本研究旨在探討台灣集團企業多角化策略是否影響集團企業的經營效率，以2008年及2012年台灣集團企業上巿櫃公司為樣本期間進行實證分析。實證評量工具採用資料包絡分析法（Data Envelopment Analysis, DEA）來衡量台灣集團企業相關之效率值。再利用Tobit廻歸分析工具找出造成集團企業無效率之因素。依據實證結果顯示在2008年及2012年的研究期間，高多角化程度之台灣集團企業與整體台灣集團企業其平均總體效率值分別由0.874下降至0.859與0.900下降至0.866。觀察整體技術無效率方面，以高多角化程度之台灣集團企業由2008年時整體技術無效率之集團企業占總家數的七成六至2012年則下降至總家數的五成。而多數集團企業則呈現遞減規模報酬型態。然而，整體台灣集團企業則是從2008年時整體技術無效率約占總家數的五成八至2012年時增加至總家數的六成五。亦即多數集團企業均呈現遞減規模報酬型態。最後，由Tobit廻歸分析的實證結果顯示對高多角程度之台灣集團企業而言，員工流動率對總體效率呈現顯著的正向關係，員工平均年資及員工平均年齡則是對純技效率及規模效率分別呈現顯著的負向關係及正向關係。反之，整體台灣集團企業則以員工分紅現金（正向）、員工平均年資（負向）及員工平均年齡（正向）等三項因素對總體效率及純技術效率均呈現顯著關係。員工流動率（負向）及員工平均年資（負向）等兩項因素則對規模效率呈現顯著關係。

In this study, diversification strategy how to affect performance of Taiwan group enterprise is studied. We applied the Data Envelopment Analysis and Tobit analysis to estimate the performance of Taiwan group enterprise and key parameters lead to the poor performance. The empirical data is based on the business groups in Taiwan stock exchange, including 71 companies during 2008 to 2012. The results show that the average overall efficiency of Taiwan group enterprise with high level of diversification strategy and low level of diversification strategy are decreasing from 0.874 to 0.859, and 0.900 to 0.866, respectively. We further divide the sample into two samples: high level of diversification strategy and low level of diversification strategy. The empirical results shows that: (1) the higher level of diversification strategy, the lower average overall efficiency; the lower level of diversification strategy, the higher average overall efficiency. (2) The number of Taiwan group enterprise with higher level of diversification strategy with inefficiency of technical efficiency account for the number of Taiwan group enterprise with higher level of diversification strategy is decreasing from 76 to 50% during 2008 to 2012; The number of Taiwan group enterprise with lower level of diversification strategy with inefficiency of technical efficiency account for the number of Taiwan group enterprise with lower level of diversification strategy is increasing from 58 to 65% during 2008 to 2012. (3) In the enterprise with higher level of diversification strategy, the employee turnover rate and overall efficiency value are positively correlated. In the enterprise with lower level of diversification strategy, the employee of average seniority and overall efficiency value have negative correlation; however, employee of bonus, employee of average age and overall efficiency value have positive correlation.

一、英文參考文獻
[1]Khanna, T., and K. Palepu. (2000), “Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? An analysis of diversified Indian business groups”, The Journal of Finance, 55(April):867-891.
[2]Gerlach, M. (1992), “The Japanese corporate network: A block model analysis”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(March):287-301.
[3]Khanna, T., and W. Rivkin. (2001), “Estimating the performance effects of business groups in emerging markets”, Strategic Management Journal, 22(January):45-47.
[4]Strachan, H. (1976), “Family and Other Business Groups in Economic Development: The Case of Nicaragua”, New York: Prager.
[5]Leff, N. H. (1978), “Industrial organization and entrepreneurship in the developing countries: The economic groups”, Economic Development & Cultural Change, 26: 661-675.
[6]Peng, Mike W., & P.S. Heath (1996), “The Growth of the Firm in Planned Economies in Transition: Institutions, Organizations, and Strategic Choice”, Academy of Management Review, 21(2), pp.492-528.
[7]Ramanujan, V. & P. Varadarajan (1989), “Research on Corporate Diversification: A Synthesis”, Management Journal, 10(6), pp.523-551.
[8]Gort. M. Divers (1962), “Diversification and Integration in American Industry”, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
[9]Ansoff. H. Igor (1975), “Strategies for Diversification”, Harvard Business Review, Sep-Dec, pp.114.
[10]Rumelt, Richard P. (1974), “Strategy, Structure and Economic Performance”, Boston, MA, Division of Research, Harvard Business.
[11]Berry, C. H. (1975), “Corporate Growth and Diversification”, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[12]Kamien, Morton I. and Nancy L. Schwartz (1975), “Market Structure and Innovation: A Survey”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.1-37.
[13]Hoskisson, R.E. (1987), “Multidivisional Structure and Performance: The Contingence of Diversification Strategy”, Academy of Management Journal, 30, PP.625-644.
[14]Hill, W.L. & Hansen S. (1991), “A Longitudinal Study of the Cause and Consequences of Changes in Diversification in the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry 1977-1986”, Strategic Management Journal, 12, pp.187-199.
[15]Ramaswamy, K. (1995), “Multinationality, Configuration, and Performance: A study of MNEs in the US Drug and Pharmaceutical Industry”, Journal of International Management, 1, pp.231-253.
[16]Lang, L., Stulz, R., (1994), “Tobin’s Q, corporate diversification, and firm performance”, Journal of Political Economy 102, 1248-1280.
[17]Amit, R. and J. Livant (1988), “Diversification strategies, Business Cycle, and Economic Performance”, Strategic Management Journal, 9, pp.99-110.
[18]Montgomery, C.A. (1994), “Corporate Diversification”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, pp.163-178.
[19]Rumelt, R.P. (1974), “Strategy, Structure and Economic Performance”, Boston, MA, Division of Research, Harvard Business.
[20]Khanna Tarun & Palepu Krishna (1999), “The Right Way to Restructure Conglomertaes in Emerging Markets”, Harvard Business Review, 6-8, pp.125-134.
[21]Porter, M.E. (1987), “From Competitive Advantage to Corporate Strategy”, Harvard Business Review, May/June 1987, pp.43-59.
[22]Markides, C.C. (1995), “Diversification, Restructure and Economic Performance”, Strategic Management Journal, pp.101-118.
[23]Palich L. E., Cardinal L. B. and C. C. Miller (2000), “Curvilinearity in the diversification-performance linkage: an examination of over three decades of research”, Strategic Management Journal, 21, pp.155-174.
[24]Gort, M. (1962), “Diversification and Integration in American Industry”, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
[25]Grant, R.M. (1988), “Contemporary Strategy Analysis”, Blackwell, Oxford.
[26]McCutcheon, L.E. (1991), “A New Test of Misconceptions about Psychology”, Psychological Reports, 68:647-653.
[27]Denis, D. J., Denis, D. K. and Sarin, A. (1997), “Agency Problems, Equity Ownership, and Corporate Diversification”, Journal of Finance, 52:135-160.
[28]Porter, M.E. (1985), “Competitive Advantage”, Free Press, New York, 1995.
[29]Lubatkin, M.H. and Chatterjee, S. (1994), “Extending Modern Portfolio Theory into the Domain of Corporate Diversification: Does It Apply?”, Academy of Management Journal, 37:109-136.
[30]Grant, R.M. Jammine, A.P. and Thomas, H. (1988), “Diversity, Diversification, and Profitability among British Manufacturing Companies”, Academy of Management Journal, 31:771-801.
[31]Markides, C.C. (1995), “Diversification, Refocusing and Economic Performance”, MIT Press.
[32]Wernerfelt, B. and Montgomery, C.A. (1988), “Tobin’s Q and the Importance of Focus in Firm Performance”, American Economic Review, 78:246-250.
[33]Farrell, M.J. (1957), “The Measurement of Productivity Efficiency”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 120:253-281.
[34]Griliches Z. and Regev H. (1995), “Firm productivity in Israeli industry 1977-1988”, Journal of Econometrics 65:175-203.
[35]Feng, C. M. and Wang, R. T. (2000), “Performance Evaluation for Airlines Including the Consideration of Financial Ratios”, Journal of Air Transport Management 6, pp.133-142.
[36]Kaplan, R. S. and D. P. Norton (2001), “The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Competitive Environment”, Boston: HBS Press.
[37]Agrell P. J. and B. M. West (2001), “A Caveat on the Measurement of Productive Efficiency”, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 69(1):1-14.
[38]Charnes A., W. W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes (1978), “Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 2, pp.429-444.
[39]Golany, B. & Y. Roll (1989), “An Application Procedure for DEA”, Omega, 17(3), pp.237-250.
[40]Michael Norman, Barry Stocker (1991), “Data Envelopment Analysis: The Assessment of Performance”, [M], USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.1991:126-131.

中文參考文獻
[41]許士軍（1976），「台灣地區集團企業研究」，台灣地區集團企業與經濟發展座談會紀錄，台北巿。
[42]陳希沼（1976），「台灣地區集團企業之研究」，台灣銀行季刊，第27卷第377期，台北巿。
[43]王作榮（1978），對關係企業應有的態度，生力月刊，第11卷第132期，1978年9月。
[44]湯明哲（1979），關係企業整合與控制之研究。政治大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
[45]黃俊英（1983），台灣地區總體行銷環境之回顧與展望。管理評論，第6卷，40-59。
[46]中華徵信所（2012），台灣地區大型集團企業研究。台北巿：中華徵信所。
[47]黃仲生（1996），「多角化對公司價值影響之實證研究」，中山大學財務管理研究所碩士論文。
[48]林琮傑（2005），「多角化因素與金控因素於銀行之績效評估」，國立屏東科技大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
[49]陳振昌（1994），「台灣集團企業多角化策略與績效關連之實證研究」，中興大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
[50]廖光將（1996），「台灣集團企業多角化策略與績效關連之研究：投資組合理論之應用」，成功大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
[51]陳瓊蓉，陳隆麒，謝劍平（2004），「股權結構、多角化程度與公司績效關聯性之研究－以台灣上巿公司為例」，2004 台灣財務學術研討會。
[52]黃子菱（2002），「集團企業多角化程度與經營績效相關性之研究－以平衡計分卡觀點探討」，東吳大學會計學系未出版碩士論文。
[53]張淵宏（2006），「國際化程度與企業經營績效關連性之研究－以台灣集團企業為例」，國立政治大學國際貿易學系未出版碩士論文。
[54]邱薇婷（2010），「台灣集企業經營績效之探討」，銘傳大學會計學系碩士班未出版碩士論文。
[55]陳振任（2002），「以資料包絡法探討台灣資訊電子業之核心能力與經營績效」，國立成功大學工業管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
[56]陳世宗（2006），「資料包絡分析法在企業績效分析之運用與實證探討－以中國電視事業公司為例」，國立空中大學管理與資料學系，管理與資訊學報，民95，11期，159-194頁。
[57]曾真真（2007），「應用資料包絡法及Malmquist生產力指數衡量壽險業之經營效率：利害關係人觀點」，中華管理評論國際學報，2007年2月第10卷1期，Vol. 10, No.1, Feb 2007。
[58]徐中琦，盧慧蓉（2009），「我國金控券商與非金控券商經營效率比較分析－DEA與Malmquist生產力指數之應用」，台灣銀行季刊，第60卷第4期，pp.46-64。
[59]陳宗亮（1993），「研究發展外溢效果決定因素之研究」，國立中央大學產業經濟研究所未出版碩士論文。
[60]林其美（1997），「外人投資、研究發展與外溢效果－台灣製造業實證研究」，國立政治大學經濟研究所未出版碩士論文。
[61]孫遜（2004），「資料包絡分析法－理論與應用」，初版，楊智文化事業有限公司。
[62]吳濟華、何柏正（2009），「效率與生產力分析入門」，二版，前程文化事業有限公司。