera, O., Barankay, I. and Rasul, I., 2010. “Social Incentives in the Workplace,” Review of Economic Studies, 77(2): 417-458. Bayer, P., Hjalmarsson, R. and Pozen, D., 2009. “Building Criminal Capital behind Bars: Peer Effects in Juvenile Corrections,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(1): 105-147. Bertrand, M., Luttmer, E. F. P. and Mullainathan, S., 2000. “Network Effects and Welfare Cultures,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3): 1019-1055. Bock, G.W. and Kim, Y., 2002. “Breaking the Myths of Rewards: An Exploratory Study of Attitudes About Knowledge Sharing,” Information Resources Management Journal, 15(2): 14-21 . Boyd Jr, H. W., Westfall, R. and Stasch, S. F., 1989. Marketing Research: Text and Cases. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin Inc. Case, A. and Katz, L. F., 1991. “The Company You Keep: The Effects of Family and Neighborhood on Disadvantaged Youths,” NBER working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research. Cronbach, L. J., 1951. “Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests,” Psychometrika, 16(3): 297-334. Damon, W.,1984. “Peer Education: The Untapped Potential,” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 5(4):331-343。 Depken, C. A. and Haglund, L. E., 2011. “Peer Effects in Team Sports: Empirical Evidence from Ncaa Relay Teams,” Journal of Sports Economics, 12(1): 3-19. Devinney, T. M., 1987. “Entry and Learning,” Management Science, 33(6): 706-724. Ding, W. and Lehrer, S. F., 2007. “Do Peers Affect Sstdents Achievement in China's Secondary Schools?” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(2): 300-312. Drago, R. and Garvey, G., 1998. “Incentives for Helping on the Job: Theory and Evidence,” Journal of Labor Economics, 16(1): 1-25. Drago, R. and Turnbull, G. K., 1988. “Individual Versus Group Piece Rates under Team Technologies,” Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 2(1): 1-10. Falchikov, N., 2001. Learning Together: Peer Tutoring in Higher Education. London & New York: RoutledgeFalme. Falk, A. and Ichino, A., 2006. “Clean Evidence on Peer Effects,” Journal of Labor Economics, 24(1):39-58. Fowler, J. H. and Christakis, N.A., 2008. “Estimating Peer Effects on Health in Social Networks: a Response to Cohen-Cole and Fletcher; and Trogdon, Nonnemaker, and Pais,” Journal of Health Economics, 27(5): 1400-1405. Gaviria, A. and Raphael, S., 2001. “School-Based Peer Effects and Juvenile Behavior,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(2): 257-268. Genius, M.; Pantzios, C. J. and Tzouvelekas, Y., 2006. “Information Acquisition and Adoption of Organic Farming Practices,” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 31(93): 93-113. Gujarati, D. N., 2003. Basic Econometrics 4th Edition. Mcgraw Hill: New York. Guryan, J., Kroft, K. and Notowidigdo, M., 2009. “Peer Effects in the Workplace: Evidence from Random Groupings in Professional Golf Tournaments,” American economic Journal. Applied Economics, 1(4): 34-68. Hajivassiliou, V., McFadden, D. and Ruud, P., 1996. “Simulation of Multivariate Normal Rectangle Probabilities and Their Derivatives Theoretical and Computational Results,” Journal of Econometrics, 72(1-2): 85-134. Hannan, E. L., Radzyner, M., Rubin, D., Dougherty, J. and Brennan, M. F., 2002. “The Influence of Hospital and Surgeon Volume on in-Hospital Mortality for Colectomy, Gastrectomy, and Lung Lobectomy in Patients with Cancer,” Surgery, 131(1): 6-15. Heywood, J. S., Jirjahn, U. and Tsertsvadze, G., 2005. “Getting Along with Colleagues - Does Profit Sharing Help or Hurt?” Kyklos, 58(4): 557-573. Itoh, H., 1992. “Cooperation in Hierarchical Organizations: An Incentive Perspective,” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 8(2): 321-345. Jackson C. K. and Bruegmann E., 2009. “Teaching Students and Teaching Each Other:The Importance of Peer Learning for Teachers,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(4): 1-27. Judge, T. A., J. E. Bono, C. J. Thoresen, and G. K. Patton., 2001. “The Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review,” Psychological Bulletin, 127(3): 376-397. Kandel, E. and Lazear, E., 1992. “Peer Pressure and Partnerships,” Journal of Political Economy, 100(4): 801-817. Kang, C., 2007. “Classroom Peer Effects and Academic Achievement: Quasi–Randomization Evidence from South Korea,“ Journal of Urban Economics, 61(3): 458-495. Krueger, A. B. and Summers, L. H., 1988. “Efficiency Wages and the Inter-Industry Wage Structure,” Econometrica, 56(2): 259-293. Lazear, E. P., 1989. “Pay Equality and Industrial Politics,” Journal of Political Economy, 97(3): 561-580. Lazear, E. P., 1998. Personnel Economics for Managers. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,New York. Lieberman, M. B., 1984. “The Learning Curve and Pricing in the Chemical Processing Industries,” The RAND Journal of Economics, 15(2): 213-228. Liebowitz, J. 2004. “Will Knowledge Management Work in the Government?” Electronic Government, an International Journal, 1(1), 1-7. Lucas, R. E., 1993. “Making a Miracle,” Econometrica, 61(2): 251-272. Lucas, R. E., 1988. “On the Mechanics of Economic Development,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1): 3-42. Luh, Y. H., 1995. “Are Farmers Learning by Doing? Experience in Taiwan,” Review of Agricultural Economics, 17(2): 213-227. Lundborg, P., 2006. “Having the Wrong Friends? Peer Effects in Adolescent Substance Use,” Journal of Health Economics, 25(2): 214-233. Maddala, G.S., 1983. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Manski, C. F., 1993. “Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem,” The Review of Economic Studies, 60(3): 531-542. Mas, A. and Moretti, E., 2009. “Peers at Work,” The American Economic Review, 99(1): 112-145. McEwan, P. J., 2003. “Peer Effects on Student Achievement: Evidence from Chile,” Economics of Education Review, 22(2): 131-141. McGehee, W. and Thayer, P. W., 1961. Training in Business and Industry. Wiley:New York. Norton, E. C., Lindrooth, R. C. and Ennett, S. T., 1998. “Controlling for the Endogeneity of Peer Substance Use on Adolescent Alcohol and Tobacco Use,” Health Economics, 7(5): 439-453. Petrakis, E., Rasmusen, E. and Roy, S., 1997. “The Learning Curve in a Competitive Industry,” The RAND Journal of Economics, 28(2): 248-268. Pisano, G. P., Bohmer, R. M. J. and Edmondson, A. C., 2001. “Organizational Differences in Rates of Learning: Evidence from the Adoption of Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery,” Management Science, 47(6): 752-768. Romer, P. M., 1986. “Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth,” The Journal of Political Economy, 94(5): 1002-1037. Shvydko, T., 2007. “Interactions at the Workplace: Peer Effects in Earnings,” JobMarket Paper, UNC-Chapel Hill. Solow, R. M., 1957. “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 39(3): 312-320. Spence, A. M., 1981. “The Learning Curve and Competition,” The Bell Journal of Economics, 12(1): 49-70. Tsuchiya, H. and Kobayashi, O., 2004. “Mass Production Cost of Pem Fuel Cell by Learning Curve,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 29(10): 985-990. Wang, M. Q., Fitzhugh, E. C., Westerfield, R. C. and Eddy, J. M., 1995. “Family and Peer Influences on Smoking Behavior among American Adolescents: An Age Trend,” Journal of Adolescent Health, 16(3): 200-203. Wooldridge, J. M., 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: the MlT Press. Wright, T. P., 1936. “Factors Affecting the Cost of Airframes,” Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, 3:122-128. Yang, R. and Yang, J., 2009. “Why Has Top Executive Compensation Increased So Much in China: A Explanation of Peer-Effects,” Pacific Economic Review, 14(5): 705-716. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/10233 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 在產業組織理論中,員工人力素質與工作環境是影響績效表現的重要因素,由於員工人力素質與其教育水準及工作經驗息息相關,因此過去之文獻多透過教育及做中學習所累積的人力資本,探討其對個人績效表現的影響,而考量現今社會公司組織內受雇員工團隊運作方式的重要性,近年來產業組織領域一個新的研究方向即是以工作場所中工作團隊成員間的同儕互動為主要研究重點。本研究嘗試結合這兩個研究方向,從做中學習及同儕間之互動情形的角度切入,檢視其對農事指導員個人及團體績效表現的影響。
臺灣農會之產業特性相當特殊,農會組織為一非營利性質之法人團體,其與一般追求利潤極大之企業組織有所不同。近年來農業正面臨著轉型及貿易自由化的衝擊,農會經營策略的調整及績效的評估有其必要性與即時性。此外,臺灣農業技術一直居於領先的地位,農民能否接收其在地耕耘的豐碩成果,接受新技術與新知識進而與國際接軌,身處於與農民接觸第一線的農業推廣人員之重要性不言可喻。基於農會推廣部門個人及團體績效表現相關議題過去在國內外學界並未獲得應有的重視,本研究選定農事指導員為研究母體,利用臺灣農會推廣部門人員問卷調查的初級資料進行分析。在研究方法上,本研究採Probit模型分析農會推廣團隊相關特徵變數對金推獎得獎機率之影響;在個人績效表現方面,本研究不僅依循過去檢視同儕效果所採用的實證方法,以固定效果模型估計同儕互動與做中學習對指導產銷班銷售量成長率的影響,更進一步建構同儕互動行為與績效表現的三維計量模型,檢視同儕互動與做中學習對指導員指導之產銷班獲得優良產銷班的機率之影響,這在相關領域不僅是一項新的嘗試,亦為同儕效果的研究領域帶入新的元素。 本研究之實證結果顯示,主動與被動之同儕互動行為皆對團體績效有顯著的正向影響。在個人績效方面,同儕提供協助之互動行為是一顯著的影響因素,而其影響方向則取決於工作團體內有無從事相同業務之同儕,若團體內存在專業同儕,由於同儕所具備之工作技能性質相同,較能提供工作上的協助,故能提升指導員個人之績效表現。反之,若指導員無專業同儕,則同儕間之互動可能因工作時間的排擠效果,對其個人績效產生負向的影響。本研究亦發現,在農會推廣團隊中,同儕之間存在互助的效果,顯示指導員在工作上的努力不但能有效提升其個人之績效表現,更能進一步對其同儕產生顯著的正向影響。此外,研究結果亦顯示隨著工作經驗的累積,個人績效會進而提升,因此進一步驗證農事指導員的做中學習現象。 綜觀言之,本研究的實證結果顯示,同儕互動是影響農事指導員個人及其工作之農會推廣部門整體績效表現的重要因素,整體團隊互動融洽,同儕間不吝互相提供協助,透過彼此交流與經驗分享,對於個人或是團體績效皆能發揮顯著的加分效果。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | In the theory of industrial organization, labor quality is one of the important factors affecting workers’ performance. As the quality of workers is closely related to their education levels and work experiences, past literature emphasizes mostly on impacts of human capital accumulated through education and learning-by-doing on individual performance. In recent years, peer interaction among team members in the workplace has become the major focus of empirical industrial studies. This study attempts to combine these two directions of research to examine their impacts on individual and team performances of agricultural extension personnels .
The industrial structure of Taiwan farmers’ association is quite unique. Farmers’ association is non-profit in nature, therefore, the management idea is different from general profit-seeking organizations. Over the past decades, Taiwan’s farmers’ association has been facing major challenges of agricultural transition and trade liberalization, performance evaluation of the entire organization as well as individual workers has important policy implications. However, most past research focused on the credit department and typically ignored the extension department. Agricultural extension services play a key role in the implementation of rural development policies, and extension personnels are regarded as the helmsman of agriculture, this study therefore is intended to present an in-depth study of the performance of the extension department in the farmers’ association. To examine the group performance of the extension department, Probit model is used to analyze factors affecting the winning probability of Golden Extension Award. As for individual performance, this study not only followed the standard fixed effect model to examine impact of peer effect on sale growth rates of the production and marketing group, we also built a three-dimension probability model to analyze the association of peer interaction and individual performance. The empirical results of this study showed that both active and passive peer interaction significantly improve group performance. As for individual performance, passive peer interaction was shown to be a key factor, however, its impact depends on whether or not there were peers with similar expertise. If a professional peer does exist in the group, individual performance is more likely to be improved. On the contrary, in the absence of professional peers, peer interaction might have a negative impact on individual performance due to the crowding-out effect of worktime. This study also found that within the agricultural extension team, the effect of mutual assistance among extension personnels does exist, implying that the individual work effort not only will improve individual performance, it will also create a significant positive influence on his/her peers. In addition, the present study found that individual performance could be improved through accumulation of work experiences, the phenomenon of learning-by-doing of the agricultural extension personnels, therefore, is verified. In conclusion, the empirical study of this study demonstrated that peer interaction is one key factor to the overall performance of the agricultural extension department. When the extension team maintains a harmonious interaction with mutual exchanges of work experiences and expertise, a win-win atmosphere could be created, and thus will eventually improve on both individual and group performances. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-20T21:12:31Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-100-R98627017-1.pdf: 4739701 bytes, checksum: e46c95875e0e73510b76f917e8faac03 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝辭 i
摘要 ii Abstract iv 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機與目的 1 第二節 研究步驟與架構 3 第二章 文獻回顧 5 第一節 農會推廣部績效衡量 5 第二節 學習效果 9 第三節 同儕互動 11 第三章 模型設定 22 第一節 理論模型 24 第二節 實證模型 27 第四章 資料概述與變數說明 34 第一節 資料來源及處理過程 34 第二節 變數定義與說明 38 第三節 基本統計特性 42 第五章 實證結果 55 第一節 個人績效表現之估計結果 55 第二節 團體績效表現之估計結果 60 第三節 產銷班績效表現的估計結果 62 第六章 結論 73 參考文獻 76 附錄一 金推獎得獎名單 86 附錄二 全國十大績優農業產銷班及優良產銷班名單 89 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.title | 同儕互助與做中學習對績效表現之影響分析-以臺灣農會推廣部門為例 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Peer Helping, Learning by Doing and Performance Evaluation:
The Empirical Analysis of Taiwan’s Agricultural Extension Department | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 99-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 黃芳玫,方珍玲 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 金推獎,優良產銷班,農事指導員,互助效果,同儕效果, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Golden Extension Award,Outstanding Agricultural Production and Marketing Groups Award,agricultural extension personnel,helping effect,peer effect, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 90 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2011-08-20 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 農業經濟學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位: | 農業經濟學系 | |
文件中的檔案:
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-100-1.pdf | 4.63 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。
