隨著全球化的趨勢，都市發展型態正面臨前所未有的顯著改變，傳統都市所仰賴的製造業改由服務業所取代。在此趨勢之下，服務業生產力成為都市成長的重要課題之一。在此，更應關注的是何為影響服務業生產力的因素？過去的理論與實證研究認為內部生產要素投入是決定製造業生產力主要因子，例如勞力與資本。但是最近的某些研究結果卻顯示生產要素僅能解釋約55%的生產力變異。在全球化的趨勢下，聚集經濟與知識環境等外部因子的競爭性對於各種產業的影響便越來越顯著。本研究即嘗試探究外部環境因子對於服務業生產力或產值之影響，而主要探究的外部環境因子包括四個面向，分別為交通可及性、都市化經濟、地方化經濟及知識經濟。
在本研究之實證中，是以個別服務業廠商作為基礎的觀察樣本單位，資料來源是五年一度的台灣地區工商及服務業普查，而本研究中所採用的是最新兩年度(民國85年、90年)的資料。對於外部環境因子的效果則是採用計量經濟的生產函數模型來進行統計校估。
本研究之實證結果如下：
一、單是內部生產要素對於生產總值的變異解釋能力已達非常高的程度(約70%至80%)，表示在台灣地區外部環境因子對於服務業生產力或生產總值的解釋能力已沒有多少發揮空間。
二、對於服務業生產總值而言，部分外部環境因子仍具有顯著的效果，在四類外部環境中，都市化經濟具有最顯著的正向影響，而知識經濟則是同樣呈現正向顯著效果，尤其是資訊流通與創新能力。相反的，交通可及性與地方化經濟的效果則是不顯著。
三、對於大規模和小規模服務業廠商而言，外部環境之影響效果是不同的，大規模廠商較重視知識經濟，而小規模廠商則是較注重地方化經濟。
經過本研究後，有以下幾點政策建議提出：
一、對於服務業廠商而言，內部生產要素的勞力投入與外部環境的勞力供給都對生產總值具有顯著的貢獻，表示台灣地區的服務業較傾向勞力密集型。故為了刺激服務業的產出，應注意到勞力的訓練或是教育。
二、由於都市化經濟的效果較地方化經濟更為顯著，且後者甚至呈現負面效果，表示服務業廠商大量聚集所能帶來的外部經濟效果是有限的，故應避免服務業過度集中發展。
三、知識經濟的效果對於台灣地區服務業是確實存在的，因此若要提升服務業的產出，促進外部環境的知識經濟將是有效的手段，而確實作法包括增加教育或是資訊科技的的公共投入、培養高科技勞力、提供可變通的法律以及保障智慧財產權等等。

The growing trend of globalization makes urban form change significantly ever before. Traditional urban dependent industries such as manufacture industries are gradually replaced by service industries. With this tendency, productivity of service industry turns out to be an important issue for urban development. What we are concerned here are the factors, which influence the productivity of service industry. Past theoretical and empirical researches argued internal production factors such as labor and capital are the major factors to decide the productivity of manufacturing industry. But more recently, some reports showed that production factors could only explain about 55% of productivity variance. With the globalization trend, the competitiveness of external factors such as agglomeration and knowledge environments are becoming more and more significant for each type of industries. This study is to explore the effect of external factors on the productivity or the production value of service industry. Four kinds of external factors, which include accessibility, urbanization economy, localization economy and knowledge economy, are investigated in this study.
In this study, individual service firm is taken as the basic unit for research observation. The datum mainly come from “Manufacture and Service Industry Survey” in Taiwan, which is collected for every five years. The datum of last two times of surveys, that are 1996 and 2001, are analyzed in this study. The econometrical production functions are adopted as the method to statistically test the effects of external factors.
The results of empirical study are as follows. Firstly, the internal production factors mostly explained the variance of production value in a very high degree (about 70% to 80%). It means that the external factor has no much space left to explain the productivity or production value of service industry in Taiwan. Secondly, some of the external factors still have significant effect on service production value. Among four categories of external factors, urbanization economy has the most significant and positive effect. The effect of knowledge economy is also positive and significant, especially for the information flow and creativity. On the contrary, the effects of accessibility and localization economy are insignificant. Thirdly, the effects of external factors are different between different sizes of firms. Large firms tend to have higher value from knowledge economy, and small firms are more dependent on localization economy.
There are some policy implications to be brought up in this study. Firstly, both the internal factor of labor force and the external factor of labor supply have the most important contributions on the production value of service industry in Taiwan. It implicitly means that service industry in Taiwan is more like labor intensive. To promote the productivity of service industry, we could emphasize on the labor training or education. Secondly, the effect of urbanization economy is much more significant than that of localization economy, the latter even shows negative effect. It implies that the agglomeration of service firms has little beneficial effect, so we should avoid service industry concentrating too intensively. Thirdly, knowledge economy does exist in Taiwan’s service industry. In order to promote the productivity of service industry in Taiwan, improving the environments of knowledge economy would be one of effective ways. There are various ways to achieve it, such as to increase the public investments on education or information technology, to foster high skill labor, to provide flexible laws, to protect intelligent property right, etc.

(1)李庸三(1973)，“計量經濟方法”，中央研究院經濟研究所
(2)吳榮義、岡田康司(1990)，“日本服務業發展之研究”，台灣經濟研究院
(3)丁力清(1993)，“台灣地區製造業聚集經濟型態之研究”，國立政治大學地政學系，碩士論文
(4)薛立敏(1993)，“生產性服務業與製造業互動關係之研究”，行政院經濟建設委員會經濟研究處編印。
(5)薛立敏、杜英儀、王素彎(1995)，“台灣生產性服務業之發展與展望”，財團法人中華經濟研究所
(6)徐旻穗(1995)，“聚集經濟與都市發展關係之驗證”，國立成功大學都市計劃學系， 碩士論文
(7)邊泰明(1997)，“生產性服務業區位與區域發展之研究”，國科會專題計劃
(8)魏春玉(1999)，“台灣公共投資對個人所得及服務業影響之研究”，國立中興大學都市計畫研究所，碩士論文
(9)林育諄(2001)，“台灣都市生產者服務業之區位決定因素”，國立台北大學都市計畫研究所，碩士論文
(10)江珮玉(2001)，“都市特性與產業生產效率關係之研究”，國立政治大學地政學系，碩士論文
(11)姚希聖(2001)，“地區產業發展差異之生產環境條件的成本效果探討--台灣縣市地區的實證分析”，國立成功大學都市計劃學系，博士論文
(12)周志龍(2002)，“全球化、知識與區域”，詹氏書局
(13)楊政龍、金家禾(2002)，“知識設施對台灣製造業生產力之影響”，都市與計劃，第29卷，第四期，P513-532
(14)鄭金梅(2002)，“服務業接觸與空間聚集關係之研究—以台北市廣告業為例”， 國立台北大學都市計畫研究所，碩士論文

(1)Aaberg, Y.(1973), “Regional Productivity Differences in Swedish Manufacturing”, Regional and Urban Economics, 3(2), P131-156.
(2)Astrakianaki, M.(1995), “Intra-metropolitan Productivity Variations of Selected Manufacturing and Business Service Sectors: What can We Learn from Los Angels?”, Urban Studies, 32, P1081-1096.
(3)Ashton, J. K.(2000), “Total Factor Productivity Growth and Technical Change in The Water and Sewerage Industry”, The Service Industries Journal, London, 20, Issue4, P121-130.
(4)Bailly, A.S., Maillet, D. and Coffey, W.J.(1987) ,“Service Activities and Regional Development: Some European Examples”, Environment and Planning A, 19, P653-668.
(5)Beaverstock, J.V., Smith, A.G. and Taylor, P.J.(1999), “A Roster of World Cities”, Cities, 16, P34-52.
(6)Buursink, J.(1994), “Euroservices and Euroairports: the Position of East European cities as Eurocities. Paper presented to the Cities on the Eve of the 21st Century Conference, Lille.
(7)Carlino, G.A.(1979), “Increasing Returns to Scale in Metropolitan Manufacturing”, Journal of Regional Science, 19(3), P363-372.
(8)Yang, C. H. and Chang, L. L.(2002), “Spatial Linkages Between Manufacturing and Producer Services”, Cities in the Information Age, Proceedings of International Symposium on Urban Planning 2002,Taipei,2002,B3-6-1-B3-6-27.
(9)Yang, C. H.(1983), “Urban Agglomeration Economies in Manufacturing Industries in Taiwan”, Conference on Urban Growth and Economic Development in the Pacific Region, The Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica, 1984/01/09~1984/01/11, P653-724.
(10)Daniels, P.W.(1991), “Services and Metropolitan Development”, New Fetter Lane, London.
(11)Den Hertog, P. and Bilderbeek, R.(1998), “Innovation in and through knowledge intensive business services in the Netherlands”, TNO-report STB/98/03, TNO/STB 1997.
(12)Dicken, P.(1998), “Global Shift: Transforming The World Economy”, London.
(13)Dunham, P.J.(1997), “Reconceptualising Manufacturing-Service Linkage: A Realist”, Environmental and Planning A,29, P349-364.
(14)Feldman, M.P.(2000), “Location and Innovation: the New Economic Geography of Innovation Spillovers and Agglomeration”, The Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography, Oxford, Oxford University Press, P371-394
(15)Feser, E.J.(2002), “Tracing the Source of Local External Economies”, Journal of Urban Studies, 39, P2485-2506.
(16)Graham, S.(1999), “Global Grids of Glass: on Global Cities, Telecommunications and Planetary Urban Networks”, Urban Studies, 36, P929-949.
(17)Henderson, J.V.(1988), “Urban Development”, Oxford University, P32-33.
(18)Illeris, S.(1996), “The Service Economy – A Geographical Approach”, John Wiley: London.
(19)Jacobs, J.(1969), “The Economy of Cities”, New York, Vintage.
(20)Lever, W.F.(2002), “Correlating the Knowledge-base of Cities with Economic Growth”, Journal of Urban Studies, 39, P859-870.
(21)MacPherson, A.D.(1992), “Innovation, External Technical Linkages and Small Firm Commercial Performance: An Emperical Analysis from Western New York”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 4, P165-183.
(22)Marlon, G. B.(1997), “Infrastructure Services and The Productivity of Public Capital: The Case of Streets and Highways”, National Tax Journal, Mar97, 50, Issue1, P39-53.
(23)Marshall, A.(1890), “Principles of Economics: an Introductory Volume”, 8th ed., London: Macmillan.
(24)Nakamura, R.(1985), “Agglomeration Economies in Urban Manufacturing Industries: A case of Japanese Cities”, Journal of Urban Economics, 17, P108-124.
(25)Nemoto, J. and Asai, S.(2002), “Scale economies, technical change and productivity growth in Japanese local telecommunications services”, Japan and the World Economy, 14, P305-320.
(26)Reich, R.(1992), “Work of Nations – Preparing Ourselves for 21st Century Capitalism”, Simon Schuster.
(27)Richard J. B. Jr.(1999), “Knowledge and the Firm”, Managerial Finance, 25, number1, P1-22.
(28)Richard, S. and Christel, A.(2001), “Intrametropolitan Patterns of High-order Business Service Location: A Comparative Study of Seventeen Sectors in Ile-de-France”, Urban Studies, 39, P1143-1163.
(29)Sassen, S.(2001), “Cities in the Global Economy”, Urban Studies, London:Sage Publication, 16.
(30)Strambach, S.(2002), “Germany: Knowledge-intensive Services in a Core Industrial Economy”, in P. Wood(Ed.) Consultancy and Innovation: The Business Services Resolution in Europe, London: Routledge, P124-151.
(31)Shaw, D. V.(2001), “The Post-Industrial City”, in R. Paddison(ed.), Handbook of urban Studies, London: Sage Publications, Chap.18, P284-295.
(32)Sveikauskas, L.(1975),“The Productivity of cities”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 89, P393-413.
(33)Tomlinson, M.(1999), “Information and technology flows from the service sector: A UK-Japan comparison, in Miles, I. and Boden, M.(eds.)”, Services, Innovation and the Knowledge-Based Economy, Cassel.
(34)Wood, P.(2002), “Knowledge-intensive Services and Urban Innovativeness”, Urban Studies, 39, P993-1002.