雖著國內生產成本提高，1980年代起許多臺商製造業者紛紛前往中國投資設廠。然而製造業設廠必須使用土地，且由於土地的特性，使得業者在前往中國投資時，必須在當地取得土地，方能建廠進行生產。然而在中國的土地公有制度下，將可能使業者於經營過程中遭遇土地方面的問題。 製造業在跨界投資設廠時，往往在當地長時間經營，而早期當中國相關制度尚在建立時便進入投資的臺商，在中國的土地公有制度下，將可能在經營過程中遭遇土地方面的問題。製造業取得土地設廠後，其生產活動大多為長時間的經營，加上土地的不可移動性與建物定著性，因此投入生產後縱使遭逢變化，也未必能夠立刻遷往他處；此狀況在臺商以中小企業為主、彼此協做生產的產業型態下，可能更為明顯。根據相關研究，臺商在中國遭遇的糾紛中，土地問題占大多數，可見此一環節對製造業者的重要性。 本研究主要利用訪談的方式，試圖以廠商的角度來探討土地制度變遷所造成的影響，並釐清與歸納出臺商在中國投資環境與政策變化快速的情況下，「土地」對製造業者所帶來的問題與因應方式。 訪談對象以廣東東莞的臺商業者為主，包含大型製造業集團與中小企業的負責人或財務資產管理部門主管。由於東莞是臺商最早前往投資的重要聚集地，且當地以集體土地為主的產權型態，經過二十多年的發展，各鄉鎮集體已形成很強的自主性，制度變化的過程中牽動著與既有、環繞著集體產權體制的相關利益，以及國家機器與集體組織間的角力關係。面對這樣複雜的土地制度環境，東莞卻仍聚集大量的臺商，值得深入探究其因。 本研究歸納訪談結果後，認為在臺商前往中國投資過程中，特別是對東莞地區的製造業者而言，中國特殊的土地產權制度、以及快速變化的規範，皆是影響經營發展與策略的重要因素。本研究認為，由於中國的土地制度可說是具備「國有化」與「開發許可制」的特色，政府幾乎控制了土地產權與發展權的釋出管道，因此取得土地權證與否，將會是投資的重要考量。同時也因為土地不可移動與建物定著的特性，一旦取得土地使用上的保障、興建廠房後，業者在面對土地或其他經營上的問題時，可能傾向以更積極的態度克服。在中國注重「政商關係」的環境下，業者更往往透過協會組織的幫助，大型集團甚至可憑一幾之力，與政府進行溝通協商以保障在當地的產業發展。 / In 1980’s, the rise of production costs prompted Taiwanese enterprises to move to China, most of them are manufacture. The investment of manufacturing firms have to use land to build factories, and they can only acquire land at local, rather than bring it from Taiwan. However, because of land right institution in China was not set up completely when the “open door policy” began, foreign manufacturers could face some problems related to land under public ownership in years that followed. Especially for Taiwanese manufacturing investment, that are mostly small- or medium-sized independent manufacturing firms and cooperate with other firms, to form a production chain. In this research, we discuss the influences of transition of land right institution from manufactures’ view, through the interviews with a number of Taiwanese manufacturing firms in China. Most of the interviewees were Taiwanese manufacturing firms in Dongguan, Guangdong. It is a city that Taiwanese firms tended to cluster in the early years. With development for over 20 years, each township in Dongguan enjoys a high degree of autonomy on leading the direction of development. However, most of land in Dongguan are collective-owned, and a lot of profit would be involved during the transition of land right institution or ownership. Even so, there are still plenty of Taiwanese firms investing in Dongguan up to the present day. We conclude that the special land ownership institution in China and swiftly transformed environment are responsible for the changing operation strategies. Both characters of “state-owned” and “planning permission” are embedded in Chinese land institution, and the rights of ownership and development are tightly controlled and can only be granted by government. In consequence, land use right has become an important concern over investment. Moreover, a firm already granted with land use right tends to be much active, or seek help from “Taiwanese business association”, to solve the problems it has faced during operation.