Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/28718
標題: 台灣生技新藥廠商技術效率之研究- 資料包絡法與Malmquist生產力指數之應用
A Study on the Technical Efficiency of Taiwan Biopharmaceutical Firms with Application of DEA and Malmquist Productivity Index
作者: 闕宜萱
Chueh, Yi-Hsuan
關鍵字: biopharmaceutical firms;生技新藥廠商;technical efficiency;two stage DEA;Malmquist productivity index;技術效率;二階段資料包絡分析法;Malmquist生產力指數
出版社: 應用經濟學系所
摘要: 
本文旨在實證當前台灣生技新藥產業廠商之技術效率、廠商之社經背景對其效率值之影響,與研究「生技新藥產業發展條例」施行前後生技新藥廠商之跨年度效率值表現情形。利用2007年7月4日至2009年2月3日止已申請通過「生技新藥產業發展條例」之13家生技新藥公司資料進行二階段資料包絡分析法 (Two – Stage DEA) 與Malmquist生產力指數 (Malmquist Productivity Index) 兩種方法之研究分析。
首先觀察相關研究與生技新藥產業特性分別設定四個投入變數 - 「員工總人數」、「研發支出」、「研發人員碩士以上學歷之比例」與「研發年數」;三個產出項目 - 「年度營業額」與「公司擁有之專利數」;與五個環境影響因素 - 「公開發行」、「廠商位置」、「創辦人背景」、「人類藥物」與「政府計畫補助」,以2007年樣本資料來進行二階段DEA技術效率分析,進而再以Malmquist生產力指數來分析生技新藥廠商之跨年度效率變動情形。
本文以二階段DEA實證所得之技術效率做為主要比較基礎,由結果發現樣本廠商技術效率介0.109~1.000之間,共5家技術效率值為1。此外,第二階段DEA中發現,設址於科學園區或是選擇研發人類藥物,將會對廠商的技術效率值產生負向的影響。相對地,若生技新藥廠商有獲得政府小型企業創新研發計畫(SBIR)補助,對於技術效率則有正面的助益。二階段DEA實證結果進而可歸納出以下之結論:
1.13個樣本生技新藥廠商中以研發「植物用藥」的公司在技術效率
上表現最佳,其次依序為「慢性病藥物」廠商、「癌症藥物」廠
商與「其他人類用藥物」廠商。
2.以DEA衡量樣本廠商現階段之規模報酬屬性,發現屬於固定規模報
酬者有8家 (占62%);遞增規模報酬廠商有5家 (占38 %)。而樣本
廠商中並無存在規模報酬遞減者。
3.整體而言,具有以下特性之生技新藥廠商技術效率表現較佳:
(1)設廠於非科學園區;(2)研發「非人類藥物」;(3)申請
通過政府小型企業創新研發計畫補助。
此外,針對6家生技新藥廠商之Malmquist生產力指數分析結果顯示,「生技新藥產業發展條例」實施後除了研發「植物用藥」之廠商生產力呈現進步外,「人類癌症藥物」與「人類慢性病藥物」廠商生產力變動都呈現衰退。

This study examined the technical efficiency (TE) of Taiwan's biopharmaceutical firms, gauged the impact of the environmental factors to firms' efficiency, and investigated the biopharmaceutical firms' efficiency performance after “Statute for Biopharmaceutical Industry Development, SBID” practiced since July 2007. The “Two - Stage DEA” and “Malmquist Productivity Index”methods were applied to estimate the data of 13 biopharmaceutical firms who had certificated by SBID prior to the 3rd /February/2009.
First, the related thesises and the characteristic of biopharmaceutical industry were observed to set up “four inputs”, the total number of employees, R & D expenditures, the ratio of master''s degree or higher in R & D department, and R & D duration, “two outputs”, annual turnover and the number of patents, and “five environmental factors”, IPO, location, founder background, human medicine, and government R&D support, to proceed two stage DEA and Malmquist productivity index.
TE was used as a benchmark for comparing efficiency in this study. From the result, biopharmaceutical firms' TEs were between 0.109 and 1.000. Within 13 sample firms, 5 biopharmaceutical firms' TEs were “1”. Moreover, the research argued that the biopharmaceutical firm who located in science parks or researched human medicine tended to have worse TE. On the contrary, biopharmaceutical firms which received government subsidy were likely to have better TE.The following conclusion could be drawn from the two stage DEA analysis:
1.“Plant used medicine firm” had the most outstanding
performance in technical efficiency, and it was followed
by “chronic disease medicine firm”, “cancer medicine
firm” and “other human medicine firm”.
2.When estimating the RTS, there were 8 sample firms in
the CRS stage, accounting for 62%, and 5 sample firms in
the IRS stage, making up 38%. There were no sample firms
in the DRS stage.
3.In general, the biopharmaceutical firms having following
characteristics exhibited better TE: (1) located in non-
science park areas; (2) researched non-human medicine;
(3) received government SBIR subsidy.
According to Malmquist productivity index estimation, only “plant used medicine” firm's productivity trend displayed increase after SBID bought into practice. On the other hand, “chronic disease medicine” firms and“cancer medicine” firms' productivity trend displayed decrease.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/28718
Appears in Collections:應用經濟學系

Show full item record
 
TAIR Related Article

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.