論文摘要
隨著全球資訊科技(IT)的蓬勃發展，IT資本在廠商的生產過程中佔有愈來愈重要的地位。國內外均有相關的研究發現，IT資本的投入確實對於廠商的產出具有正面的影響。本研究除了探討IT資本對於自身產出的影響之外，更進一步研究IT資本的外溢效果，也就是探討當其他廠商使用IT資本時是否對自身廠商的產出造成影響。希望藉本研究進一步了解IT資本的重要性。
本研究首先建構一Translg生產函數，除了考慮一般要素投入(IT資本、非IT資本與勞動)對產出的影響之外，亦考量IT資本的外溢效果(來自於中間投入供應商與客戶端的IT資本投入)。資料來源有二，其一為臺灣地區民國八十年製造業抽查資料，其二為民國八十年產業關聯表(150部門)的生產者價格交易表。再利用Zellner(1962)所提之近似無關迴歸估計模式(Seemingly Unrelated Regression Model，簡稱SURE)聯立估計Translog生產函數與成本份額方程式。
實證結果發現：民國八十年台灣製造業部門之間確實有IT資本外溢情況的存在，而且IT資本外溢效果對於產出有顯著且正向的影響，也就是說當其他部門進行IT設備投資時，會對於自身部門的產出造成影響。除了IT資本外溢效果探討之外，計算生產投入要素之平均邊際產出發現：IT資本投入、非IT資本投入與勞動此三種投入的邊際產出皆為正，其中又以IT資本的貢獻最大。藉本研究更加肯定IT資本對於產出的貢獻，此外亦證實IT資本具外部性此一性質。這些發現可以提供政府，產業或企業決策時的參考依據。

參考文獻
1.吳惠林(1984)，「臺灣地區十大產業生產因素替代關係之研究─Translog生產函數之應 用」，經濟論文叢刊，第12輯，頁11-36。
2.邱泰穎(2001)，「研究發展外溢效果與技術變動之探討」，企銀季刊，第24卷，第4期，頁107-19。
3.胡名雯、薛琦(1997)，「中小企業生產特性與效率之研究：台灣製造業之分析」，經濟論文叢刊，25：1，頁1-26。
4.莊奕琦、許碧峰(1999)，「研究發展對生產力的貢獻及產業間的外溢效果：臺灣製造業實證」，經濟論文，第27卷，第3期，頁407-32。
5.陳忠榮、陳威勳(1992)，「研究發展外溢效果對廠商利潤績效之影響—以自動化新產業為例」，經濟論文叢刊，20：2，頁407-432。
6.陳忠榮、劉定焜(2003)，台灣製造業資訊科技投入對生產力的影響之研究，手稿。
7.陳宗亮(1993)，「研究發展外溢效果決定因素之研究」，國立中央大學產業經濟研究所碩士論文。
8.Brynjolfsson, E. and C. F. Kemerer (1996), “Network Externalities in Microcomputer Software: An Econometric Analysis of the Spreadsheet Market,” Management Science, 42(12), pp.1627-47.
9.Berndt, E. R. and C. J. Morrison (1995), “High-tech Capital Information and Economic Performance in U.S. Manufacturing Industries: An Exploratory Analysis,” Journal of Econometrics, 65, pp.9-34.
10.Brynjolfsson, E. and L. Hitt (1996), “Paradox Lost? Firm-level Evidence on the Returns to Information Systems Spending,” Management Science, 42(4), pp.257-279
11.Brynjolfsson, E. and L. M. Hitt (2000), “Beyond Computation: Information Technology, Organizational Transformation and Business Performance,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(4), pp.23-48.
12.Bernstein, J. I. (1988), “Cost of Function, Intra-and Inter-Industry R&D Spillovers: Canadian Evidence,” Canadian Journal of Economics, 21, pp324-47.
13.Bernstein, J. I. (1989), “The Structure of Canadian Inter-Industry R&D spillover and the Rates of Return to R&D,” The Journal of Industrial Economics, 37(3), pp.315-28.
14.Belleflamme, P. (2001), “Oligopolistic Competition, IT us for Product Differentiation and the Productivity Paradox,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 19, pp227-248.
15.Bresnahan, T. F. (2001), “Prospects for an Information Technology-Led Productivity Surge,” in Adam Jaffe, Joshua Lerner, and Scott stern, eds., Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol.2, Cambridge: MIT Press.
16.D’Aspremont, C. and A. Jacquemin (1988), “Cooperative and Noncooperative R&D in Duopoly with Spillovers,” American Economic Review, 78(5), pp.1133-7.
17.Dewan, S. and C. K. Min (1997), “The Substitution of Technology for Other Factors of Production: A firm Level Analysis,” Management Science, vol.43, No.12, pp1660-1675.
18.Dewan, S. and K. L. Kraemer (2000), “Information Technology and Productivity: Evidence from Country-Level Analysis,” Management Science, vol.46, No.4, pp548-562.
19.Gandal, N., “Hedonic Price Indexes for Spreadsheet and an Empirical Test for Network Externalities (1994),” Rand Journal Economics, 25(1), pp.160-70.
20.Griliches, Z. and J. Mairesse (1979), “Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth,” The Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1), pp92-116.
21.Goto, A and K. Suzuki (1989), “R&D Capital, Rate of Return on R&D Investment and spillover of R&D in Japanese Manufacturing Industries,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 71(4), pp.339-74.
22.Inoue, T. (1998), “Impact of Information Technology and Implications for Monetary Policy,” Monetary and Economic Studies, 16(2), pp.424-40.
23.Jaffe, A. B. (1986), “Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms’ Patents, Profits, and Market Value,” The American Economic Review, 76(5), pp.984-1001.
24.Kim, H. Y. (1992), “The Translog Production Function and Variable Returns to Scale,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 74(3), pp.546-52.
25.Katz, M. L. and C. Shapiro (1985), “Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility,” American Economic Review, 75(3), pp.424-40.
26.Loveman, G. W. (1994), “An Assessment of the Productivity Impact of Information Technologies,” in T. J. Allen and M. S. Scott Morton (Eds), Information Technology and the Corporation of the 1990s: Research studies, Oxford University Press, pp.84-109.
27.Levin, R. C. and P. C. Reiss (1984), “Tests of a Schumpeterian Model of R&D and Market Structure,” R&D, Patent and Productivity, University of Chicago Press, pp175-204.
28.Lehr, W. and F. R. Lichtenberg (1998), “Computer Use and Productivity Growth in US Federal Government Agencies,” The Journal of Industrial Economics, 16(2), pp.257-279.
29.Mun, S. B. and M.I. Nadiri (2002), “Information Technology Externalities: Empirical Evidence from 42 U.S. Industries,” NBER working paper 9272.
30.Pelaia, E. (1993), “IBM Terminal Prices,” personal communication with IBM Representative.
31.Romer, P. M. (1986), “Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth,” Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), pp.1002-37.
32.Spence, M. (1984), “Cost Reduction, Competition, and Industry Performance,” Econometrica, 52(1), pp.101-122.
33.Solow, R. M. (1987), “We’d better watch out,” New York Times (July 12), Book Review, 36.
34.Uno, K. (1989), “Research and Development in an Input-Output Framework: A Methodological Exposition,” Measurement of Services in an Input-Output Framework, Amsterdam: North-Holland.
35.Zellner, A. (1962), “An Efficient Method of Estimating Seemingly Unrelated Regressions and Tests for Aggregation Bias,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, (57), pp.348-368.