【作者】 杨菊萍；

【导师】 贾生华；

【作者基本信息】 浙江大学 ， 企业管理， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 当前的产业集群实践中所涌现的企业迁移热潮虽然吸引了一些学者的目光,但其分析仍局限于中观层面的产业集群发展风险上。自20世纪90年代以来一些学者就强调微观层面集群企业行为研究的重要性,但鲜有研究关注集群企业的迁移行为。与之形成鲜明对比的是,在企业迁移研究领域大量学者关注了一般性企业的迁移行为。基于不同的研究假设这些研究大致形成了三个理论学派：新古典理论学派指出企业是理性的经济人,强调企业指向最优的区位因而仅在外部影响和企业需要发生改变时迁移；行为理论学派指出由于有限理性和有限信息企业只能选择满意行为,强调迁移的决策过程以及非经济因素在其中所起的作用；制度理论学派指出企业并非应激反应原子而是嵌入于组织网络之中,强调组织间关系、社会制度等因素对迁移行为的影响。可以看到,制度理论学派的企业假设与集群企业的特征十分吻合,用该分析框架来研究集群企业的迁移行为成为从微观层面探究集群企业迁移行为的突破口,但该理论视角的研究由于缺乏合适的分析工具距离理论的模型化仍有一段距离。鉴于此,本研究将产业集群研究中应用广泛的网络分析方法与企业迁移研究制度理论学派的分析框架结合,在传统的三因素模型基础上进一步考虑了企业网络特征的影响,构建了集群企业迁移决策的四因素模型和权变模型,并考察了集群企业的不同特征对迁移方式选择的影响。在此基础上,本研究还探索了集群企业的迁移决策、迁移方式与其绩效表现之间的关系。基于问卷调查和公开数据库的相关数据,本研究的实证分析得到以下四个方面的主要结论：(1)同时考虑网络特征的四因素模型在解释集群企业迁移决策时显著优于传统的三因素模型,其中集群企业的企业特征、区位特征和网络特征对迁移决策具有显著的影响。具体而言,集群企业的迁移决策具有以下三个特点：首先,处于城市中心的集群企业更易迁移；其次,集群企业的迁移意愿随着企业年龄的增加而减弱；再次,集群企业的迁移意愿随着网络地理开放性的增加而增强。(2)环境满意度显著调节着集群企业的企业特征、区位特征和网络特征与迁移决策之间的关系。具体而言：首先,处于城市外围或乡村的集群企业对要素环境的满意度越低迁移的意愿越强烈；其次,企业年龄大的集群企业对要素环境的满意度越低迁移的意愿越强烈；再次,本地网络规模大的集群企业对要素环境的满意度越高迁移的意愿越弱；最后,网络地理开放性高的集群企业对要素环境的满意度越高迁移的意愿越弱。(3)迁移组织部门选择受区位特征和网络特征的影响,迁移地理尺度选择受企业特征和网络特征的影响,迁移区域类型受区位特征和网络特征的影响。具体来说,集群企业的迁移方式选择具有以下三个特点：首先,偏好整体迁移的集群企业处于乡村、本地网络规模小、本地网络中心度低,偏好总部迁移的集群企业处于城市外围、本地网络规模大,偏好其他部门迁移的集群企业本地网络中心度高；其次,偏好本地迁移的集群企业企业规模小、本地关系强度弱,偏好本省或跨省迁移的集群企业企业规模大；再次,偏好向城市中心迁移的集群企业本地网络规模大,偏好向城市外围迁移的集群企业处于城市、本地网络规模小,偏好向乡村迁移的的集群企业处于乡村、本地网络规模小。(4)迁移决策和迁移方式不同的集群企业迁移之后的绩效表现也不同。迁移决策不同的集群企业的绩效表现的差异体现在,迁移集群企业的财务绩效和成长绩效均显著优于未迁移的集群企业；迁移方式不同的集群企业的绩效表现的差异体现在,迁移组织部门、迁移地理尺度和迁移区域类型不同的迁移集群企业其财务绩效与行业平均水平间的差异不同,迁移区域类型不同的迁移集群企业其成长绩效与行业平均水平间的差异也不同。与集群企业迁移相关领域已有的研究成果相比,本研究的创新和发展主要体现在以下三个方面：(1)构建了集群企业迁移决策的四因素模型和权变模型。尽管企业迁移研究的制度理论学派的学者已经意识都特定环境下的企业间联系以及网络的重要性,但该领域的分析仍停留在理论探讨的层面。本文借鉴该学派的分析框架,结合集群企业研究的网络分析方法,在企业迁移影响因素研究的传统三因素模型基础上构建了考虑网络特征影响的集群企业迁移决策四因素模型和迁移权变模型。一定程度上弥补了企业迁移研究制度理论学派的理论分析缺乏模型化的不足。(2)从微观层面识别了集群企业迁移的行为特点。产业集群学者的离心力模型、本地锁定模型和负外部性模型均将迁移作为事件来看待,对集群企业迁移的考察采用的是中观层面视角。本研究基于对浙江省集群企业进行问卷调查所收集的数据,对集群企业的环境特征、区位特征、企业特征和网络特征与其迁移决策和迁移方式选择之间的关系进行了实证分析。以上研究以企业为分析单元,从微观层面识别了集群企业迁移的行为特点,推动了集群企业迁移行为研究的完善和深入。(3)揭示了集群企业的迁移行为与其绩效表现间的关系。在对企业迁移绩效表现进行的有限分析中,由于考察的样本、绩效指标的选择、强调的行为侧重点等因素上的差异,不同实证研究得到相差迥异的结论。本研究基于问卷调查以及公开数据库所收集的数据,分析了不同迁移决策和迁移行为的集群企业在财务绩效和成长绩效上的表现差异。具体的差异反映了集群企业迁移的两个重要特点：一是迁移是集群企业实现成长的有效途径之一,但对集群企业经营实力的提升作用有限；二是不同迁移方式对集群企业的能力要求不同,同时对集群企业经营实力的改善作用也不同。以上研究丰富了企业迁移绩效表现研究领域的相关成果。本文研究还只是初步的探索,与系统性的框架构建和实证分析尚有一段距离。本研究的不足主要集中在研究变量的选取较为单一、实证结论的外部效度有待商榷以及其他影响因素的作用未一一加以控制三个方面。未来的研究可从以下几个方面进行深入的拓展：第一,从集群企业网络的地理嵌入和组织嵌入特性入手来解释集群企业迁移决策的形成过程；第二,尝试对个别典型的迁移集群企业进行追踪式的案例分析研究；第三,探讨企业主要产品所处的生命周期阶段、企业的发展战略、企业的迁移经历等因素对集群企业迁移决策的作用；第四,以环境不确定性代替环境满意度作为权变条件分析集群企业迁移的影响因素；第五,以集群企业迁移与产业集群演进之间的关系为焦点进行分析。更多还原

【Abstract】 The Phenomenon of many firms relocated in industry clusters attracted the attention of some scholars, but there resesches are still limites to the development risks of industry cluster. Although some studies emphasize the behavior research of firms in cluster is important since 1990s, so far little is done in relocating behavior of cluster firms at micro level. In sharp contrast, a large number of researches have been done on general firm relocation. Those researches could mainly be devided into three schools, the neoclassical school point out relocation just accur if the external influence and the internal needs have changed and the behavioral school emphasice the decision-making process of relocation and the role non-economic factors play in that process, and the institutional school streeed the effect of inter-organizational relations, social systems and some other factors on firm relocation.The hypotesis of firm which institutional school emphasized is consistent with the characteristics of cluster firm, and the analytical framework of this theoretical school could be used to explore the migration behavior of cluster firms. However, this theory is far away from modeling and empirical analyzing because of the lackage of appropriate analysical tools. Based on analysical framework of the insititutional school and analysical tool of the industry cluster studies, this paper builds the four-factor model and the contingency model of migration decision-making for cluster firms. And the influence which cluater firms’ characters on their relocation patterns selection is also studied in this paper. Furthermore, the paper has expored the relationship between the decision-making, the pattern of migration and the performance for cluster firms. Based on data collected from survey and public databases, there are four main conclusions could be summarized from the empirical analysis of this study.Fistly, the four-factor model which taking into accout the network characteristics of cluster firms is better than the traditional three-factor model in explaining the relocation decision-making of cluster firms. And enterprises features, location features and network features showed a significant impact on migration decision-making. In particular, firms which are in urban centers, young or have an open network in geography are more likely to relocate.Secondly, cluster firms’satisfaction on environment has a regulation on relationship between enterprise features, location features, network features and the migration desition-making. Cluster firms located in urban periphery or rural area and old enough who are not satisfied on environment are more likely to relocate, and cluter firms owned a large local network or an open network in geography who are satisfied on environment are more unlikely to relocate.Thirdly, location features and network features of cluster firms affect the establishment of relocation, enterprise features and network features of cluster firms affect the geographical scale of relocation, and location features and network features of cluster firms affect the area type of relocation. Specifically, firms located in rural area, owned a small local network and far from the network center will have the whole corporate to relocate, firms located in urban periphery and owned a large local network will relocate their headquarter, firms in the network center will relocate other departments, firms own a weak local relationship and small enough will relocate in local, firms who is old enough will relocated within province or out of the province, firms owned a large local network will relocate to urban center, firms located in urban area and owned a small local network will relocate to urban periphery, and firms located in rural area and owned a small local network will relocate to rurual area.Fourthly, the difference in performance of cluster firms is due to the relocation decision-making and the relocation patterns. Cluster firms who relocated have better performance in financial and growth than firms who did not move, the financial performance are distinctive among firms who had different department to relocate, relocated in different geography scale and relocated to different areas, and the growth performance are distincetive among firms who relocated to different areas.Compared to researches which are related to the relocation of cluster firms, this paper innovated in the following aspects:First of all, build the four-factor model and contingency model for relocation decision-making of cluster firms. Although the institutional school of firm migration has been conscious of the importance of relationship and the network between firms, these researches are still analysised from theorical view. Combined with the network analysis, this paper builds a four-factor model and a contingency model which have considered network features for relocation decision-making of cluster firms. Up to a certain extent, this paper has maked up the shortage of institutional school of firm migration in empirical research.Second, distinguish the relocating behavior of cluster firms from the micro level. All of the centrifugal force model, the local locking model and the negative externalities model treated the relocation as an event, and discuss the relocation of cluster firm from meso level. Based on the empirical date, this paper concerned about the relationship between features of cluster firms and their relocating behavior. The empirical analysis identified the behavior charactors for relocation of cluster firms, and promoted thees research to be more comprehensive.Third, receals the relationship between the relocating behavior and the performance for cluster firms. Little has been studied for the performance of relocated firms, and the conclusions of different researches are varying because of samples, performance indicatiors and the respect emphasized are different. The empirical analysis of this paper discussed the difference of financial and growth for cluster firms which have behavioral disparity in relocation. And the conclution showed that migration is effective for cluster firms to achieve growth but is limited in upgrading the viability for cluster firms, and different migration patterns for firms with different features and have different effect on improving the viability of cluster firms. This paper has enriched the research of the performance of relocated firms.It is just a preliminary exploration, and it is far away from a systematic framework and an empirical analysis. The weakness of this paper reflected in there aspects, the selection of variables, the external validity of empirical finding and other factors affected the relocation behavior. Future research can be taken in following aspects. First, explaining the relocation decisions for cluster firms from the geographical embeddedness and organizational embeddedness. Second, track the migration for typical individual cluster firms with case study. Third, investigate the role life cycle stage, business development strategy, migration experience and other factors on the relocation decision-making of the cluster firms. Fourth, take the environmental uncertainty instead of the environmental satisfaction as the contingent factors affecting the migration of clulster firms. Fifth, analysis the effect cluster firms relocation behavior on cluster evolution.更多还原