越南新住民已成為臺灣外籍配偶中規模最大之單一族群。根據內政部移民署統計，越南籍配偶達 121,856 人，女性比例高達 96.6%，多數透過婚姻管道移入後長期定居。越南新住民於餐飲、零售、美容等領域之微型創業相當常見；然而，即便背景條件相近，新住民間之就業選擇仍存在明顯分歧：有人選擇創業，有人留在受僱工作。此一觀察促使本研究以量化方式檢驗推力因素、社會整合與創業補助對越南新住民創業決
策之影響。
本研究以居住於臺灣之越南新住民為對象，採問卷調查法蒐集資料，分為已創業組與未創業組進行比較，並於已創業組內進一步比較有補助與無補助者之差異。研究架構整合 Sinkovics and Reuber (2021) 之推力因素分類與 Vermeulen and Penninx (2000)
之社會文化／結構性融入二維架構，並以 t 檢定與二元邏輯斯迴歸進行檢驗。
本研究發現，真正驅動越南新住民創業之核心動力是經濟層面的生存壓力，而非工作辛苦本身。工作壓力在控制生存壓力後反而呈現抑制效果。社會整合對創業行為預測力有限，但對制度與法規之理解可顯著提升其創業意願，凸顯「想創業」與「實際創業」之實踐落差——推力作用於行動門檻，整合則作用於意願形成。創業補助方面，曾接受補助者於社交頻率與制度知識上明顯較高，但於經營面指標差異有限；補助組在台居住時間反而較短，暗示現行補助管道較易觸達相對晚近移入之新住民。
整體而言，本研究於實務上提示補助觸達路徑與制度知識培訓可能比補助金額本身更為關鍵。儘管受限於橫斷面設計與小樣本，所觀察到的若干趨勢仍可作為後續縱貫性追蹤或跨族裔比較研究的初步假說。

Vietnamese immigrants have become the largest single ethnic group among foreign-born spouses in Taiwan. According to the Ministry of the Interior's National Immigration Agency,Vietnamese spouses number 121,856, with 96.6% being female, most entering through marriage. Vietnamese new immigrants are common micro-entrepreneurs in catering, retail, and beauty services; yet even among those with similar backgrounds, employment choices diverge—some pursue self-employment while others remain employed. This observation motivates the present study to examine, through quantitative methods, how push factors, social integration, and entrepreneurship subsidies shape Vietnamese new immigrants' entrepreneurial decisions.
Questionnaire data from Vietnamese new immigrants in Taiwan were collected and split into entrepreneur and non-entrepreneur groups; within the entrepreneur group, subsidy recipients were further compared with non-recipients. The analytical framework integrates Sinkovics and Reuber's (2021) classification of push factors and Vermeulen and Penninx's (2000) two-dimensional framework of socio-cultural and structural integration, applying t-tests and binary logistic regression.
Findings indicate that economic survival pressure—rather than work difficulty itself—is the core driver; controlling for survival pressure, work pressure exhibits a suppressive effect. Social integration shows limited predictive power for entrepreneurial behavior; however, understanding of administrative and business regulations significantly raises their intention to start a business, highlighting an intention–behavior gap—push factors operate at the threshold of action, integration at the formation of intention. Subsidy recipients scored noticeably higher on social-contact frequency and institutional knowledge but did not differ on operational indicators; recipients also had shorter residence in Taiwan, suggesting that current subsidy channels more readily reach relatively recent arrivals.
Practically, this study suggests outreach pathways and institutional-knowledge training may matter more than the subsidy amount itself. Despite limitations from cross-sectional design and a small subsidy-group sample, this study lays groundwork for future longitudinal and cross-ethnic comparative research.

一、中文部分
1. 內政部移民署，2025，「外籍配偶人數與大陸（含港澳）配偶人數按證件分（114年2月）」，內政部移民署統計資料: https://www.immigration.gov.tw/5385/7344/7350/8887/。2026/04/26。
2. 潘淑滿，2015，「跨國／境照顧圈的形成與隱喻：（東南亞）婚姻移民的照顧與工作」，社區發展季刊，第149期，頁215~230。

二、英文部分
1. Andrejuk, K. 2018. “Entrepreneurial Strategies as a Response to Discrimination: Experience of Ukrainian Women in Poland from the Intersectional Perspective,” Anthropological Notebooks, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 25~40.
2. Beckers, P., and B. F. Blumberg. 2013. “Immigrant Entrepreneurship on the Move: A Longitudinal Analysis of First and Second Generation Immigrant Entrepreneurship in the Netherlands,” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, vol. 25, no. 7~8, pp. 654~691.
3. Brettell, C. B., and K. E. Alstatt. 2007. “The Agency of Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Biographies of the Self-Employed in Ethnic and Occupational Niches of the Urban Labor Market,” Journal of Anthropological Research, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 383~397.
4. Chen, C., S. Lee, and H. W. Stevenson. 1995. “Response Style and Cross-Cultural Comparisons of Rating Scales among East Asian and North American Students,” Psychological Science, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 170~175.
5. Chen, W. (2015). “Mediatizing the Network Model of Cultural Capital: Network Diversity, Media Use, and Cultural Knowledge along and across Ethnic Boundaries,” Social Networks, vol. 40, pp. 185~196.
6. Constant, A. (2006). “Female Proclivity to the World of Business,” Kyklos, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 465~480.
7. Gaspar, S. 2019. “Chinese Descendants’ Professional Pathways: Moving to New Businesses?” Portuguese Journal of Social Science, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 91~108.
8. Harzing, A.-W. 2006. “Response Styles in Cross-National Survey Research: A 26-Country Study,” International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 243~266.
9. Jiang, G., M. Kotabe, R. D. Hamilton III, and S. W. Smith. 2016. “Early Internationalization and the Role of Immigration in New Venture Survival,” International Business Review, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1285~1296.
10. Lintner, C. 2019. “The Other Entrepreneurs—Migrant Economies as Spaces for Social Innovation?” Migration Letters, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 265~271.
11. Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill).
12. Sinkovics, N., and A. R. Reuber. 2021. “Beyond Disciplinary Silos: A Systematic Analysis of the Migrant Entrepreneurship Literature,” Journal of World Business, vol. 56, no. 4, p. 101223.
13. Vermeulen, H., and R. Penninx (eds.). 2000. Immigrant Integration: The Dutch Case (Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis).
14. Williams, N., and B. A. Krasniqi. 2018. “Coming Out of Conflict: How Migrant Entrepreneurs Utilise Human and Social Capital,” Journal of International Entrepreneurship, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 301~323.