學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

  • No doi shows Citation Infomation
題名 以整編創新網絡理論探討我國金融監理沙盒對於金融科技創新的影響
Exploring the Effect of Taiwan`s Financial Regulatory Sandbox on the Financial Technology Innovation: A Perspective from the Orchestration of Innovation Network Theory
作者 陳楷文
Chen, Kai-Wen
貢獻者 柯玉佳
KE, YU-JIA
陳楷文
Chen, Kai-Wen
關鍵詞 金融監理主管機關
金融科技創新
金融監理沙盒
整編創新網絡
Financial Supervision Commission
Financial Technology Innovation
Financial Regulatory Sandbox
Orchestrating Innovation Networks
日期 2023
上傳時間 2-Aug-2023 14:12:17 (UTC+8)
摘要 從2015年開始,金融科技創新在全世界各地就開始逐漸盛行並且也衍伸出了金融監理沙盒的制度來發展更多的金融科技的創新,而我國同樣受到了這股數位化Fintech趨勢的影響下也開始發展屬於自己的金融監理沙盒制度,並且是以專法的形式來進行,並且由我國的金融監督管理委員會,簡稱「金管會」來負責執行此政策,希望藉此來提升我國在國際市場的數位競爭力以外,也能夠提供更好更方便的金融服務讓大眾使用,讓大眾的生活可以過得更加舒適。
而我也因為覺得金融監理沙盒這項議題目前在學術界都是偏向國外目前的現況與我國實際情況作對比進行探討,但是鮮少有文獻是透過質化訪談的個案分析來詳細探討我國的金融監理沙盒目前運作情況以及是如何影響創新的發展過程與產出,所以就讓我有了契機開始想要在這方面有更深入的了解。
然後,本研究是套用了Dhanasai & Parkhe(2006)的Orchestrating Innovation Networks,中文為整編創新網絡理論,透過以下的三大特性,包含了知識流動性、創新專有性以及網絡的穩定性,來去證明金融監理沙盒是否為一個創新網絡,並且搭配了王劭敏(2020)運用平台模式引領疊代式政策訂定發展金融監理沙盒制度之框架中的四大面向,分別為市場、政策、行政與法規,來發想訪談大綱的問題,希望能夠去證明以下三個研究問題:(1) 金融監理主管機關扮演樞紐中心是如何主導金融科技的創新、(2) 我國引入金融監理沙盒制度是如何引導整體的創新過程、(3) 在金融監理沙盒制度中所形成的網絡關係對於創新過程有何影響,希望能夠從中確認金融監理沙盒是屬於創新網絡的一種,並且搭配了整編創新網絡理論的五道研究命題來加以驗證是否符合創新網絡的要素,並了解金融監理沙盒是如何影響創新的發展過程以及如何對創新的產出有正面的效果。
本研究為探索性研究,是以深度訪談方法分別訪問了新創A的公司負責人B、金融科技創新園區的專員A以及麻布記帳的副理C,並且將訪談的內容以逐字稿的形式加以整理並進行歸納式的統整,另外也參考了創新中心給予的二手資料,最後收集完全部的研究素材以後開始撰寫整體的個案分析內容。
最後本研究所得到的結論如下:
一、 在金融監理沙盒制度中,需要去達成網絡間的知識流動性、創新專有性以及網絡穩定性的三大特性,才能夠組成一個創新網絡,而金管會就是扮演著整個創新網絡關係的樞紐中心角色,對於創新的過程與產出有正面的影響。
二、 透過金融監理沙盒制度為新創業者帶來的許多優勢,像是能夠不受到法律的規範來發展創新業務以及能更容易獲得資金與資源的支持等等,雖然可能會遇到創新外流的風險又或是沙盒不落地的可能性,但是本研究認為金融監理沙盒制度是利大於弊,再加上它能夠確切展現出三大特性的交互作用,讓創新過程確實有達到加速的效果。
三、 金融監理沙盒制度中的利害關係人包含了創新中心、金融科技創新園區、其他沙盒參與者與受試者等等,而這些利害關係人對於參與沙盒的業者在進行創新發展的過程中提供了很多的優勢,也因為這樣的關係確認金融監理沙盒制度是屬於創新的網絡,能夠協助有更多的創新產出。
本論文最後也提出了對於學術界的貢獻、實務上的建言與後續可努力的方向以及未來研究建議與本研究的可改進的缺點。
Since 2015, Financial Technology innovation has gradually become popular all over the world, and the Financial Regulatory Sandbox has also been extended to develop more Financial Technology innovations. "Taiwan" has also been affected by this digital Fintech trend. Under the influence, Taiwan also began to develop its own Financial Regulatory Sandbox, and it was carried out in the form of special law. Taiwan`s Financial Supervision and Administration Commission was responsible for implementing this policy, hoping to use Financial Regulatory Sandbox to improve Taiwan`s digital competitiveness in the international market, and providing better and more convenient financial services for the public to use, so that the public can live a more comfortable life.
The issue of Financial Regulatory Sandbox is currently discussed in academia by comparing the situation abroad with the actual circumstance in Taiwan, but there are few literatures that discuss in detail through case analysis of qualitative interviews, including the current operation of the Financial Regulatory Sandbox in Taiwan and how it affects the development process and output of innovation. Therefore, this research focus on filling this research gap.
This study applied the Orchestrating Innovation Networks theory of Dhanasai & Parkhe (2006), through the following three characteristics, including Knowledge Mobility, Innovation Appropriability and Network Stability, to prove that the Financial Regulatory Sandbox is an innovation network, and it is equipped with four aspects in the framework of using the platform model to lead iterative policy formulation of the Financial Regulatory Sandbox, namely market, policy, administration and regulations, this study want to use this framework to present the questions of the interview outline, hoping to prove the following three research questions: (1) How does the Financial Supervision Authority play the role of the Hub to lead the innovation of Financial Technology; (2) How does the introduction of the Financial Regulatory Sandbox guide the overall innovation process in Taiwan, (3) What impact does the network relationship formed in the Financial Regulatory Sandbox have on the innovation process. This study wants to confirm that the Financial Regulatory Sandbox is a type of innovation network, and it is combined with the five research propositions of Orchestrating Innovation Networks theory are used to verify whether it meets the elements of the innovation network, and to understand how the Financial Regulatory Sandbox affects the development process of innovation and how it has a positive effect on the output of innovation.
This thesis is exploratory research, using the method of in-depth interviews to interview the person in charge of start-ups A’s company representative B, the commissioner A of the "Fintech Space", and the assistant manager C of "Moneybook", and after sorting out and inductively collating, the content of the interviews is organized into in the form of transcript, this study also refers to the second-hand information provided by the "Innovation Center".
The conclusions of this thesis are as follows:
1. In the Financial Regulatory Sandbox, it is necessary to achieve the three characteristics of Knowledge Mobility, Innovation Appropriability and Network Stability in order to form an innovation network, and the Financial Supervision Commission plays the role of the Hub in entire innovation network. The role of the Hub has a positive impact on the innovation process and output.
2. The Financial Regulatory Sandbox brings many advantages to new entrepreneurs, such as being able to develop innovative businesses without being subject to legal regulations, and being able to obtain financial and resource support more easily, etc. Although there may be risks of innovation outflow or the possibility that the sandbox will not be implemented, this study believes that the Financial Regulatory Sandbox is more beneficial than risky. In addition, it can accurately demonstrate the interaction of the three characteristics, so that the innovation process can indeed be accelerated.
3. Stakeholders in the Financial Regulatory Sandbox include Innovation Center, Fintech Space, other sandbox participants and subjects, etc. These stakeholders provide a lot of advantages to the new entrepreneurs in the process of innovation and development, and it is confirmed that the Financial Regulatory Sandbox belongs to the innovation network and can assist in more innovation output.
At the end of this thesis, it also puts forward the contribution to the academia, practical suggestions and future directions, as well as future research suggestions and limits of this research that can be improved.
參考文獻 第一節 中文文獻(按筆畫順序)
一、書籍
1. 王文宇(2019),金融法,台北:元照出版社,10 版,3月,頁21。
2. 谷湘儀、臧正運(2017),金融科技發展與法律,台北:五南。
3. 谷湘儀、臧正運(2019),變革中的金融科技法制,台北:五南。
4. 谷湘儀、陳國瑞(2017),從「監理沙盒」制度展望我國 FinTech 監理思維,收於:谷湘儀、臧正運編審,金融科技發展與法律,頁 17-35,台北: 五南。
5. 翁禮祺(2020),金融科技基礎與應用,雙葉書廊出版社,初版,2月,頁 12-340。

二、官方文件
1. 金融監督管理委員會(2016),「金融科技發展策略白皮書」,出版日期:2016年5月12日,https://tinyurl.com/y4zk8dnf,擷取日期:2022年6月23日。

三、碩博士論文
1. 黃劭敏(2020),金融科技發展與創新之監理問題與挑戰-以我國監理沙盒發展為中心,國立政治大學法律科際整合研究所未出版碩士論文,頁 6-120。

四、期刊、評論文章
1. 王儷容(2017),金融監理沙盒之美麗與哀愁,經濟前瞻-國際經濟,3月,頁72-73。
2. 李瑞倉(2017),金融科技發展與監理,管理與法遵,第 2 卷,第 1 期,頁 4-10。
3. 張冠群(2017),自金融監理原則與金融消費者保護觀點論金融科技監理沙 盒制度──兼評行政院版「金融科技創新實驗條例草案」,月旦法學雜誌 266 期,7月,頁 5-34。
4. 彭金隆、臧正運(2019),金融科技監理與我國金融監理沙盒制度之檢視,管理評論,10月,第38 卷,第 4 期,頁 15-31。

五、網頁文章
1. 王昫(2017),新加坡金融創新策略 可供借鏡,國家政策研究基金會,出版日期:2017年9月7日,https://www.npf.org.tw/3/17364 ,擷取日期:2022年6月6日。
2. 行政院新聞傳播處(2015),毛揆:打造數位化金融環境 3.0 推動金融創新,出版日期:2015年7月9日,https://tinyurl.com/ybqewpso,擷取日期:2022年6月23日。
3. 行政院新聞傳播處(2018),《金融科技發展與創新實驗條例》—鼓勵創新,提升金融競爭力,出版日期:2018年1月31日,https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/5A8A0CB5B41DA11E/aa4a0c9d-14be-4664-ac59-fc74a056d1fd,擷取日期:2022年7月3日。
4. 黃彥宏(2021),又是中資!易安聯停辦移工小型匯兌成金管會要求退場首例,壹傳媒,出版日期:2023年09月03日,https://yimedia.com.tw/
economic/145786/,擷取日期:2022年8月26日。
5. 睿富者(2017) ,世界經濟論壇-未來的金融服務,STOCKFEEL股感,出版日期:2017年12月15日,https://www.stockfeel.com.tw/2015年世界經濟論壇-未來的金融服務/,擷取日期:2022年9月20日。
6. 魏喬怡、彭禎伶(2023),暌違二年金融監理沙盒終破蛋,工商時報,出版日期:2023年02月10日,https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/
20230210000184-260205?chdtv,擷取日期:2022年4月30日。


第二節 外文文獻(按字母順序,作者相同以年份早優先)
一、書籍
1. Arrow, K. (1974). The limits of organization. New York: Norton.
2. Fahie, J. J. (1899). A History of Wireless Telegraphy, 1838-1899: Including Some Bare-wire Proposals for Subaqueous Telegraphs. Blackwood.
3. Kogut, B. (1988). A study of the life cycle of joint ventures, In F. K. Contractor & P. Lorange (Eds.), Cooperative strategies in international business: 169-186, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
4. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy, New York: Harper.
5. Swanson, D. & Bhadwal, S. (2009), Creating Adaptive Policies: A Guide for Policy-Making in an Uncertain World. Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd.
二、官方文件
1. Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2016). ‘Fintech: ASIC’s Approach and Regulatory Issues’, June, / on May 13, 2022.
2. Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2016), ‘ASIC Releases World-first Licensing Exemption for Fintech Businesses’ (Media release, 16-440MR, December 15 ) / on May 14, 2022.
3. Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2017). REGULATORY GUIDE 257 - Testing fintech products and services without holding an AFS or credit licence, August, pp.16, / on May 16, 2022.
4. Autoriti Monetari Brunei Darussalam(AMBD), ‘Clarification on the Fintech Regulatory Sandbox Guidelines’ (Press Release, 260, 29 March 2017) / on June 12, 2022.
5. Bank for International Settlements (2018), “Sound Practices, Implications of fintech developments for banks and bank Supervisors”, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, available at pp. 39 and the FSB, supra, note 7, pp. 3 / on June 17, 2022.
6. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2018). Sound Practices: Implications of Fintech Developments for Banks and Bank Supervisors, February 19, p.8, [available at https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d431.htm] / on June 14, 2022.
7. European Supervisory Authorities (2019). FinTech: Regulatory Sandboxes and Innovation Hubs, para 28 / on May 26, 2022.
8. Financial Conduct Authority (2014). Project Innovate: Call for input, / on July 4, 2022.
9. Financial Conduct Authority (2014), Project Innovate: Call for input-Feedback Statement, October, pp.33-37, / on June 22, 2022.
10. Financial Conduct Authority (2015). Regulatory sandbox, London, UK, November, pp.9, Retrieved from https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/research/regulatory-sandbox.pdf / on June 13, 2022.
11. Financial Stability Board (2017). Financial Stability Implications from Fintech: Supervisory and Regulatory Issues that Merit Authorities’ Attention, June 27,p.7, https://www.fsb.org/wp- content/uploads/R270617.pdf / on June 18, 2022.
12. Financial Conduct Authority (2018). Hand Book Notice No.56, < https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/handbook/handbook-notice-56.pdf> / on June 25, 2022.
13. International Organization of Securities Commission (IOSCO). IOSCO Research Report on Financial Technologies (FinTech) (Feb 2017), https://tinyurl.com/ycfhw938 / on June 27, 2022.
14. Monetary Authority of Singapore (2015). MAS sets up new FinTech & Innovation Group, MAS Website, July 27, Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y8ox63da / on June 14, 2022.
15. Monetary Authority of Singapore (2020). MAS Website - Organisation Chart, July 1, Retrieved from https://www.mas.gov.sg/who-we-are/Organisation-Structure & Fintech and Innovation Group, MAS Website, https://tinyurl.com/yb7s3xfx / on June 14, 2022.
16. Monetary Authority of Singapore (2016). New FinTech Office: A One-Stop Platform to Promote Singapore as a FinTech Hub, MAS Website, Apr. 01, Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/ydcagk2n / on June 15, 2022.
17. Monetary Authority of Singapore (2016). Consultation Paper on FinTech Regulatory Sandbox Guidelines, MAS Website, June 06, Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y9qvp6vw / on June 15, 2022.
18. Monetary Authority of Singapore (2016). MAS Issues "Regulatory Sandbox" Guidelines for FinTech Experiments, MAS Website, Nov.16, Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/r5yqa7a / on June 15, 2022.
19. Monetary Authority of Singapore (2016). Sandbox, Retrieved from https://www.mas.gov.sg/development/fintech/sandbox / on June 16, 2022.
20. Singapore Economy (2022), Department of Statistics Singapore, Retrieved from https://www.singstat.gov.sg/modules/infographics/economy / on June 6, 2022.
21. World Economic Forum (2018). Agile Governance: Reimagining Policy-making in the Fourth Industrial Revolution’, January, / on June 6, 2022.

三、期刊文章
1. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes and innovation: A longitudinal study, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 425-455.
2. Arner, D. W., Barberis, J., & Buckley, R. P. (2015). The Evolution of Fintech: A New Post-Crisis Paradigm. Georgetown Journal of International Law 47, pp.1271- 1319.
3. Baum, J. A. C, Calabrese, T., & Silverman, B. S. (2000). Don`t go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups` performance in Canadian biotechnology, Strategic Management Journal, 21: 267-294.
4. Beamish, P. W., & Banks, J. C. (1987). Equity joint ventures and the theory of the multinational enterprise, Journal of International Business Studies, 18(2): 1-16.
5. Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior, Academy of Management Journal, 36: 441-470.
6. Bromberg L., Godwin A., and Ramsay I., 2017. Fintech sandboxes: Achieving a balance between regulation and innovation, Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice 28.4: 314-336, 2.
7. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
8. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective, Organization Science, 12: 198-213.
9. Charles Dhanasai and Arvind Parkhe ( 2006 ). Orchestrating Innovation Networks, The Academy of Management Review , Jul., 2006, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Jul., 2006), pp. 659-669.
10. Child, J. (1972). Organization structure, environment, and performance: The role of strategic choice, Sociology, 6: 1-22.
11. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D, Economic Journal, 99:569-596.
12. Cumming, D.J., Schwienbacher (2018). A. Fintech venture capital. Corp. Gov. Int. Rev., 26, 374–389 [CrossRef].
13. Deirdre Ahern (2020). Regulators Nurturing FinTech Innovation: Global Evolution of the Regulatory Sandbox as Opportunity Based Regulation, EBI Working Paper Series, no. 60, pp.4.
14. Dhanaraj, C, Lyles, M., Steensma, H. K., & Tihanyi, L. (2004). Managing tacit and explicit knowledge transfer in IJVs: The role of relational embeddedness and the impact on performance, Journal of International Business Studies.35: 428-443.
15. Dollinger, M. J., Golden, P. A., & Saxton, T. (1997). The effect of reputation on the decision to joint venture. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 127-140.
16. Doz, Y. L. (1996). The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial conditions or learning process? Strategic Management Journal, 17: 55-83.
17. Doz, Y. L., Oik, P. M., & Ring, P. S. (2000). Formation processes of R&D consortia: Which path to take? Where does it lead? Strategic Management Journal, 21: 239-266.
18. Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 345-368.
19. Ebers, M., & Grandori, A. (1999). The forms, costs, and development dynamics of inter-organizational networking, In M. Ebers (Ed.), The formation of inter-organizational networks: 265-286, London: Oxford University Press.
20. Eisenhardt, K. M., (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
21. Eisenhardt, K. M., Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32.
22. Freeman, C. (1991). Networks of innovators: A synthesis of research issues, Research Policy, 20: 499-514.
23. Gomes-Casseres, B. (1994). Group versus group: How alliance networks compete, Harvard Business Review, 72(4): 62-74.
24. Grandori, A., & Kogut, B. (2002). Dialogue on organization and knowledge. Organization Science, 13: 224-231.
25. Gulati, R., & Singh, H. (1998). The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination uncertainty and interdependence in strategic alliances. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 781-814.
26. Gulati, R. (1999). Network location and learning: The influences of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation, Strategic Management Journal, 20: 397-420.
27. Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104: 1439-1493.
28. Hacki, R., & Lighton, J. (2001). The future of the networked company, McKinsey Quarterly, 3: 26-39.
29. Hagedoorn, J. (1995). A note on international market leaders and networks of strategic technology partnering, Strategic Management Journal, 16: 241-250.
30. Hansen, M. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 82-111.
31. Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 716-749.
32. Inkpen, A. C, & Dinur, A. (1998). Knowledge management processes and international joint ventures. Organization Science, 7: 211-220.
33. Jarillo, C. (1988). On strategic networks, Strategic Management Journal, 9: 31-41.
34. Jayoung James Goo & and Joo-Yeun Heo (2020). The Impact of the Regulatory Sandbox on the Fintech Industry with a Discussion on the Relation between Regulatory Sandboxes and Open Innovation, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, Published: 18 June 2020, pp.2-16.
35. JinHyo, J.Y.; Won, D.; Park, K. (2018). Entrepreneurial cyclical dynamics of open innovation. J. Evol. Econ. Heidelb., 28, 1151–1174. [CrossRef]
36. Kale, P., Singh, H., & Perlmutter, H. (2000). Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital, Strategic Management Journal, 21: 217-237.
37. Kenis, P., & Knoke, D. (2002). How organizational field networks shape interorganizational tie-formation rates, Academy of Management Review, 27: 275-293.
38. Khanna, T., Gulati R., & Nohria, N. (1998). The dynamics of learning alliances: Competition, cooperation, and relative scope, Strategic Management Journal, 19: 193-210.
39. Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1998). Procedural justice, strategic decision making, and the knowledge economy, Strategic Management Journal, 19: 324-338.
40. Knoke, D. (1994). Networks of elite structure and decision making, In S. Wasserman & J. Galaskiewicz (Eds.), Advances in social network analysis: 274-294. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
41. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1996). What do firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning, Organization Science, 7: 502-518.
42. Kogut, B. (2000). The network as knowledge: Generative rules and the emergence of structure, Strategic Management Journal, 21: 405-425.
43. L. Bromberg, A. Godwin & I. Ramsay (2017). Fintech sandboxes: Achieving a balance between regulation and innovation, Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice, 28(4), pp.314-336.
44. Lev Bromberg, Andrew Godwin and Ian Ramsay (2017). Fintech sandboxes: Achieving a balance between regulation and innovation, the Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice, Vol.28, No. 4, pp. 314‐336.
45. Lorenzoni, G., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1995). Creating a strategic center to manage a web of partners, California Management Review, 37(3): 146-163.
46. Lorenzoni, G., & Lipparini, A. (1999). The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 317-338.
47. Lyles, M. A., & Salk, J. E. (1996). Knowledge acquisition from foreign parents in international joint ventures: An empirical examination in the Hungarian context, Journal of International Business Studies, 29(2): 154-174.
48. Macaulay, S. (1963). Non-contractual relations in business: A preliminary study, American Sociological Review, 28: 55-69.
49. Madhavan, R., Koka, B. R., & Prescott, J. E. (1998). Networks in transition: How industry events (re)shape interfirm rivalry, Strategic Management Journal, 19: 439-460.
50. Magnuson, W. (2018). Regulating Fintech. Vanderbilt Law Rev., 71, pp.1167–1226.
51. Makhija, M. V., & Ganesh, U. (1997). The relationship between control and partner learning in learning-related joint ventures, Organization Science, 8: 508-527.
52. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340-363.
53. Michelet, R. (1992). Forming successful strategic marketing alliances in Europe. Journal of European Business, 4(1): 11-15.
54. Mowery, D. C, Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer, Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue): 77-91.
55. Muller, Simone (2010). The Transatlantic Telegraphs and the `Class of 1866` - the Formative Years of Transnational Networks in Telegraphic Space, 1858- 1884/89, Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, vol. 35, no. 1 (131), pp. 237-259.
56. Nonaka, L, & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
57. Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization, Academy of Management Review, 15: 203-223.
58. P. SIRONI (2016). FITECH INNOVATION:FROM ROBO - ADVISORS TO GOAL BASED INVESTING AND GAMIFICATION.
59. Park, S. H., & Russo, M. V. (1996). When competition eclipses cooperation: An event history analysis of joint venture failure, Management Science, 42: 875-890.
60. Péter Fáykiss, Dániel Papp, Péter Sajtos, and Ágnes Tőrös (2018). Regulatory Tools to Encourage FinTech Innovations: The Innovation Hub and Regulatory Sandbox in International Practice. Financial and Economic Review, Vol. 17 Issue 2, June, pp. 43–67.
61. Pisano, G. P. (1990). The R&D boundaries of the firm: An empirical analysis, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 153-176.
62. Podolny, J. M., & Stuart, T. E. (1995). A role-based ecology of technological change. American Journal of Sociology, 100: 1224-1260.
63. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 116-145.
64. Provan, K. G. (1983). The federation as an interorganizational linkage network, Academy of Management Review, 8: 79-89.
65. R. Jesse McWaters (2015). The Future of Financial Services - How disruptive innovations are reshaping the way financial services are structured, provisioned and consumed, World Economic Forum report, < https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_future__of_financial_services.pdf>.
66. R Romano (2014). “Regulating in the Dark and a Postscript Assessment of the Iron Law of Financial Regulation”, 43 Hofstra Law Review 28.
67. Rafael La Porta, FlorencioLopez-de-Silanes, and Andrei Shleifer (2008). The Economic Consequences of Legal Origins, Journal of economic literature 46.2, pp.285-332.
68. Ross P. Buckley, Douglas W. Arner, Robin Veidt & Dirk A. Zetzsche (2019). ‘Building FinTech Ecosystems: Regulatory Sandboxes, Innovation Hubs and Beyond’, European Banking Institute Working Paper No. 53.
69. Sakakibara, M. (2002). Formation of R&D consortia: Industry and company effects, Strategic Management Journal, 23: 1033-1050.
70. Schumpeter, J. A. (1961). The theory of economic development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
71. Shan, W., Walker, G., & Kogut, B. (1994). Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry, Strategic Management Journal, 15: 387-394.
72. Simonin, B. L. (1999). Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances, Strategic Management Journal, 20: 595-623.
73. Stuart, T. E. (2000). Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry, Strategic Management Journal, 21: 791-811.
74. Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy, Research Policy, 15: 285-305.
75. Teece, D. J. (2000). Managing intellectual capital: Organizational, strategic, and policy dimensions, London: Oxford University Press.
76. Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 35-67.
77. Vives, X. (2017). The Impact of Fintech on Banking. Eur. Econ., 2, pp.97–105.
78. W. Magnuson(2018). Regulating fintech. Vanderbilt Law Review, 71(4), pp.1167-1226.
79. W. E. Walker, S. A. Rahman & J. Cave, Adaptive policies (2001). policy analysis, and policy-making, European journal of operational Research, 128(2), pp.282-289.
80. W.G. Ringe and C. Ruof (2018). ‘A Regulatory Sandbox for Robo Advice’ European Banking Institute Working Paper No.26, pp.52.
81. W.G. Ringe and C. Ruof (2018). ‘A Regulatory Sandbox for Robo Advice’ European Banking Institute Working Paper No.39, pp.7.
82. Wasserman, S., & Galaskiewicz, J. (Eds.). (1994). Advances in social network analysis, London: Sage.
83. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 1-19.
84. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism, New York: Free Press.
85. Wolf-Georg RINGE and Christopher RUOF (2020). Regulating Fintech in the EU: the Case for a Guided Sandbox, European Journal of Risk Regulation, November, pp. 604–629.
86. Yin, R. K. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage.
四、網頁資料
1. Aileen Lee (2013). Welcome To The Unicorn Club: Learning From Billion-Dollar Startups, TechCrunch, Nov. 3, Retrieved from https://ecorner.stanford.edu/videos/unicorn-lessons / on June 26, 2022.
2. Andy C. M. Chen (2019). Regulatory Sandbox and Competition of Financial Technologies in Taiwan, Jan 31, Retrieved from https://dev.competitionpolicyinternational.com/regulatory-sandbox-and-competition-of-financial-technologies-in-taiwan / on 5 July 2022.
3. Diemers, D., Lamaa, A., Salamat, J., Steffens, T., (2015). Developing a FinTech ecosystem in the GCC; PWC: Abu Dhabi, UAE. Retrieved from https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/m1/en/reports/developing-a-fintech-ecosystem-in-the-gcc.pdf / on 5 July 2022.
4. Greg Medcraft - ASIC Chairman (2016). ‘Fintech: Opportunities, Risks and Challenges’ - speech delivered to the Group of 100, National Executive Dinner, Sydney, Australia, December 14, .
5. Lee Hsien Loong (2016). "PM Lee Hsien Loong at launch of Smart Nation, 24 November", Prime Minister’s Office, Singapore, Mar.18, Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/ya2ssjre / on June 6, 2022.
6. Mark D. Fenwick, Wulf A. Kaal Ph.D. & Erik P.M. Vermeulen (2017). “Regulation Tomorrow What Happens When Technology is Faster than the Law”, No.6, American University Business Law Review, pp.561, < https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=aublr >.
7. Martin Wheatley (2014). Innovation: The regulatory opportunity, FCA Speeches Oct. 28, Retrieved from https://www.fca.org.uk/news/speeches/innovation-regulatory-opportunity / on July 20, 2022.
8. Ravi Menon - Managing Director (2015). "A Smart Financial Centre", Monetary Authority of Singapore, Global Technology Law Conference 2015, June 29, Retrieved from https://www.mas.gov.sg/news/speeches/2015/a-smart-financial-centre / on June 6, 2022.
9. Ravi Menon - Managing Director (2018), Remarks at the MAS Annual Report 2017/18 Media Conference, July 04, Retrieved from https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/20180704006/Remarks%20by%20MD%20at%20MAS%20Annual%20Report%20201718%20Media%20Conference%204%20July%202018.pdf / on June 16, 2022
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
109364128
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109364128
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 柯玉佳zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor KE, YU-JIAen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 陳楷文zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chen, Kai-Wenen_US
dc.creator (作者) 陳楷文zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Chen, Kai-Wenen_US
dc.date (日期) 2023en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2-Aug-2023 14:12:17 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 2-Aug-2023 14:12:17 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Aug-2023 14:12:17 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0109364128en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/146605-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 科技管理與智慧財產研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 109364128zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 從2015年開始,金融科技創新在全世界各地就開始逐漸盛行並且也衍伸出了金融監理沙盒的制度來發展更多的金融科技的創新,而我國同樣受到了這股數位化Fintech趨勢的影響下也開始發展屬於自己的金融監理沙盒制度,並且是以專法的形式來進行,並且由我國的金融監督管理委員會,簡稱「金管會」來負責執行此政策,希望藉此來提升我國在國際市場的數位競爭力以外,也能夠提供更好更方便的金融服務讓大眾使用,讓大眾的生活可以過得更加舒適。
而我也因為覺得金融監理沙盒這項議題目前在學術界都是偏向國外目前的現況與我國實際情況作對比進行探討,但是鮮少有文獻是透過質化訪談的個案分析來詳細探討我國的金融監理沙盒目前運作情況以及是如何影響創新的發展過程與產出,所以就讓我有了契機開始想要在這方面有更深入的了解。
然後,本研究是套用了Dhanasai & Parkhe(2006)的Orchestrating Innovation Networks,中文為整編創新網絡理論,透過以下的三大特性,包含了知識流動性、創新專有性以及網絡的穩定性,來去證明金融監理沙盒是否為一個創新網絡,並且搭配了王劭敏(2020)運用平台模式引領疊代式政策訂定發展金融監理沙盒制度之框架中的四大面向,分別為市場、政策、行政與法規,來發想訪談大綱的問題,希望能夠去證明以下三個研究問題:(1) 金融監理主管機關扮演樞紐中心是如何主導金融科技的創新、(2) 我國引入金融監理沙盒制度是如何引導整體的創新過程、(3) 在金融監理沙盒制度中所形成的網絡關係對於創新過程有何影響,希望能夠從中確認金融監理沙盒是屬於創新網絡的一種,並且搭配了整編創新網絡理論的五道研究命題來加以驗證是否符合創新網絡的要素,並了解金融監理沙盒是如何影響創新的發展過程以及如何對創新的產出有正面的效果。
本研究為探索性研究,是以深度訪談方法分別訪問了新創A的公司負責人B、金融科技創新園區的專員A以及麻布記帳的副理C,並且將訪談的內容以逐字稿的形式加以整理並進行歸納式的統整,另外也參考了創新中心給予的二手資料,最後收集完全部的研究素材以後開始撰寫整體的個案分析內容。
最後本研究所得到的結論如下:
一、 在金融監理沙盒制度中,需要去達成網絡間的知識流動性、創新專有性以及網絡穩定性的三大特性,才能夠組成一個創新網絡,而金管會就是扮演著整個創新網絡關係的樞紐中心角色,對於創新的過程與產出有正面的影響。
二、 透過金融監理沙盒制度為新創業者帶來的許多優勢,像是能夠不受到法律的規範來發展創新業務以及能更容易獲得資金與資源的支持等等,雖然可能會遇到創新外流的風險又或是沙盒不落地的可能性,但是本研究認為金融監理沙盒制度是利大於弊,再加上它能夠確切展現出三大特性的交互作用,讓創新過程確實有達到加速的效果。
三、 金融監理沙盒制度中的利害關係人包含了創新中心、金融科技創新園區、其他沙盒參與者與受試者等等,而這些利害關係人對於參與沙盒的業者在進行創新發展的過程中提供了很多的優勢,也因為這樣的關係確認金融監理沙盒制度是屬於創新的網絡,能夠協助有更多的創新產出。
本論文最後也提出了對於學術界的貢獻、實務上的建言與後續可努力的方向以及未來研究建議與本研究的可改進的缺點。
zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Since 2015, Financial Technology innovation has gradually become popular all over the world, and the Financial Regulatory Sandbox has also been extended to develop more Financial Technology innovations. "Taiwan" has also been affected by this digital Fintech trend. Under the influence, Taiwan also began to develop its own Financial Regulatory Sandbox, and it was carried out in the form of special law. Taiwan`s Financial Supervision and Administration Commission was responsible for implementing this policy, hoping to use Financial Regulatory Sandbox to improve Taiwan`s digital competitiveness in the international market, and providing better and more convenient financial services for the public to use, so that the public can live a more comfortable life.
The issue of Financial Regulatory Sandbox is currently discussed in academia by comparing the situation abroad with the actual circumstance in Taiwan, but there are few literatures that discuss in detail through case analysis of qualitative interviews, including the current operation of the Financial Regulatory Sandbox in Taiwan and how it affects the development process and output of innovation. Therefore, this research focus on filling this research gap.
This study applied the Orchestrating Innovation Networks theory of Dhanasai & Parkhe (2006), through the following three characteristics, including Knowledge Mobility, Innovation Appropriability and Network Stability, to prove that the Financial Regulatory Sandbox is an innovation network, and it is equipped with four aspects in the framework of using the platform model to lead iterative policy formulation of the Financial Regulatory Sandbox, namely market, policy, administration and regulations, this study want to use this framework to present the questions of the interview outline, hoping to prove the following three research questions: (1) How does the Financial Supervision Authority play the role of the Hub to lead the innovation of Financial Technology; (2) How does the introduction of the Financial Regulatory Sandbox guide the overall innovation process in Taiwan, (3) What impact does the network relationship formed in the Financial Regulatory Sandbox have on the innovation process. This study wants to confirm that the Financial Regulatory Sandbox is a type of innovation network, and it is combined with the five research propositions of Orchestrating Innovation Networks theory are used to verify whether it meets the elements of the innovation network, and to understand how the Financial Regulatory Sandbox affects the development process of innovation and how it has a positive effect on the output of innovation.
This thesis is exploratory research, using the method of in-depth interviews to interview the person in charge of start-ups A’s company representative B, the commissioner A of the "Fintech Space", and the assistant manager C of "Moneybook", and after sorting out and inductively collating, the content of the interviews is organized into in the form of transcript, this study also refers to the second-hand information provided by the "Innovation Center".
The conclusions of this thesis are as follows:
1. In the Financial Regulatory Sandbox, it is necessary to achieve the three characteristics of Knowledge Mobility, Innovation Appropriability and Network Stability in order to form an innovation network, and the Financial Supervision Commission plays the role of the Hub in entire innovation network. The role of the Hub has a positive impact on the innovation process and output.
2. The Financial Regulatory Sandbox brings many advantages to new entrepreneurs, such as being able to develop innovative businesses without being subject to legal regulations, and being able to obtain financial and resource support more easily, etc. Although there may be risks of innovation outflow or the possibility that the sandbox will not be implemented, this study believes that the Financial Regulatory Sandbox is more beneficial than risky. In addition, it can accurately demonstrate the interaction of the three characteristics, so that the innovation process can indeed be accelerated.
3. Stakeholders in the Financial Regulatory Sandbox include Innovation Center, Fintech Space, other sandbox participants and subjects, etc. These stakeholders provide a lot of advantages to the new entrepreneurs in the process of innovation and development, and it is confirmed that the Financial Regulatory Sandbox belongs to the innovation network and can assist in more innovation output.
At the end of this thesis, it also puts forward the contribution to the academia, practical suggestions and future directions, as well as future research suggestions and limits of this research that can be improved.
en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 12
第一節 研究背景與動機 12
第二節 研究目的與問題 14
第三節 論文整體架構 16
第二章 文獻回顧 18
第一節 金融科技產業之發展 18
一、金融科技名詞之定義 18
二、金融科技的歷史發展脈絡 19
三、目前金融科技的監理方式與相關法規 22
第二節 金融監理沙盒之介紹 23
一、金融監理沙盒名詞之定義 23
二、金融監理沙盒之發展歷程 24
三、金融監理沙盒制度的兩大特徵 25
四、金融監理沙盒之利害關係人 26
第三節 外國金融監理沙盒之制定背景與特色及成果 29
一、 金融監理沙盒制度:英國 29
二、金融監理沙盒制度:澳洲 31
三、金融監理沙盒制度:新加坡 33
第四節 我國金融監理沙盒之發展 35
一、發展背景 35
二、法規架構 38
三、制度內容 39
四、我國目前金融監理沙盒發展情況 44
第五節 「整編創新網絡理論」探討金融監理沙盒制度 45
一、整編創新網絡介紹 45
二、整編創新網絡之分析命題 51
三、整編創新網絡理論的近期研究發展 57
四、以整編創新網絡理論探討金融監理沙盒制度 58
第六節 探討我國金融監理沙盒發展在各層面的問題 59
一、市場面 61
二、政策面 66
三、行政面 67
四、法制面 69
五、小結 72
第三章 研究方法與設計 75
第一節 研究方法 75
第二節 研究個案 76
第三節 研究設計 77
一、半結構式訪談法 77
二、深度訪談設計 78
三、訪談進行方式 79
四、研究架構 79
五、訪談對象列表 79
六、訪談大綱 80
第四章 個案分析 83
第一節 個案簡介與分析概要 83
一、金融科技創新園區 Fintech Space 83
二、新創A 84
三、麻布記帳 84
四、個案分析概要 85
第二節 監理主管機關扮演樞紐中心如何主導金融科技創新 86
一、對於金融科技的發展背景與相關資源 86
二、金管會對於新創業者所扮演的角色 89
三、金管會提供給新創業者的特有權利 94
四、金管會對於新創業者能改善的部分 95
第三節 金融監理沙盒制度是如何引導整體的創新過程 98
一、 金融監理沙盒制度對於新創業者的優勢 99
二、金融監理沙盒制度對於新創業者的風險 102
三、國外金融監理沙盒制度對於我國的借鏡 105
四、金融監理沙盒與數位沙盒的不同之處 108
第四節 金融監理沙盒形成的網絡關係對於創新過程的影響 110
一、創新中心、園區、其他參與者與受試者在網絡中的定位 111
二、新創業者與監理主管機關在網絡中的互信機制 119
三、新創業者如何透過網絡關係來建立自身優勢與競爭力 123
四、受試者在網絡關係中遇到的問題及提供哪些幫助 127
五、在金融監理沙盒制度中會影響網絡關係的負面因素 131
第五節 個案分析小結 137
一、金融監理主管機關扮演樞紐中心是如何主導金融科技的創新 137
二、我國引入金融監理沙盒制度是如何引導整體的創新過程 138
三、金融監理沙盒制度所形成的網絡關係對於創新過程有何影響 139
四、個案分析綜合評論 142
第五章 研究命題與後續問題探討 143
第一節 研究命題與個案驗證及說明討論 143
第二節 創新網絡的金融監理沙盒其背後的困境與挫折 155
第三節 創新網絡的金融監理沙盒其困境與挫折之解決方法 157
第六章 結論與建議 161
第一節 研究結論 161
第二節 理論貢獻 165
一、樞紐中心未必只能是大企業,也可以是由政府機關來主導 165
二、整編創新網絡不限專門發展創新的企業,也可應用其他領域 166
第三節 實務意涵與後續發展 167
ㄧ、實務意涵 167
二、後續發展 169
第四節 研究限制與未來研究建議 172
一、研究限制 173
二、未來研究建議 174
參考文獻 176
第一節 中文文獻 176
第二節 外文文獻 178
附錄 188
附錄一:我國金融監理沙盒九項申請案件 188
zh_TW
dc.format.extent 2956200 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109364128en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 金融監理主管機關zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 金融科技創新zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 金融監理沙盒zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 整編創新網絡zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Financial Supervision Commissionen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Financial Technology Innovationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Financial Regulatory Sandboxen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Orchestrating Innovation Networksen_US
dc.title (題名) 以整編創新網絡理論探討我國金融監理沙盒對於金融科技創新的影響zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Exploring the Effect of Taiwan`s Financial Regulatory Sandbox on the Financial Technology Innovation: A Perspective from the Orchestration of Innovation Network Theoryen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 第一節 中文文獻(按筆畫順序)
一、書籍
1. 王文宇(2019),金融法,台北:元照出版社,10 版,3月,頁21。
2. 谷湘儀、臧正運(2017),金融科技發展與法律,台北:五南。
3. 谷湘儀、臧正運(2019),變革中的金融科技法制,台北:五南。
4. 谷湘儀、陳國瑞(2017),從「監理沙盒」制度展望我國 FinTech 監理思維,收於:谷湘儀、臧正運編審,金融科技發展與法律,頁 17-35,台北: 五南。
5. 翁禮祺(2020),金融科技基礎與應用,雙葉書廊出版社,初版,2月,頁 12-340。

二、官方文件
1. 金融監督管理委員會(2016),「金融科技發展策略白皮書」,出版日期:2016年5月12日,https://tinyurl.com/y4zk8dnf,擷取日期:2022年6月23日。

三、碩博士論文
1. 黃劭敏(2020),金融科技發展與創新之監理問題與挑戰-以我國監理沙盒發展為中心,國立政治大學法律科際整合研究所未出版碩士論文,頁 6-120。

四、期刊、評論文章
1. 王儷容(2017),金融監理沙盒之美麗與哀愁,經濟前瞻-國際經濟,3月,頁72-73。
2. 李瑞倉(2017),金融科技發展與監理,管理與法遵,第 2 卷,第 1 期,頁 4-10。
3. 張冠群(2017),自金融監理原則與金融消費者保護觀點論金融科技監理沙 盒制度──兼評行政院版「金融科技創新實驗條例草案」,月旦法學雜誌 266 期,7月,頁 5-34。
4. 彭金隆、臧正運(2019),金融科技監理與我國金融監理沙盒制度之檢視,管理評論,10月,第38 卷,第 4 期,頁 15-31。

五、網頁文章
1. 王昫(2017),新加坡金融創新策略 可供借鏡,國家政策研究基金會,出版日期:2017年9月7日,https://www.npf.org.tw/3/17364 ,擷取日期:2022年6月6日。
2. 行政院新聞傳播處(2015),毛揆:打造數位化金融環境 3.0 推動金融創新,出版日期:2015年7月9日,https://tinyurl.com/ybqewpso,擷取日期:2022年6月23日。
3. 行政院新聞傳播處(2018),《金融科技發展與創新實驗條例》—鼓勵創新,提升金融競爭力,出版日期:2018年1月31日,https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/5A8A0CB5B41DA11E/aa4a0c9d-14be-4664-ac59-fc74a056d1fd,擷取日期:2022年7月3日。
4. 黃彥宏(2021),又是中資!易安聯停辦移工小型匯兌成金管會要求退場首例,壹傳媒,出版日期:2023年09月03日,https://yimedia.com.tw/
economic/145786/,擷取日期:2022年8月26日。
5. 睿富者(2017) ,世界經濟論壇-未來的金融服務,STOCKFEEL股感,出版日期:2017年12月15日,https://www.stockfeel.com.tw/2015年世界經濟論壇-未來的金融服務/,擷取日期:2022年9月20日。
6. 魏喬怡、彭禎伶(2023),暌違二年金融監理沙盒終破蛋,工商時報,出版日期:2023年02月10日,https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/
20230210000184-260205?chdtv,擷取日期:2022年4月30日。


第二節 外文文獻(按字母順序,作者相同以年份早優先)
一、書籍
1. Arrow, K. (1974). The limits of organization. New York: Norton.
2. Fahie, J. J. (1899). A History of Wireless Telegraphy, 1838-1899: Including Some Bare-wire Proposals for Subaqueous Telegraphs. Blackwood.
3. Kogut, B. (1988). A study of the life cycle of joint ventures, In F. K. Contractor & P. Lorange (Eds.), Cooperative strategies in international business: 169-186, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
4. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy, New York: Harper.
5. Swanson, D. & Bhadwal, S. (2009), Creating Adaptive Policies: A Guide for Policy-Making in an Uncertain World. Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd.
二、官方文件
1. Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2016). ‘Fintech: ASIC’s Approach and Regulatory Issues’, June, / on May 13, 2022.
2. Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2016), ‘ASIC Releases World-first Licensing Exemption for Fintech Businesses’ (Media release, 16-440MR, December 15 ) / on May 14, 2022.
3. Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2017). REGULATORY GUIDE 257 - Testing fintech products and services without holding an AFS or credit licence, August, pp.16, / on May 16, 2022.
4. Autoriti Monetari Brunei Darussalam(AMBD), ‘Clarification on the Fintech Regulatory Sandbox Guidelines’ (Press Release, 260, 29 March 2017) / on June 12, 2022.
5. Bank for International Settlements (2018), “Sound Practices, Implications of fintech developments for banks and bank Supervisors”, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, available at pp. 39 and the FSB, supra, note 7, pp. 3 / on June 17, 2022.
6. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2018). Sound Practices: Implications of Fintech Developments for Banks and Bank Supervisors, February 19, p.8, [available at https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d431.htm] / on June 14, 2022.
7. European Supervisory Authorities (2019). FinTech: Regulatory Sandboxes and Innovation Hubs, para 28 / on May 26, 2022.
8. Financial Conduct Authority (2014). Project Innovate: Call for input, / on July 4, 2022.
9. Financial Conduct Authority (2014), Project Innovate: Call for input-Feedback Statement, October, pp.33-37, / on June 22, 2022.
10. Financial Conduct Authority (2015). Regulatory sandbox, London, UK, November, pp.9, Retrieved from https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/research/regulatory-sandbox.pdf / on June 13, 2022.
11. Financial Stability Board (2017). Financial Stability Implications from Fintech: Supervisory and Regulatory Issues that Merit Authorities’ Attention, June 27,p.7, https://www.fsb.org/wp- content/uploads/R270617.pdf / on June 18, 2022.
12. Financial Conduct Authority (2018). Hand Book Notice No.56, < https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/handbook/handbook-notice-56.pdf> / on June 25, 2022.
13. International Organization of Securities Commission (IOSCO). IOSCO Research Report on Financial Technologies (FinTech) (Feb 2017), https://tinyurl.com/ycfhw938 / on June 27, 2022.
14. Monetary Authority of Singapore (2015). MAS sets up new FinTech & Innovation Group, MAS Website, July 27, Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y8ox63da / on June 14, 2022.
15. Monetary Authority of Singapore (2020). MAS Website - Organisation Chart, July 1, Retrieved from https://www.mas.gov.sg/who-we-are/Organisation-Structure & Fintech and Innovation Group, MAS Website, https://tinyurl.com/yb7s3xfx / on June 14, 2022.
16. Monetary Authority of Singapore (2016). New FinTech Office: A One-Stop Platform to Promote Singapore as a FinTech Hub, MAS Website, Apr. 01, Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/ydcagk2n / on June 15, 2022.
17. Monetary Authority of Singapore (2016). Consultation Paper on FinTech Regulatory Sandbox Guidelines, MAS Website, June 06, Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y9qvp6vw / on June 15, 2022.
18. Monetary Authority of Singapore (2016). MAS Issues "Regulatory Sandbox" Guidelines for FinTech Experiments, MAS Website, Nov.16, Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/r5yqa7a / on June 15, 2022.
19. Monetary Authority of Singapore (2016). Sandbox, Retrieved from https://www.mas.gov.sg/development/fintech/sandbox / on June 16, 2022.
20. Singapore Economy (2022), Department of Statistics Singapore, Retrieved from https://www.singstat.gov.sg/modules/infographics/economy / on June 6, 2022.
21. World Economic Forum (2018). Agile Governance: Reimagining Policy-making in the Fourth Industrial Revolution’, January, / on June 6, 2022.

三、期刊文章
1. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes and innovation: A longitudinal study, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 425-455.
2. Arner, D. W., Barberis, J., & Buckley, R. P. (2015). The Evolution of Fintech: A New Post-Crisis Paradigm. Georgetown Journal of International Law 47, pp.1271- 1319.
3. Baum, J. A. C, Calabrese, T., & Silverman, B. S. (2000). Don`t go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups` performance in Canadian biotechnology, Strategic Management Journal, 21: 267-294.
4. Beamish, P. W., & Banks, J. C. (1987). Equity joint ventures and the theory of the multinational enterprise, Journal of International Business Studies, 18(2): 1-16.
5. Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior, Academy of Management Journal, 36: 441-470.
6. Bromberg L., Godwin A., and Ramsay I., 2017. Fintech sandboxes: Achieving a balance between regulation and innovation, Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice 28.4: 314-336, 2.
7. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
8. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective, Organization Science, 12: 198-213.
9. Charles Dhanasai and Arvind Parkhe ( 2006 ). Orchestrating Innovation Networks, The Academy of Management Review , Jul., 2006, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Jul., 2006), pp. 659-669.
10. Child, J. (1972). Organization structure, environment, and performance: The role of strategic choice, Sociology, 6: 1-22.
11. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D, Economic Journal, 99:569-596.
12. Cumming, D.J., Schwienbacher (2018). A. Fintech venture capital. Corp. Gov. Int. Rev., 26, 374–389 [CrossRef].
13. Deirdre Ahern (2020). Regulators Nurturing FinTech Innovation: Global Evolution of the Regulatory Sandbox as Opportunity Based Regulation, EBI Working Paper Series, no. 60, pp.4.
14. Dhanaraj, C, Lyles, M., Steensma, H. K., & Tihanyi, L. (2004). Managing tacit and explicit knowledge transfer in IJVs: The role of relational embeddedness and the impact on performance, Journal of International Business Studies.35: 428-443.
15. Dollinger, M. J., Golden, P. A., & Saxton, T. (1997). The effect of reputation on the decision to joint venture. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 127-140.
16. Doz, Y. L. (1996). The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial conditions or learning process? Strategic Management Journal, 17: 55-83.
17. Doz, Y. L., Oik, P. M., & Ring, P. S. (2000). Formation processes of R&D consortia: Which path to take? Where does it lead? Strategic Management Journal, 21: 239-266.
18. Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 345-368.
19. Ebers, M., & Grandori, A. (1999). The forms, costs, and development dynamics of inter-organizational networking, In M. Ebers (Ed.), The formation of inter-organizational networks: 265-286, London: Oxford University Press.
20. Eisenhardt, K. M., (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
21. Eisenhardt, K. M., Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32.
22. Freeman, C. (1991). Networks of innovators: A synthesis of research issues, Research Policy, 20: 499-514.
23. Gomes-Casseres, B. (1994). Group versus group: How alliance networks compete, Harvard Business Review, 72(4): 62-74.
24. Grandori, A., & Kogut, B. (2002). Dialogue on organization and knowledge. Organization Science, 13: 224-231.
25. Gulati, R., & Singh, H. (1998). The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination uncertainty and interdependence in strategic alliances. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 781-814.
26. Gulati, R. (1999). Network location and learning: The influences of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation, Strategic Management Journal, 20: 397-420.
27. Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104: 1439-1493.
28. Hacki, R., & Lighton, J. (2001). The future of the networked company, McKinsey Quarterly, 3: 26-39.
29. Hagedoorn, J. (1995). A note on international market leaders and networks of strategic technology partnering, Strategic Management Journal, 16: 241-250.
30. Hansen, M. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 82-111.
31. Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 716-749.
32. Inkpen, A. C, & Dinur, A. (1998). Knowledge management processes and international joint ventures. Organization Science, 7: 211-220.
33. Jarillo, C. (1988). On strategic networks, Strategic Management Journal, 9: 31-41.
34. Jayoung James Goo & and Joo-Yeun Heo (2020). The Impact of the Regulatory Sandbox on the Fintech Industry with a Discussion on the Relation between Regulatory Sandboxes and Open Innovation, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, Published: 18 June 2020, pp.2-16.
35. JinHyo, J.Y.; Won, D.; Park, K. (2018). Entrepreneurial cyclical dynamics of open innovation. J. Evol. Econ. Heidelb., 28, 1151–1174. [CrossRef]
36. Kale, P., Singh, H., & Perlmutter, H. (2000). Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital, Strategic Management Journal, 21: 217-237.
37. Kenis, P., & Knoke, D. (2002). How organizational field networks shape interorganizational tie-formation rates, Academy of Management Review, 27: 275-293.
38. Khanna, T., Gulati R., & Nohria, N. (1998). The dynamics of learning alliances: Competition, cooperation, and relative scope, Strategic Management Journal, 19: 193-210.
39. Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1998). Procedural justice, strategic decision making, and the knowledge economy, Strategic Management Journal, 19: 324-338.
40. Knoke, D. (1994). Networks of elite structure and decision making, In S. Wasserman & J. Galaskiewicz (Eds.), Advances in social network analysis: 274-294. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
41. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1996). What do firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning, Organization Science, 7: 502-518.
42. Kogut, B. (2000). The network as knowledge: Generative rules and the emergence of structure, Strategic Management Journal, 21: 405-425.
43. L. Bromberg, A. Godwin & I. Ramsay (2017). Fintech sandboxes: Achieving a balance between regulation and innovation, Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice, 28(4), pp.314-336.
44. Lev Bromberg, Andrew Godwin and Ian Ramsay (2017). Fintech sandboxes: Achieving a balance between regulation and innovation, the Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice, Vol.28, No. 4, pp. 314‐336.
45. Lorenzoni, G., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1995). Creating a strategic center to manage a web of partners, California Management Review, 37(3): 146-163.
46. Lorenzoni, G., & Lipparini, A. (1999). The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 317-338.
47. Lyles, M. A., & Salk, J. E. (1996). Knowledge acquisition from foreign parents in international joint ventures: An empirical examination in the Hungarian context, Journal of International Business Studies, 29(2): 154-174.
48. Macaulay, S. (1963). Non-contractual relations in business: A preliminary study, American Sociological Review, 28: 55-69.
49. Madhavan, R., Koka, B. R., & Prescott, J. E. (1998). Networks in transition: How industry events (re)shape interfirm rivalry, Strategic Management Journal, 19: 439-460.
50. Magnuson, W. (2018). Regulating Fintech. Vanderbilt Law Rev., 71, pp.1167–1226.
51. Makhija, M. V., & Ganesh, U. (1997). The relationship between control and partner learning in learning-related joint ventures, Organization Science, 8: 508-527.
52. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340-363.
53. Michelet, R. (1992). Forming successful strategic marketing alliances in Europe. Journal of European Business, 4(1): 11-15.
54. Mowery, D. C, Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer, Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue): 77-91.
55. Muller, Simone (2010). The Transatlantic Telegraphs and the `Class of 1866` - the Formative Years of Transnational Networks in Telegraphic Space, 1858- 1884/89, Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, vol. 35, no. 1 (131), pp. 237-259.
56. Nonaka, L, & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
57. Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization, Academy of Management Review, 15: 203-223.
58. P. SIRONI (2016). FITECH INNOVATION:FROM ROBO - ADVISORS TO GOAL BASED INVESTING AND GAMIFICATION.
59. Park, S. H., & Russo, M. V. (1996). When competition eclipses cooperation: An event history analysis of joint venture failure, Management Science, 42: 875-890.
60. Péter Fáykiss, Dániel Papp, Péter Sajtos, and Ágnes Tőrös (2018). Regulatory Tools to Encourage FinTech Innovations: The Innovation Hub and Regulatory Sandbox in International Practice. Financial and Economic Review, Vol. 17 Issue 2, June, pp. 43–67.
61. Pisano, G. P. (1990). The R&D boundaries of the firm: An empirical analysis, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 153-176.
62. Podolny, J. M., & Stuart, T. E. (1995). A role-based ecology of technological change. American Journal of Sociology, 100: 1224-1260.
63. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 116-145.
64. Provan, K. G. (1983). The federation as an interorganizational linkage network, Academy of Management Review, 8: 79-89.
65. R. Jesse McWaters (2015). The Future of Financial Services - How disruptive innovations are reshaping the way financial services are structured, provisioned and consumed, World Economic Forum report, < https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_future__of_financial_services.pdf>.
66. R Romano (2014). “Regulating in the Dark and a Postscript Assessment of the Iron Law of Financial Regulation”, 43 Hofstra Law Review 28.
67. Rafael La Porta, FlorencioLopez-de-Silanes, and Andrei Shleifer (2008). The Economic Consequences of Legal Origins, Journal of economic literature 46.2, pp.285-332.
68. Ross P. Buckley, Douglas W. Arner, Robin Veidt & Dirk A. Zetzsche (2019). ‘Building FinTech Ecosystems: Regulatory Sandboxes, Innovation Hubs and Beyond’, European Banking Institute Working Paper No. 53.
69. Sakakibara, M. (2002). Formation of R&D consortia: Industry and company effects, Strategic Management Journal, 23: 1033-1050.
70. Schumpeter, J. A. (1961). The theory of economic development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
71. Shan, W., Walker, G., & Kogut, B. (1994). Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry, Strategic Management Journal, 15: 387-394.
72. Simonin, B. L. (1999). Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances, Strategic Management Journal, 20: 595-623.
73. Stuart, T. E. (2000). Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry, Strategic Management Journal, 21: 791-811.
74. Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy, Research Policy, 15: 285-305.
75. Teece, D. J. (2000). Managing intellectual capital: Organizational, strategic, and policy dimensions, London: Oxford University Press.
76. Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 35-67.
77. Vives, X. (2017). The Impact of Fintech on Banking. Eur. Econ., 2, pp.97–105.
78. W. Magnuson(2018). Regulating fintech. Vanderbilt Law Review, 71(4), pp.1167-1226.
79. W. E. Walker, S. A. Rahman & J. Cave, Adaptive policies (2001). policy analysis, and policy-making, European journal of operational Research, 128(2), pp.282-289.
80. W.G. Ringe and C. Ruof (2018). ‘A Regulatory Sandbox for Robo Advice’ European Banking Institute Working Paper No.26, pp.52.
81. W.G. Ringe and C. Ruof (2018). ‘A Regulatory Sandbox for Robo Advice’ European Banking Institute Working Paper No.39, pp.7.
82. Wasserman, S., & Galaskiewicz, J. (Eds.). (1994). Advances in social network analysis, London: Sage.
83. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 1-19.
84. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism, New York: Free Press.
85. Wolf-Georg RINGE and Christopher RUOF (2020). Regulating Fintech in the EU: the Case for a Guided Sandbox, European Journal of Risk Regulation, November, pp. 604–629.
86. Yin, R. K. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage.
四、網頁資料
1. Aileen Lee (2013). Welcome To The Unicorn Club: Learning From Billion-Dollar Startups, TechCrunch, Nov. 3, Retrieved from https://ecorner.stanford.edu/videos/unicorn-lessons / on June 26, 2022.
2. Andy C. M. Chen (2019). Regulatory Sandbox and Competition of Financial Technologies in Taiwan, Jan 31, Retrieved from https://dev.competitionpolicyinternational.com/regulatory-sandbox-and-competition-of-financial-technologies-in-taiwan / on 5 July 2022.
3. Diemers, D., Lamaa, A., Salamat, J., Steffens, T., (2015). Developing a FinTech ecosystem in the GCC; PWC: Abu Dhabi, UAE. Retrieved from https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/m1/en/reports/developing-a-fintech-ecosystem-in-the-gcc.pdf / on 5 July 2022.
4. Greg Medcraft - ASIC Chairman (2016). ‘Fintech: Opportunities, Risks and Challenges’ - speech delivered to the Group of 100, National Executive Dinner, Sydney, Australia, December 14, .
5. Lee Hsien Loong (2016). "PM Lee Hsien Loong at launch of Smart Nation, 24 November", Prime Minister’s Office, Singapore, Mar.18, Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/ya2ssjre / on June 6, 2022.
6. Mark D. Fenwick, Wulf A. Kaal Ph.D. & Erik P.M. Vermeulen (2017). “Regulation Tomorrow What Happens When Technology is Faster than the Law”, No.6, American University Business Law Review, pp.561, < https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=aublr >.
7. Martin Wheatley (2014). Innovation: The regulatory opportunity, FCA Speeches Oct. 28, Retrieved from https://www.fca.org.uk/news/speeches/innovation-regulatory-opportunity / on July 20, 2022.
8. Ravi Menon - Managing Director (2015). "A Smart Financial Centre", Monetary Authority of Singapore, Global Technology Law Conference 2015, June 29, Retrieved from https://www.mas.gov.sg/news/speeches/2015/a-smart-financial-centre / on June 6, 2022.
9. Ravi Menon - Managing Director (2018), Remarks at the MAS Annual Report 2017/18 Media Conference, July 04, Retrieved from https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/20180704006/Remarks%20by%20MD%20at%20MAS%20Annual%20Report%20201718%20Media%20Conference%204%20July%202018.pdf / on June 16, 2022
zh_TW