在全球化與網絡經濟下，廠商間關係的建立與維持日趨重要。而在現實的狀況中，廠商間權力不對稱的情況總是占大多數，因此本論文站在弱勢的供應商角度，以廠商間相互依賴程度－其包含總依賴與權力不對稱兩構面－的影響，來分析較弱勢的供應商（賣方）是否會對較強勢的廠商（買方）做「專屬性投資」。專屬性投資指的是這種投資的利用是很難或無法轉換到其他廠商的，例如特定用途的機台、專屬的廠房位置等等；專屬性投資的利益則在「關係觀點」的角度下被曾廣泛的探討與驗證。此外，在廠商的互動中，過去研究發現信任與承諾乃是在維持長期買賣關係的關鍵因素，但信任與承諾如何影響專屬性投資則很少被提及，本研究將廠商間的信任提出成為中介構面，以了解其對專屬性投資的影響；並且試買方的承諾為權利不對稱影響信任下的干擾因素。其後，用應因素分析與線性迴歸做為分析方法，並利用路徑分析來檢定研究之假說。
實證分析針對台灣高科技業製造商之銷售相關人員，採用電子郵件、郵寄等方式進行問卷調查，共發出411份問卷。經催收與整理後，共得有效問卷108份，有效問卷回收率達26.27%。應用迴歸取向之路徑分析的實證結果為，模型中的5條假說，在α<0.05下，有3條假說獲得支持，2條關於信任部份中介假說不被支持。結果顯示廠商間的依賴關係（總依賴）必須透過信任的完全中介而對專屬性投資有正向影響；另一方面，在沒有買方承諾下，權力不對稱將會對信任有負向影響，但若有買方承諾，其將會舒緩權力不對稱的壓力，進而對信任有正向影響。
經假說檢定與分析後，本研究建議當強勢的一方想要使較弱勢的一方對己方投資專屬性資產時，應先給予承諾，例如長期的合作關係或未來的訂單等，來強化對方的信任程度，進而提高專屬性投資的機率。另一方面，本研究亦證實信任與承諾在廠商間相互依賴對專屬性投資有著重要、顯著的正向影響效果。

Having the ability to mention the relationship with important partners in the network economy, a firm’s capability will be greatly strengthened. However, power asymmetries usually exist in interorganizational relationships, supplier firms are often more vulnerable than powerful firms. Then, as power asymmetry exists between firms, why do some vulnerable suppliers, such as the suppliers of Japanese automakers, have willingness to investment specific assets? Moreover, trust plays an important role in buyer-supplier relationship, but the relation among interdependence, trust and relationship-specific investments is not known clearly.
In this research, the author focuses on specific assets investments of firms with the relational view and the concept of interdependence, and discusses specific assets investments in buyer-supplier relationship with the perspective of vulnerable supplier. On the other hand, effects of trust and buyer’s commitment are considered at the same time. For the survey, 411 survey questionnaires were mailed to the targeted firms’ sales managers, sales assistants or product managers by using e-mail and fax. The response rate is amounted to 26.27%. After collecting the responded questionnaires, the data will be analyzed by factor analysis and linear regression.
The results indicate the mediating role of trust in relationship-specific investment. In another word, joint dependence has an impact on relationship-specific investments, but the impact is indirect. Furthermore, this research finds empirical evidence that the buyer’s commitment can ease the worry of high dependence asymmetry. The higher the level of buyer’s commitment, the higher the positive impact of dependence asymmetry on trust exists.

1. Anderson, E., and Weitz, B. A., “The Use of Pledges to Build and Sustain Commitment in Distribution Channels”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29, Iss.1, 18-34, 1992
2. Bacharach, S. B., and Lawler, E. J., Bargaining: Power, Tactics, and Outcomes, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1981
3. Baron, J. L., and Kenny, D. A., “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, Iss. 6, 1173-82, 1986
4. Bensaou, M., and Anderson, E., “Buyer-Supplier Relations in Industrial Markets: When Do Buyers Risk Making Idiosyncratic Investments？”, Organization Science, Jul/Aug, Vol. 10, No. 4, 460-481, 1999
5. Campbell, D. R., and Fiske, D. W., “Convergent and Discriminant Validation by Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 56, Iss. 2, 81-105, 1959
6. Carter, R., and Hodgson, G. M., “The Impact of Empirical Tests of Transaction Cost Economics on the Debate on the Nature of the Firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 27, Iss. 5, 461-476, 2006
7. Casiaro, T., and Piskorski, M. J., “Power Imbalnce, Mutaul Dependence, and Constraint Absorption: A Closer Look at Resource Dependence Theory”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 50, Iss. 2, 167-199, 2005
8. Cohen, et al., Applied Multiple Regression/ Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum, 1998
9. Doll, W. J. and Torkzadeh, G., “The Measurement of End-User Computing Satisfaction,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 12, Iss. 2, 259-274, 1988
10. Dyer, J. H., “Specialized Supplier Networks As A Source of Competitive Advantage: Evidence from the Auto Industry”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, 271-291, 1996
11. Dyer, J. H., “Effective Interfirm Collaboration: How Firms Minimize Transaction Costs and Maximize Transaction Value”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.18, Iss. 7, 535-556, 1997
12. Dyer, J. H., and Singh, H., “The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol.23, No. 4, 660-679, 1998
13. Emerson, R. M., “Power-Dependence Relations”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 27, Iss. 1, 31-40, 1962
14. Ganesan, S., “Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer-Seller Relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, Iss. 2, 1-19, April 1994
15. Gulati, R., and Sytch, M., “Dependence Asymmetry and Joint Dependence in Interorganizational Relationships: Effects of Embeddedness on a Manufacture’s Performance in Procurement Relationships”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.52, Iss. 1, 32-69, 2007
16. Heide, J. B., and John, G., “The Role of Dependence Balancing in Safeguarding Transaction-Specific Assets in Conventional Channels”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, Iss.1, 20-35, January 1988
17. Jap, S. D., and Ganesan, S., “Control Mechanisms and the Relationship Life Cycle: Implications for Safeguarding Specific Investment and Developing Commitment”, Journal of Marking Research, Vol. 37, Iss. 2, 227-245, May 2000
18. Kale, P., Singh, H., and Perlmutter, H., “Learning and Protection of Proprietary Assets in Strategic Alliances: Building Relational Capital”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, Iss. 3, 217-237, 2000
19. Kale, P., and Singh, H., “Building Firm Capabilities Through Learning: The Role of the Alliance Learning Process in Alliance Capability and Firm-Level Alliance Success”, Strategic Management Journal, 28: 981-1000, 2007
20. Kumar, N., Scheer, L.K., and Steenkamp, J., “The Effects of Perceived Interdependence on Dealer Attitudes”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32, Iss. 3, 348-356, Aug 1995
21. Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., and Steenkamp, J., “ Interdependence, Punitive Capability, and the Reciprocation of Punitive Actions in Channel Relationships”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35, Iss. 2, 225-235, May 1998
22. Lavie, D., “The Competitive Advantage of Interconnected Firms: An Extension of the Resource-based View”, Academy of Management Review, Vol.31, No. 3, 638-658, 2006
23. Morgan, R. M., and Hunt, S. D., “The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, Iss.3, 20-38, July 1994
24. Morris, B. G. A., and Cadogan, J. W., “Partner Symmetries, Partner Conflict and the Quality of Joint Venture Marketing Strategy: An Empirical Investigation”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 17, Iss. 1-2, 223-256, 2001
25. Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., and Grewal, D., “A Comparative Longitudinal Analysis of Theoretical Perspectives of Interorganizational Relationship Performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 71, Iss. 4, 172-194, October 2007
26. Palvia, P. C., “A Model and Instrument for Measuring Small Business User Satisfaction with Information Technology,” Information & Management, Vol.31, Iss.3, 151-163, 1996
27. Pfeffer, J., and Salancik, G.. R., The External Control of Organization, Harper and Row, New York, 1978
28. Ring, P. S., and Ven, A. H. Van De, “Structuring Cooperative Relationships Between Organizations”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13, Iss. 7, 483-498, 1992
29. Scheer, L. K., and Stern, L. W., “The Effect of Influence Type and Performance Outcomes on Attitude Toward the Influencer”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29, Iss. 1, 128-42, February 1992
30. Sekaran, U., Research Method for business: A Skill Building Approach.4th Ed, Hermitage Publishing, New York, 2003
31. Subramani, M. R., “How Do Suppliers Benefit from Information Technology Use in Supply Chain Relationships? ”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28, No1., 2004
32. Subramani, M. R., and Venkatraman, N., “Safeguarding Investments in Asymmetric Interorganizational Relationships: Theory and Evidence”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.46, No. 1, 46-62, 2003
33. Teece, D. J., “Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy”, Research Policy, Vol. 15, 285-305, 1986
34. Teece, D. J., “Reflections on “Profiting from Innovation”,” Research Policy, Vol. 35(8), 1131-1146, 2006
35. Uzzi, B., “Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, Iss. 1, 35-67, 1997
36. Williamson, O. E., “Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations”, Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 22, Iss. 2, 233-261, 1979
37. Williamson, O. E., “Strategizing , Economizing, and Economic Organization ”, Strategic Management Journal (in press), 1991
38. Williamson, O. E., “Strategy Research: Governance and Competence Perspectives ”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20, Iss. 12, 1087-1108, 1999
39. Zaheer, A., and Venkatraman, N., “Relational Governance as An Interorganizational Strategy: An Empirical Test of the Role of Trust in Economic Exchange”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16, Iss. 5, 373-392, 1995
40. 邱皓政，量化研究與統計分析: SPSS中文視窗版資料分析範例解析，三版，五南，台北市，民國九十五年。
41. 陳順宇，多變量分析，四版，華泰文化，台北市，民國九十四年。
42. 蕭文龍，多變量分析最佳入門實用書，初版，碁峰資訊，台北市，民國九十六年。
43. 孫碧娟，「專屬性投資與防衛機制之研究- 不對稱組織間關係的供應商觀點」，國立台北大學企業管理學系研究所，博士論文，民國九十二年。
44. 莊育維，「供應鏈組織間關係利益與策略品質之研究」，國立雲林科技大學資訊管理學系研究所，碩士論文，民國九十五年。