治理結構的改變：台灣個人電腦、半導體以及面板產業個案研究

How Governance Structures Change: Cases for PC, Semiconductor and TFT-LCD Industries in Taiwan

10.6504/JOM.2008.25.02.02

林玉娟(Yu-Chuan Lin)；葉匡時(Kuang S. Yeh)

PC ； IC ； TFT-LCD ； 治理結構 ； 社會關係 ； 技術 ； 資本市場結構 ； 網絡 ； 層級 ； 市場 ； PC ； IC ； TFT-LCD ； governance structures ； social relationships ； technologies ； capital structures ； networks ； hierarchies ； markets

管理學報

25卷2期（2008 / 04 / 01）

151 - 171

繁體中文

台灣是全球高科技電子業供應鏈中重要的一環，主要電子產業發展路徑是從個人電腦、半導體到新興的面板產業。本文聚焦在此三個產業內垂直供應鏈間治理結構的研究，依據深度訪談及次級資料，比較三個產業興起及成熟階段治理結構的改變，並主張治理結構會受到技術、資本市場結構以及本業相對獲利率的影響；本文並推論三個產業在興起時的治理結構都是網絡模式，而資本市場結構健全與否則決定了網絡模式的內涵是趨向「個人」或「非個人」網絡。當產業發展逐漸成熟後，過去華人企業所強調的網絡治理模式已不再是主導的模式，而是趨向大型、集中之企業集團的層級模式，或是趨向市場模式發展。本研究並發現本業相對獲利率是市場或層級模式另一個重要的決定因素。此外，隨著台灣產業及資本市場全球化後，台灣企業所運用的社會關係已從「個人」的關係(personal relationship)（如：傳統人情及專業的人際關係），趨向「非個人」的關係(impersonal relationship)（如：企業關係網絡）。在理論貢獻上，本文補充交易成本理論以及Christensen and Raynor (2003)整合／外包理論所無法詮釋的異常現象。

In the past three decades, Taiwan has transformed itself from a traditional OEM based industrial economy to a global manufacturing base of the high-tech electronics industry. The path of high-tech industrial development began with PC, then IC and more recently the emerging TFT-LCD industry. Utilizing governance structure theories, this paper illustrates how governance structures of Taiwan's high-tech electronic industries have evolved due to changes of technologies, capital market structures and relative profitability by comparing the governance structures at emerging and mature industrial stages. Previous researches focused on the influences of internal variables, such as: transaction costs (e.g. asset specificity) on governance structures. But as time passed by, the external variables might have changed and affected governances. For example, technological change, capital structures' evolution, and profitability variation, are all driving forces to change governance structures. Previous researches used cross sectional approach while this research adds the longitudinal dimension to understand the determinants of governance structures. Furthermore, this paper demonstrates that social relationship which was an important dimension in Taiwanese business community has been evolved with the globalization of industries and capital markets. There is a plentiful of literature indicates that the network model of social relations is a dominant governance mechanism for Chinese enterprises (Ernst, 2000; Chen, 1994; Liu, 1999; Dedrick and Kraemer, 1998). But why is the high-tech electronic industry in Taiwan full of cruel razor-thin competitions? And why are merges and acquisitions so popular if the network is the dominant governance structure? Furthermore, according to transaction cost theory (Williamson, 1975; 1981; 1991), the market model is supposed to be more suitable at the mature stage where transaction cost is low. Christensen and Raynor's (2003) also point out when the industry reaches its maturity and the product performance is good enough, a modular outsourcing strategy is more efficient. But why are many leading PC and TFT-LCD manufacturers in Taiwan striving for vertical integration at the mature stage? Why do these anomalies appear? We think that the environments of Taiwan's firms are very different. For example, are industries and capital markets more globalized; is industrial development in emerging or mature stage; and is it a technology first-mover vs. late-mover? Therefore, this paper intends to learn whether personal relationship still has dominant effects in high-tech industry. Has the governance model changed? What's the governance structure at different stages of PC, IC, and TFT-LCD industries? Why Taiwanese high-tech industries move toward hierarchy model when transaction cost is decreasing? Why Taiwanese high-tech industries move toward hierarchy model when the product performance has been good enough? To answer the above questions, we interviewed 9 experts who are familiar with the operation of these three high-tech electronic industries and made cross validation from the secondary data sources. The study found that PC, IC and TFT-LCD industries operated with network models at the emerging stages. When these industries are getting matured, however, the IC industry moves toward the market model while the PC and TFT-LCD industries move toward the hierarchy model. Five major findings are presented in this paper: 1. With the globalization of industries and capitals, personal relationship (i.e. traditional social and professional relationship) used to be prevalent in Taiwanese firms is fading out and being replaced by the impersonal relationship (i.e. business relationship). 2. Being a technology late-mover, Taiwan's high-tech industry's governance structure moves toward personal network model at emerging stage due to technology uncertainties, relatively high profitability in the industry and relatively imperfect capital markets. 3. Being a technology late-mover, Taiwan's high-tech industry's governance structure moves toward impersonal network model at the emerging stage due to technology uncertainties, relatively high profitability in the industry, and relatively perfect capital market structures. 4. Being a technology late-mover, Taiwan's high-tech industry's governance structure moves toward market model at mature stage due to technology certainties, relatively perfect capital markets, and relatively high profitability in the industry. 5. Being a technology late-mover, Taiwan's high-tech industry's governance structure moves toward hierarchy model at mature stage due to technology certainties, relatively perfect capital market, and relatively low profitability in the industry.

1. 熊欣華、于卓民、司徒達賢(2004)。策略聯盟夥伴之合作信心建立－台灣資訊電子業之實證分析。管理學報，21(4)，477-497。
   連結：
2. Amatori, F.,G. Jones(2003).Business History around the World.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
3. Baker, W. E.(1990).Market Networks and Corporate Behavior.The American Journal of Sociology,96(3),589-625.
4. Carlile, P. R.,C. M. Christensen(2005).unpublished manuscript.Boston:School of Management, Boston University.
5. Chow, Irene Hau-Siu,I. Ng(2004).The Characteristics of Chinese Personal Ties (Guanxi): Evidence from Hong Kong.Organization Studies,25(7),1075-1093.
6. Christensen, C. M.,M. E. Raynor(2003).The Innovator`s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth.Boston:Harvard Business School Press.
7. Coase, R. H.(1937).The Nature of the Firm.Economica,4(16),386-405.
8. D`Aveni, R. A.,R. Gunther(1994).Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering.New York:The Free Press.
9. Darr, A.,I. Talmud(2003).The Structure of Knowledge and Seller-Buyer Networks in Markets for Emergent Technologies.Organization Studies,24(3),443-461.
10. Dedrick, J.,K. L. Kraemer(1998).Asia`s Computer Challenge: Threat or Opportunity for the United States & the World?.New York:Oxford University Press.
11. Dedrick, J.,K. L. Kraemer(2005).The Impacts of IT on Firm and Industry Structure: The Personal Computer Industry.California Management Review,47(3),122-142.
12. Ernst, D.(2000).Inter-organizational Knowledge Outsourcing: What Permits Small Taiwanese Firms to Compete in the Computer Industry?.Asia Pacific Journal of Management,17,223-255.
13. Exworthy, M.,M. Powell,J. Mohan(1999).The NHS: Quasi-Market, Quasi-Hierarchy and Quasi-Network?.Public Money & Management,Oct-Dec,15-22.
14. Gereffi, G.,J. Humphrey,T. Sturgeon(2005).The Governance of Global Value Chains.Review of International Political Economy,12(1),78-104.
15. Glaser, B. G.,A. L. Strauss(1967).The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.New York:Aldine de Gruyter.
16. Granovetter, M.(1985).Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.The American Journal of Sociology,91(3),481-510.
17. Guthrie, D.(1998).The Declining Significance of Guanxi in China`s Economic Transition.The China Quarterly,154,254-282.
18. Hamilton, G. G. (Eds.)(1996).Asian Business Networks.Berlin:de Gruyter.
19. Hayek, F. A.(1945).The Use of Knowledge in Society.The American Economic Review,35(4),519-530.
20. Humphrey, J.,H. Schmitz(2002).How Does Insertion in Global Value Chains Affect Upgrading in Industrial Clusters?.Regional Studies,36(9),1017-1027.
21. Hung, Shih-Chang(2004).Explaining the Process of Innovation: The Dynamic Reconciliation of Action and Structure.Human Relations,57(11),1479-1497.
22. Kao, Cheng-shu,G.. G. Hamilton (Eds.)(1996).Asian Business Networks.Berlin:de Gruyter.
23. Kenney, M.,R. Florida(2004).Locating Global Advantage: Industry Dynamics in the International Economy.California:Stanford University Press.
24. Kim, W. C.,R. Mauborgne(2005).Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make the Competition Irrelevant.Boston:Harvard Business School Press.
25. Kraemer, K.L.,J. Dedrick,Chin-Yeong Hwang,Tze-Chen Tu,Chee-Sing Yap(1996).Entrepreneurship, Flexibility, and Policy Coordination: Taiwan`s Computer Industry.The Information Society,12,215-249.
26. Kuhn, T. S.(1970).The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
27. Lieberman, M. B.,D. B. Montgomery(1988).First-Mover Advantages.Strategic Management Journal,9,41-58.
28. Linden, G.,K.L. Kraemer,J. Dedrick(2007).unpublished manuscript.Irvine:Personal Computing Industry Center(PCIC), The Paul Merage School of Business, University of California.
29. Pfeffer J.,G. R. Salancik(1978).The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective.New York:Harper and Row.
30. Powell, W. W.(1990).Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization.Research in Organizational Behavior,12,295-336.
31. Rosenkopf, L.,M. L. Tushman,J. A.C. Baum,J. V. Singh (Eds.)(1994).Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations.New York:Oxford University Press.
32. Schumpeter, J. A.(1942).Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy.New York:Routledge.
33. Shapiro, S. P.(1987).The Social Control of Impersonal Trust.The American Journal of Sociology,93(3),623-658.
34. Tushman, M. L.,P. Anderson(1986).Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments.Administrative Science Quarterly,31,439-465.
35. Uzzi, B.(1999).Embeddedness in the Making of Financial Capital: How Social Relations and Networks Benefit Firms Seeking Financing.American Sociological Review,64(4),481-505.
36. Uzzi, B.,R. Lancaster(2004).Embeddedness and Price Formation in the Corporate Law Market.American Sociological Review,69(3),319-344.
37. Williamson, O. E.(1975).Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications-A Study in the Economics of Internal Organization.New York:The Free Press.
38. Williamson, O. E.(1981).The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach.The American Journal of Sociology,87(3),548-577.
39. Williamson, O. E.(1991).Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives.Administrative Science Quarterly,36(2),269-296.
40. Zahra, S. A.,S. Nash,D. J. Bickford(1995).Transforming Technological Pioneering into Competitive Advantage.Academy of Management Executive,9(1),17-31.
41. 吳思華、沈榮欽、蔡敦浩編(1999)。管理資本在台灣。台北:遠流出版公司。
42. 張殿文(2005)。虎與狐：郭台銘的全球競爭策略。台北:天下遠見出版股份有限公司。
43. 陳介玄(1995)。貨幣網絡與生活結構：地方金融、中小企業與台灣世俗社會之轉化。台北:聯經出版事業股份有限公司。
44. 陳介玄(1994)。協力網絡與生活結構：台灣中小企業的社會經濟分析。台北:聯經出版事業股份有限公司。
45. 陳介玄(2005)。制度變遷與產業發展：從工業到金融體制之轉型。台中:文笙國際金融出版股份有限公司。
46. 陳東升(2003)。積體網絡：臺灣高科技產業的社會學分析。台北:群學出版有限公司。
47. 劉仁傑(1999)。分工網絡：剖析台灣工具機產業競爭力的奧秘。台北:聯經出版事業股份有限公司。
48. 潘美玲、張維安編(2001)。台灣的企業組織結構與競爭力。台北:聯經出版事業股份有限公司。
49. 瞿宛文、安士敦、Alice H. Amsden(2003)。超越後進發展：台灣的產業升級策略。台北:聯經出版事業股份有限公司。

1. 黃淑媛(2015)。台灣智慧資本研究：以TSSCI管理學門期刊為例。修平學報，30，147-176。