本文透過大陸台商與韓商的比較，探討跨國移動社群認同的變遷及其原因。之所以將台商和韓商作為比較研究的對象，主要著眼於兩者間的文化差異：台商文化與血緣的親似vs.韓商文化與血緣的疏離。就此切入，觀察雙方西進後是否發生認同轉變，藉此檢討現有關於認同變遷的各種理論。根據初步資料發現：韓商即便攜家帶眷進駐中國，卻傾向住在韓人社區，後者屬於文化的飛地，中國的化外之境。因為如此封閉與排他，韓人不但並未融入當地，還偶見文化衝突，遑論認同轉變。反觀台商這邊，原初的文化聯繫，並未牽動台商拋卻台灣認同，即便有部分台人決定長居當地，日常接觸的仍為台灣飲食、台灣新聞、台灣朋友，如此低程度的融入，亦不易牽動認同轉變。由此可知，對大陸台商而言，文化的原初聯繫，仍不比半世紀的社會隔離與認同建構。綜合作者的研究發現，不論是台商或韓商均未能融入當地，亦未大幅改變其認同，雙方均受制於原先政治社會所建構的國族意識，認同建構的理論在此得到初步的確認。

This is a comparative study of Korean and Taiwanese investors in China, with an aim to shed light on current theories on identity shift. The basis of the study is funded on the cultural difference between the two groups of investors in China: Taiwanese share thick cultural affinity while Korean shared thin. Grounded on such difference, we go on to compare the inferences drawing from current theories of identity, including primordialism, circumstantialism, and constructivism. According to our preliminary findings, both Korean and Taiwanese have lived in their ethnic community and experienced almost no identity shift. Since both ethnic groups are under similar pressures for markets and profits and cultural affinity in this case make little difference. In other words, our data suggest that neither primordialism nor circumstantialism successfully explains the cultural shift of Korean and Taiwanese investors while constructivism does a much better job on doing that.