This paper examines the relationship between research and development (R&D) expenditures under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and firms’ innovation, proxied by future patent counts and patent citations. Accounting for R&D is a major difference between IFRS and generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (US GAAP). The difference is that certain development costs can be treated as assets under IFRS, but all R&D expenditures are expensed under US GAAP. This difference in the accounting treatment is grounded in the conceptual question of whether R&D expenditures provide future benefits, consistent with the definition of an asset, or whether the benefits are so uncertain that they are treated as the consumption of resources, consistent with the definition of an expense. If R&D expenditures provide future benefits, they are expected to be associated with future patents and citations. Capitalized development costs should exhibit a stronger association as they meet the criteria to be assets, expecting to provide future benefits. Expensed R&D can also be associated with patents and patent citations as these expenditures may also lead to patents and patent citations. As expensed R&D relates to expenditures in the research stage or those development costs that do not meet the criteria to be capitalized, the association should be weaker. Therefore, this paper examines the association between R&D expenditures that are expensed and those that are capitalized under IFRS with patents and patent citations as future benefits.Using a hand-collected sample of high-tech firms in European Union from 2012 to 2018, this paper finds economically and statistically significant different associations between capitalized development costs and expensed R&D and a firms’ innovation, as proxied by future patents and patent citations. Using median effects, the association between one million euros investment in firms’ capitalized development costs and patent counts (citations) is 200% or more than the association between one million euro’s expensed R&D and patent counts (citations). This paper is one of the first to examine the relationship between R&D capitalization under IFRS and firms’ innovation, as measured by future patent counts and patent citations. This paper contributes to the literature on R&D capitalization by identifying the fundamental difference in the association between capitalized development costs and expensed R&D and innovation. Further, this paper contributes to our understanding of the accounting for R&D, and the different treatment between US GAAP and IFRS by finding that capitalized development costs display a different association from expensed R&D. / Business Administration/Accounting

In this dissertation research, I try to deepen the understanding of the logic and history behind science of science policy approaches and to substitute for this scientific evidence-based science policy model an evidence-critical and -informed model in which scientific and democratic claims are promoted simultaneously. Science of science policy, or what I call the scientizing science policy (SSP) discourse, is a strategic response of science policy community members to the following two socio-political developments: the government performance management reform movement and a new social contract of science. These two developments have motivated the science policy community to construct new science R&D management strategies that make science R&D investment more effective and economically beneficial than before. Former Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger played an important role in articulating an SSP approach at the federal level that opened up a political space for the larger SSP discourse to emerge and take hold. Other heterogeneous science policy community actors, including science agency managers and academic researchers, have also engaged and played major roles in shaping the premises, strategies, and directions that make up the SSP discourse by articulating their own approaches to SSP. The SSP discourse constitutes a series of strategies such as economizing and quantifying R&D investment decisions. In particular, to implement the ideas of performance reform and a new social contract of science in the field of science policy and management, the SSP community members have prioritized the development of data, models, and evidence related to federal R&D investment by funding studies on new scientific data, tools, and quantitative methods through the National Science Foundation (NSF) Science of Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP) program. Interagency collaboration organized and supported by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is another key feature promoted by the SSP community. Through this research of the rise and development of the SSP discourse, I emphasize the following aspects that are relevant to both science policy practice and research community members. First, the SSP discourse demonstrates the influence of the performance reform movement on science, technology, and innovation policy and R&D management. Second, the SSP discourse has the strong potential to shift science policy makers' focus from planning and implementing to evaluating federal R&D programs. Third, the SSP discourse not only reflects, but also promotes the tendency of public policy makers, politicians, and the public to rely on scientific claims and evidence when they are engaged in discussions or policy decision making processes related to science and technology. Fourth, the SSP discourse alters the balance of authority and influence among science policy actors, including science agency managers, scientists, and executive branch offices in the decision making process on federal R&D priority and investment. Fifth, even though there are conflicts and disagreements among science policy community members on the visions and future of the NSF SciSIP program, the SSP discourse is valuable as a space in which heterogeneous science policy research and practice community members can interact, learn from each other, and collaborate to develop U.S. science, technology, and innovation policy. I conclude by proposing an evidence-critical and -informed science policy in which the SSP discourse contributes to promoting democratic values in the science policy decision process. In particular, the evidence-critical and -informed model focuses on not only using scientific data and evidence when making federal R&D decisions, but also on promoting the democratic and deliberative process in monitoring R&D activities' performance and social outcomes. In this model, I view the public as a legitimate stakeholder for evaluating federal R&D investment. This evidence-informed model can be implemented under the SSP discourse if the new R&D data, models, and tools developed by the NSF SciSIP-funded research are coupled with a new government performance website in which the public can access information about federal R&D activities as well as provide feedback about R&D investments to science policy makers. / Ph. D.

Yes / The aim of the study is to investigate two relatively underexplored factors, namely, the R&D (research and development) capabilities of target firms and the strength of intellectual property (IP) institutions in target economies, that influences the choice of equity ownership in cross border acquisitions (CBAs) undertaken by multinational enterprises (MNEs) from BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) economies. We develop our key hypothesis on foreign market entry through CBAs by incorporating insights from transaction costs economics, the resource-based view and institutional theory to investigate the determinants of full versus partial equity ownership. Using logistic regression estimation methods to a sample of 111 CBA deals of BRICS MNEs in 22 European countries, we find that BRICS MNEs are likely to pursue full rather than partial acquisition mode when target firms have high R&D capabilities. However, the greater the degree of strength of IP institutions in target economies and higher the target firms’ R&D capabilities, the more likely it is for BRICS MNEs to undertake partial, rather than, full acquisition mode. We provide interesting theoretical insights and managerial implications that might underlie some of the key findings on CBAs by emerging market MNEs.

Yes / Although previous studies have shown the positive effect of research and development (R&D) intensity on new product performance (NPP), our understanding about the mechanisms through which R&D intensity influence NPP is less understood. In this paper, we focus on the mediating role of international R&D teams in explaining the effect of R&D intensity on NPP. Since R&D teams are dispersed across the globe, thus examining the role of international R&D teams will provide a more nuanced understanding of the mechanisms through which R&D intensity contributes to NPP. Using survey data from 201 Ghanaian firms engaged in internationalization activities, the results suggest that the use of international R&D teams mediates the relationship between R&D intensity and NPP. Moreover, the findings indicate that the use of international R&D teams improves NPP and that this linkage is amplified when the knowledge creation process inside the firm is stronger. We discuss the implications of these findings for theory and practice.

Yes / This article examines the mediating mechanism of the relationship between institutional voids (IVs) and inter-firm cooperation and the moderating role of economic adversity in the context of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) based in emerging markets. The hypotheses are tested using time-lagged survey data from 214 SMEs from Ghana. The findings provide support for the hypotheses by showing that (1) IVs positively influence the use of government research and development (R&D) support, (2) the use of government R&D support mediates the relationship between IVs and inter-firm cooperation, and (3) economic adversity positively moderates the relationship between IVs and the use of government R&D support. The findings contribute to understanding the role of IVs in inter-firm cooperation. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

創新是複雜、昂貴、且高風險的活動，並且存在外部性，研發合作為促使企業從事創新的重要機制。本研究目的在於延伸過去理論性架構與實證研究，建立研發合作—創新—財務績效價值鏈。以下為研究問題： 1.吸收能力、知識外溢、與不確定性是否會影響研發合作的頻率？ 2.研發合作是否可以提高研發投資、研發產出、與財務績效？ 3.不同的研發合作型態如何影響研發合作的決定因素？ 4.不同的研發合作型態如何影響研發合作的績效？ 5.研發合作與財務績效的關係是否會受到研發投資與研發產出的中介影響？ 本研究採用 two-industry, n-firm-per-industry Cournot 競爭模型探討研發合作、研發投資（創新之投入面）、研發產出（創新之產出面—非財務績效）、與財務績效的關係，並以台灣高科技產業為研究對象進行實證分析。對於台灣高科技產業的研發合作與創新活動，研究結果提供學術界與企業界更完整且廣泛的觀點。 實證結果支持公司擁有較高吸收能力的員工是從事研發合作的決定因素之一。另外，知識外溢的提高，亦將促使高科技公司進行研發合作。而在高度吸收能力與知識外溢下，公司採行一般合作之頻率較其他合作模式高。 另外，實證結果也發現研發合作的確鼓勵台灣高科技產業的公司進行更多研發的投資，並且持續創造較高的研發產出與財務績效。相對於其他合作型態，一般合作可以創造較高的研發產出與財務績效，因此為較佳的合作模式。而由於市場競爭的本質，使得水平合作公司之研發投資較垂直合作與一般合作少。最後，僅有研發投資並不足以提升公司的績效與維持競爭優勢，研發合作公司的創新能力與研發產出才是獲利力的決定因素。 / Innovation is complex, costly, and risky and incurs externalities. R&D cooperation is thus a proper mechanism to encourage firms to innovate. The purposes of this dissertation are to extend the prior theoretical framework and empirical studies to establish a research framework for the R&D cooperation—innovation—financial performance chain. The research questions are as follows: 1.Do absorptive capacity, knowledge spillovers, and uncertainty affect the intensity of R&D cooperation? 2.Does R&D cooperation result in higher R&D investments, R&D outputs, and financial performance? 3.How do different R&D cooperation types influence the determinants of R&D cooperation? 4.How do different R&D cooperation types influence the performance of R&D cooperation? 5.Is the effect of R&D cooperation on financial performance mediated by R&D investments and R&D outputs? In this dissertation I apply the two-industry, n-firm-per-industry Cournot competition models to theoretically examine the relationship between R&D cooperation, R&D investments (input perspective of innovation), R&D outputs (output perspective of innovation—non-financial performance), and financial performance. I then use Taiwan’s high-technology industry as a research sample and empirically test my research hypotheses. The results provide academia and practitioners with a more comprehensive view of R&D cooperation and innovation activity among Taiwan’s high-technology industries. The empirical results support the argument that absorptive capacity has a positive impact on the frequency of R&D cooperation in high-technology industry. In addition, an increase in knowledge spillovers also tends to increase intensity to collaborate in R&D. Under high absorptive capacity and knowledge spillover, generalized R&D cooperation is preferred to other cooperative models. The empirical results also show that R&D cooperation does encourage Taiwan’s high-technology firms to invest more resources in R&D, and leads to higher R&D outputs and financial performance under the characteristic of high knowledge spillovers. Relative to other cooperation types, generalized cooperation leads to higher R&D outputs and financial performance and is a superior cooperative model. Due to the nature of market competition, horizontal cooperative firms are not willing to invest too much in R&D relative to vertical cooperation and generalized cooperation. Finally, simply investing in R&D alone is not enough to achieve breakthrough performance and sustain a competitive advantage. The ability to innovate and generate R&D outputs determines the profitability of the cooperative company.

研發支出之會計處理，一直以來，因著研究發展之特性，始終有著相當分歧的看法。由於研究發展支出具有長期性及未來的經濟效益，有人主張將其以「資本化」方式處理；亦由於研究發展支出具有高度的風險與不確定性，有人主張將其以「費用化」方式處理。 Shi(2003)認為研究發展支出資本化與費用化之爭論，正反映了研發支出未來效益及其風險間之抵換關係(trade-off)，亦即，若研發支出之未來效益大於其風險，則較傾向將其資本化，其會計處理同於一般的無形資產；相反地，若研發之風險大於其未來效益，則較傾向將其以費用化方式處理，於發生當期即以費用入帳。 本研究以台灣債券市場為研究對象，探討研發支出未來效益與風險間之抵換關係，文中檢視「債券風險衡量因子」(bond risk measures)與「研究發展支出」之相關性，並以「債信評等等級」與「債券風險溢酬」為債券風險衡量因子，決定平均數效果(預期未來效益)與變異數效果(風險)於債券的評價上何者較為顯著。 一般而言，以債券投資者的角度觀之，若「債券風險衡量因子」與「研究發展支出」兩者呈現負相關，亦即平均數效果較強，則代表研究發展之未來預期效益大於研究發展之風險；若此兩者呈現正相關，亦即變異數效果較強，則代表研究發展之風險大於研究發展之未來預期效益。本研究之實證結果與發現如下： 1.對全體樣本而言，研發支出與債信評等等級呈顯著之正相關(本研究採用TCRI為債信評等衡量變數，等級愈高，風險愈大)，代表研發支出之風險大於其未來效益。然研發支出與債券風險溢酬之關係未達統計顯著水準，無法再次驗證上述結果。 2.對電子業樣本而言，與上述對全體樣本之結論相同。 3.對非電子業樣本而言，研發支出與債券風險溢酬為顯著之負相關，代表研發支出之未來效益大於其風險。然研發支出與債信評等等級之關係未達統計顯著水準，無法再次驗證上述結果。 4.在全體樣本、電子業樣本、及非電子業樣本中，將研發支出以費用化或資本化方式予以衡量，兩者之實證結果並無不同，顯示兩者對研發支出未來效益與風險間之抵換關係並無顯著差異存在。 5.電子業與非電子業所獲之結論不同，再次驗證產業別對於研發支出之效果確實有其差異性。 6.針對電子業而言，本研究之實證結果較傾向以費用化之方式處理其研發支出；然針對非電子業而言，較傾向以資本化之方式處理之。 / The debate about the alternative accounting treatments of R&D expenditures reflects trade-offs between the future benefits of R&D and its risk. In general, if the uncertainty regarding future benefits is not so high that it disqualifies the measurability criterion of asset recognition, then one may argue in favor of capitalizing R&D expenditures (as is typical for intangible investment). Conversely, if future outcomes are risky and unpredictable, the expensing treatment may be warranted. This is study examines the associations among bond risk measures (bond rating and risk premium) and R&D expenditures to determine whether their mean effect (expected future benefits) or their variance effect (risk) is more significant in pricing bonds. In general, from the perspective of bondholders, a negative correlation between bond risk parameter and R&D expenditures would indicate a stronger mean effect; that is, the expected future benefits of R&D expenditures are more than enough to compensate for the added risk of R&D. Conversely, a positive correlation would imply a stronger variance effect that swamps the mean effect of future benefits from R&D expenditures. The empirical results indicate follows: (1) For all samples, R&D expenditures are significantly positively associated with bond rating. The evidence suggests that, from the perspective of bondholders, the risk and uncertainties of R&D appear to dominate its expected future benefits. However, R&D expenditures have no significant effect on risk premium. (2) For electronic industry samples, the empirical results are the same with all samples. (3) For nonelectronic industry samples, R&D expenditures are significantly negatively associated with risk premium. The evidence suggests that, from the perspective of bondholders, the expected future benefits of R&D appear to dominate its risk. However R&D expenditures have no significant effect on bond rating. (4) The interpretation of this issue are not significant different through the expensing and capitalizing of R&D expenditures. (5) The industry effect is supported by the empirical results that show different effects of R&D on the bond risk measures between electronic industry and the nonelectronic industry. (6) The results indicate that it may be in favor of expensing R&D expenditures for electronic industry and capitalizing R&D expenditures for nonelectronic industry.

本研究是第一篇針對台灣IC設計業的研發活動進行效率分析的論文。文中對研發的投入及產出變數作深入的探討，不僅以研發資本而非研發費用及加權研發人力為投入並且加入公司知識累積存量的概念。其中自有知識存量以自有公司前期累積專利申請數為替代變數。而產出部分也不僅考慮當年申請專利數核准數量還包括下一年度營業毛利。使用兩階段資料包絡分析法探討研發投入的運用效率。第一階段使用投入導向DEA-CCR與DEA-BCC模式評估2000年到2002年台灣上市上櫃IC設計業者運用研發資源能力所得出的研發效率值並作差額變數分析，第二階段採用Tobit迴歸分析尋找可能影響研發整體效率影響因子。最後，本研究依據研究結果提出對管理者及未來研究給予建議。 實證結果發現，〈聯發科〉是連續三年被評估相對整體效率為1的廠商，〈威盛〉與〈立錡〉為表現其次的廠商。就整體產業而言，三年的研發效率呈現低效率狀況，表示其研發資源有嚴重浪費與錯置的情形。效率分析中可看出研發資本（RK）對加權研發人力（RL）比值相對高的廠商，相對整體效率值呈現逐年負向趨勢。經過Tobit迴歸參數推估檢定本研究六大假說，人力素質、每人年約收入及研發人力密集度都與研發效率成正向關係。而員工平均年資與研發效率值呈現負向關係，與研究的預期關係不同。為第一線晶圓代工廠（聯電或台積電）轉投資的IC設計公司，研發效率並不因此網絡關係而有所影響。公司規模大小也不影響研發效率的表現。

「創新」與「研發」是高科技產業推動組織營運的重要後盾，並且需要藉由研發人員貫穿其間將新舊知識串連以開創新的知識領域，同時必需有效管理與運用逐漸累積形成的珍貴知識資源。然而，以往對於研發單位的績效衡量研究多以投入與產出的生產力觀點，此種模式淡化了知識工作者與研發團隊間知識互動與創新形成的過程，同時無法明確區隔研發部門與其他事業單位對於研發績效影響的差異；因而在研究中深入剖析研發單位的「研發管理實務」，並且試圖從中瞭解影響創新績效的關鍵因素。 本研究的研究程序分為三大部份，首先經由文獻回顧導出初步的觀念性架構，再以此理論觀念模式為主導進行個案訪談，並且經過跨個案綜合分析後進行初步觀念模式的調整，接續以此調整後的模式當成調查研究的實證研究架構，並且依據此模式進行研究問卷的設計。在研究中實地訪談六家電子產品研發製造的高科技公司，並從中解析組織推行研發管理實務的相關資訊，之後再以調查研究法探究台灣地區高科技產業研發管理實務的運作情形；因而先以質性再以量化的方式同時進行高科技產業之研發管理實務推行的瞭解與驗證。 研究中發現研發管理實務的推行主要受到高階管理階層涉入程度的影響，其中高階主管的高階權力型態可據此分為二類：「預應式」與「因應式」，前者高階主管主動積極參與研發專案的主導，給予研發人員實質經費補助參與外部學習與洽商的活動，因而使得研發人員感受到較多的關注與重視，影響其對於研發工作的投入程度；而後者相對較少。另一項直接影響研發管理實務運作的因子為研發主管的領導風格，研發主管是主要帶領與規範研發單位運行的人物，鼓勵與協助研發人員的專業知識學習和成長，同時凝聚與營造研發團隊的士氣與氣氛，與研發人員間具有深刻的互動。 而在研發管理實務推行過程中，同時需要藉助辦公室支援與聯盟的協助，以提升研發人員的專業知識養成與技術文件的撰寫和使用頻率，此資源是促使研發工作順利運作的重要樞紐；而研發經費、設備購置與設施規劃的資源輔助，對於研發績效具有舉足輕重的影響效果。然而，影響研發管理實務與創新績效間的更重要成因是研發人員的內隱知覺部份；換言之，研發人員內心對於研發管理實務推行的感受與高階管理階層的互動程度是主要影響成效的因素，並非研發單位提供給予研發人員的各項外顯形式，可知研發單位的提供的框架形式擂同，但彼此間的溝通與相互扶持成為提升創新績效的無形助力。總之，高階管理階層結構主導研發管理實務的運作過程，而研發管理實務的落實程度與相關支援的協助，以及資源輔助釋放出來的能量，是同時決定研發創新績效程度的關鍵。 / As the global competition becomes ever-intensive, and businesses have fewer areas on which to hinge their competitive advantage, innovation capability is emerging as the key source of competitive advantage. The R&D team in a business, which is responsible for most of its innovations, thus plays a vital role in business survivability. This paper seeks to identify the variables that affect the innovation performance of R&D teams and investigate the interactions among the variables. A research framework is first established by literature review, and then adjusted according to case studies of six high-tech companies in Taiwan. The adjusted model is subsequently tested by a survey of high-tech companies in Taiwan. It is concluded that the management style of the higher authority and the leadership of R&D manager are the main forces that determine the R&D management practice. The educational background, work experience, and the expertise of R&D managers do not distinguish the level of discipline and the sophistication of R&D management practice. Some aspects of R&D management practice can be reinforced by office support and alliance, for example, the generation and utilization of technical reports and the cultivation of professional knowledge. With adequate resource support, more sophisticated R&D management practice does lead to better innovation performance which is measured by number of new products, patents, and technical reports.

本文以最適控制理論證明，獎勵再生能源產出之政策，應以再生能源淨能源產出做為獎勵的基礎，而非現行以再生能源總能源產出做為獎勵基礎之模式。這裡的淨能源產出，指的是再生能源廠商生產出之再生能源，減去生產再生能源時所用的能源投入。本文首先將社會最適情況下的總能源產出分別與以淨能源產出和總能源產出為獎勵政策基礎之價格與數量政策下之總能源產出作比較，提出獎勵再生能源產出的政策，需以淨能源產出做為獎勵的基礎，而非現行以總能源產出作為基礎的政策，接著，在以淨能源產出為基礎的政策下，探討環境外部性與防治成本以及研究發展的議題。 / By the optimal control theory, this paper proves that policies on encouraging the production of renewable energy should be based on its net output or net energy instead of on its gross output or gross energy. Here net energy is defined as the surplus of renewable energy output minus energy input from its production. This paper first compares the optimal gross output of the renewable energy under the social optimal condition with the gross outputs under the price-based policy instrument and the quantity-based policy instrument based on net energy output and gross energy output, respectively, suggesting that policy instruments used to encourage the production of renewable energy should be based on its net output instead of on its gross output. Finally, it probes the cases of environmental externality and R&D based on the net output of renewable energy.