跳到主要內容

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 包一德
Itamar Asher Baum
論文名稱： 以色列與臺灣新創生態系發展的比較路徑：風險、文化、網絡與政策
Comparative Pathways in Start-Up Ecosystem Development: Risk, Culture, Networks, and Policy in Israel and Taiwan
指導教授： 史蘭亭
Say, Alicia
口試委員: 吳文傑
Wu, Wen-Chieh
鄭輝培
Cheng, Hui-Pei
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 社會科學學院 - 亞太研究英語碩士學位學程(IMAS)
International Master's Program in Asia-Pacific Studies(IMAS)
論文出版年： 2026
畢業學年度： 114
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 61
中文關鍵詞： 新創生態系 、以色列 、臺灣 、風險 、文化 、網絡 、創新政策 、商業化
外文關鍵詞： Start-up ecosystems, Israel, Taiwan, Risk, Culture, Networks, Innovation policy, Commercialisation
相關次數： 點閱：61  下載：0 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 本論文比較以色列與臺灣的新創生態系，探討風險、文化、網絡與政策如何在兩個案例中形塑創新與新創發展。本研究採用質性比較個案研究方法，並以六場訪談為基礎，訪談對象包括以色列與臺灣的創投、政府以及創辦人。

    本論文大致支持既有文獻中關於以色列與臺灣的討論，同時透過多元行動者視角檢視各自的生態系，而不僅將其視為國家層級模式，進一步補充既有研究的細緻性。分析發現，兩個生態系以不同方式支持新創發展。在以色列資料中，尤其是創投受訪者的敘述顯示，創辦人與團隊訊號可使新創企業在尚未建立充分市場證據前即獲得支持。在臺灣資料中，支持則較常取決於技術驗證、制度性審查、客戶證據，或可信的商業應用途徑。這些模式顯示，生態系發展取決於不同行動者如何判斷風險、建立資源取得管道，並運用既有支持。本文提出一項比較分析，說明相似的生態系因素如何在不同制度環境中產生不同的新創發展路徑。

    This thesis compares the start-up ecosystems of Israel and Taiwan. It examines how risk, culture, networks, and policy shape innovation and start-up development in each case. The study follows a qualitative comparative case study based on six interviews with venture-capital, government-side, and founder-side respondents in Israel and Taiwan.

    The thesis generally supports existing literature regarding Israel and Taiwan, while adding nuance by examining each ecosystem through multiple actor perspectives rather than treating them as national-level models. The analysis finds that the two ecosystems support start-up development in different ways. In the Israeli material, especially the VC account, founder and team signals can make a venture supportable before extensive market proof is established. In the Taiwanese material, support more often depends on technical validation, institutional screening, customer evidence, or a credible route to commercial use. These patterns show that ecosystem development depends on how different actors judge risk, build access, and use available support. The thesis contributes a comparative account of how similar ecosystem factors can produce different pathways of start-up development across institutional settings.

    Chapter 1: Introduction 1
    1.1 Research Objectives 1
    1.2 Research Question 2
    Chapter 2: Literature Review 3
    2.1 Theoretical Foundations of Start-Up Ecosystems 3
    2.1.1 Systems of Innovation Theory 3
    2.1.2 Network Theory and Social Capital 5
    2.1.3 Regional Cluster Theory 6
    2.1.4 Integrated Theoretical Framework 6
    2.2 Israel’s Start-Up Ecosystem: History, Policies, and Current Challenges 7
    2.2.1 Historical Context: From Survival to Innovation 7
    2.2.2 Key Institutions and Policy Frameworks 7
    2.2.3 Ecosystem Composition and Growth 8
    2.2.4 Cultural Dimensions and Sociocultural Norms 9
    2.2.5 Network and Transnational Connections 9
    2.2.6 Competitive Advantages in the Global Landscape 10
    2.2.7 Persistent Challenges and Structural Constraints 10
    2.2.8 Balancing Strengths and Weaknesses 11
    2.3 Taiwan’s Start-Up Ecosystem: History, Policies, and Current Challenges 11
    2.3.1 Historical Context: From Manufacturing Powerhouse to Technological Innovator 11
    2.3.2 Key Institutions and Policy Frameworks 12
    2.3.3 Ecosystem Composition and Growth 13
    2.3.4 Cultural Dimensions and Sociocultural Norms 14
    2.3.5 Network and Transnational Connections 14
    2.3.6 Competitive Advantages in the Global Landscape 14
    2.3.7 Persistent Challenges and Structural Constraints 15
    2.3.8 Balancing Strengths and Weaknesses 15
    2.4 Comparative Synthesis 16
    2.4.1 Institutional Strategy: Catalysis and Infrastructure 17
    2.4.2 Cultural and Network Patterns 17
    2.4.3 Divergent Paths of Innovation 18
    2.4.4 Shared Challenges 18
    2.5 Gaps in the Literature 18
    2.5.1 Limited Cross-National Comparative Studies 18
    2.5.2 Limited Integration of Risk, Culture, Network, Policy, and Actor Position 19
    2.5.3 Ecosystem Mechanisms and Early Venture Development 19
    2.5.4 Methodological and Data Limitations 19
    Chapter 3: Research Methodology and Analytical Framework 21
    3.1 Research Design and Case Selection 21
    3.2 Interview Selection 21
    3.3 Secondary Data Collection 24
    3.4 Analytical Framework and Coding Procedure 24
    Chapter 4: Empirical Findings and Theoretical Analysis 26
    4.1 Risk 26
    4.2 Culture 30
    4.3 Network 34
    4.4 Policy 39
    4.5 Cross-Theme Empirical Synthesis 44
    4.6 Cross-Theme Theoretical Synthesis 46
    Chapter 5: Conclusion 51
    5.1 Theoretical Contributions 51
    5.1.1 Answer to the Research Question 51
    5.1.2 Actor-Positioned Contribution 53
    5.1.3 Theoretical Integration and Conversion Points 54
    5.2 Managerial Implications 55
    5.2.1 Implications for Government and Ecosystem Policymakers 55
    5.2.2 Implications for Start-Ups and Founders 57
    5.3 Limitations 58
    5.4 Future Research 59
    5.5 Final Synthesis 60
    References 61

    Almor, T., & Heilbrunn, S. (2013). Entrepreneurship in Israel: Theory and practice. American Journal of Entrepreneurship, 6(2), 16–36.
    Avnimelech, G., & Teubal, M. (2005). Evolutionary innovation and high-tech policy: What can we learn from Israel’s targeting of venture capital? (STE-WP 25). Samuel Neaman Institute for Advanced Studies in Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2757999
    Breznitz, D. (2007). Innovation and the state: Political choice and strategies for growth in Israel, Taiwan, and Ireland. Yale University Press.
    Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.
    Business Next Media Corp. (2025, January 15). Taiwan’s Startup Hub in Silicon Valley bridges U.S.–Taiwan innovation collaboration and promotes Taiwan’s startups to the world [Press release]. PR Newswire. https://www.prnewswire.com/apac/news-releases/taiwans-startup-hub-in-silicon-valley-bridges-us-taiwan-innovation-collaboration-and-promotes-taiwans-startups-to-the-world-302351199.html
    Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2012). Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems: 21st-century democracy, innovation, and entrepreneurship for development. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2062-0
    Chang, S. L. (1992). Causes of brain drain and solutions: The Taiwan experience. Studies in Comparative International Development, 27(1), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02687103
    Dashti, Y., & Schwartz, D. (2015). The role and contribution of networks in M&A of innovative ventures. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 27(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2013.837116
    The Economist Group. (2021, December 1). Tel Aviv overtakes Paris to become the world’s most expensive city. https://www.economistgroup.com/press-centre/economist-intelligence/tel-aviv-overtakes-paris-to-become-the-worlds-most-expensive-city
    Edquist, C. (2005). Systems of innovation: Perspectives and challenges. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 181–208). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.003.0007
    Engel, J. S., & Del-Palacio, I. (2011). Global clusters of innovation: The case of Israel and Silicon Valley. California Management Review, 53(2), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.53.2.27
    Feigenbaum, E. A. (2020). Assuring Taiwan’s innovation future. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/files/Feigenbaum_TaiwanInnovation_final.pdf
    Freeman, C. (1987). Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. Pinter Publishers.
    Fu, Y. C., Moradel Vásquez, J. J., Macasaet, B. T., Hou, A. Y. C., & Powell, J. J. W. (2024). Game of brains: Examining researcher brain gain and brain drain and research university policy. Higher Education Policy, 37(2), 237–258. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-023-00303-6
    Hung, S.-C. (2024). The evolution of innovative capabilities: A longitudinal, embedded case study. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 34, 901–925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-024-00875-5
    Isenberg, D. J. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 40–50. https://hbr.org/2010/06/the-big-idea-how-to-start-an-entrepreneurial-revolution
    Israel Innovation Authority. (n.d.). Royalties & intellectual property. https://innovationisrael.org.il/en/royalties-intellectual-property/
    Israel Innovation Authority. (2022). Annual innovation report 2022: The state of high-tech. https://innovationisrael.org.il/files-en/Annual%20Innovation%20Report%20-%20State%20of%20High-Tech%202022.pdf
    Israel Innovation Authority. (2023). Annual innovation report 2023: The state of high-tech. https://innovationisrael.org.il/files-en/2023-06/2023%20Annual%20Innovation%20Report.pdf
    Klingler-Vidra, R., & Kenney, M. (2016). Policies for financing entrepreneurship through venture capital: Learning from the successes of Israel and Taiwan. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 7(3), 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIRD.2016.079462
    Levi-Faur, D. (1998). The developmental state: Israel, South Korea, and Taiwan compared. Studies in Comparative International Development, 33(1), 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02788195
    Lim, L. (2024, February 11). Success breeds success: How a 1,400-hectare plot became the hub of the global chip industry—and the world economy. Fortune. https://fortune.com/asia/2024/02/11/hsinchu-science-park-chipmaking-hub-taiwan-semiconductors-tsmc-umc-mediatek/
    Liu, E. M., Meng, J., & Wang, J. T.-y. (2014). Confucianism and preferences: Evidence from lab experiments in Taiwan and China. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 104, 106–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.09.008
    Lundvall, B.-Å. (2010). National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning (2nd ed.). Anthem Press.
    Malerba, F. (2002). Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy, 31(2), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00139-1
    National Development Council. (2024). Policy guidelines set out by Premier Cho. https://www.ndc.gov.tw/en/cp.aspx?n=5915DEE8FA27DD93&s=8FF439709596F872
    North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
    Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Free Press.
    Redding, G. (1990). The spirit of Chinese capitalism. De Gruyter.
    Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Harvard University Press.
    Senor, D., & Singer, S. (2009). Start-up nation: The story of Israel’s economic miracle. Twelve.
    Startup Nation Central. (2022). Israeli AgriFood-Tech and Water-Tech sectors: 2021 year in review. https://startupnationcentral.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/SNC-Agrifood-Watertech-Report_Digital_V4.0.pdf
    Tishler, A., & Halevi-Davidov, N. (2007). Innovation in Israel: Facts and measures. Faculty of Management, Tel Aviv University. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251554847_Innovation_in_Israel_Facts_and_Measures
    Trajtenberg, M. (2001). R&D policy in Israel: An overview and reassessment. In M. Pohjola (Ed.), The economic impact of knowledge (pp. 55–76). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1653-1_3
    Wonglimpiyarat, J. (2016). Government policies towards Israel’s high-tech powerhouse. Technovation, 52–53, 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2016.02.001
    Wrobel, S. (2023, March 22). Tel Aviv startup ecosystem ranks 2nd in Europe, Mideast and Africa, behind London. The Times of Israel. https://www.timesofisrael.com/tel-aviv-startup-ecosystem-ranks-2nd-in-europe-mideast-and-africa-behind-london/

    QR CODE
    :::