本文主要目的在以行政院主計處兩碼產業標準分類為分析單位，依一九九○年代 初期產業統計指標操作雙元經濟理論提出的雙元產業結構－即核心與邊陲產業。經以群聚分 析法就十二項界定指標進行四十九項產業中類的分類，最後計得我國核心產業十二項及邊陲 產業三十七項。經進一步檢視核心與邊陲產業在十二項界定指標問的差異，以及核心與邊陲 產業在十項建構效度指標問的差異後發現，本文核心與邊陲產業分類結果具高度建構效度， 並可用以反映我國一九九○年代初期靜態的雙元產業結構。 本文同時參照 Kaufman, Hedson 和 Fligstein (1981) 的作法，合併採用因素分析法與群聚分析法加以操作雙元產業結構， 透過不同方法所得結果提供另一型式建構效度之驗證，結果發現本文分類結果較 Kau 而 an 等人建議方法所得為佳。本研究所得我國核心與邊陲產業的分類，將可提供國內社會學者未 來進一步驗證雙元經濟理論、勞動市場區隔理論、以及新結構論爭是否適用於臺灣的勞動市 場。

　　　　　The major purpose of this study is to operationalize the core and periphery industries proposed by the dual economy theory, based on the unit of Taiwanese two-digit industrial codes. Including 12 criterion indicators, cluster analysis was employed to classify 49 industrial groups into the core and periphery industries. In addition, the mean differences of 10 construct indicators were examined between the dual sectors in order to test the degree of construct validity of the classification. The result indicates that the classification of the core and periphery industries constructed from cluster analysis has been justified. Finally, another operationalization process which was suggested by Kaufman, Hodson, and Fligstein (1981) to combine both factor analysis and cluster analysis was also replicated in this study. However, the comparison of these two classifications reveals that the scheme of industrial segmentation proposed by this study is more satisfactory and acceptable than the Kaufman's scheme. Certainly, the classification of the core and periphery industries provided by this study is crucial for the Taiwanese sociologists who are interested in exploring the applicability of the dual economy theory, the dual labor market theory, and the new structuralism to the case of Taiwan.