Castells檢視全球網絡社會發展，七大工業國依其產業結構的發展變動將這些國家區分成，德、日的「工業生產模式」及英、美的「服務業經濟模式」。本文質疑這樣的分類僅適用於已開發國家，對於其他在全球生產網絡扮演重要分工角色節點的國家，尤其是台灣及其他亞洲工業國家，難以解釋近年來這些國家在整體科技製造能力及專業技術創新的突出表現。本文加入創新研發能力做為解釋這些亞洲國家近年的發展，並檢視其製造業及商業輸出／入比及外資流量方向，以對全球相關國家做出更為明確的區分。在研究結果中指出，台灣憑靠優秀的創新能力，在全球分工中取得特別的位置。我國的技術專利申請多集中在美國市場、在全球的技術創新佈局範圍相對較狹隘，顯示出我國以美國市場需求為主要的創新驅力。從目前的方向來看，台灣未來較可能成為經濟部產業規劃願景中的「產業技術領導者」以在全球產業鏈中取得領先地位。而在對全球主要國家的產業發展類型中，本文將其分為成「複合型創新」、「知識型製造」、「技術／資金依賴型製造」、「技術輸出型」、「商業投資型」、「技術／資金依賴型商業型」、「基礎商業型」及「技術／資金依賴型」八種。本篇主要的貢獻即在對台灣的發展模式做理論／實務應用的明確定位，以及從理論上修正過去鉅觀層次的產業發展的分析模式。

Castells defined service economy model and industrial production model to specify industrial transition and development in information society. In particular, the US and UK represented the service economy model, while German and Japan characterized the industrial production model. This typology not only classified advanced economies in the development of network society, but also explained how Asian dragons (Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong) rooted in their export-oriented manufacture sectors and network flexibility that embedded in their society and cultures to integrate into global production network in information society. This production model could help examine network node positions of global production among these countries, however it failed to answer why these countries, in specific South Korea and Taiwan, could globally lead innovation competitiveness? In this paper, by employing secondary data from the UN, OECD and World Bank, we try to examine the relationship between industrial development and technology innovation, and further to develop a new typology that taking into account global manufacturing production (value of manufacture exports/GDP, manufacture export/ total products export), foreign direct investment (outward, inward) and innovation (expenditure on R& D, USPTO patents, EPO patens, and triad patents). Specifically, we create 4 indexes (manufacturing index, commercial services index, innovation index, and FDI outward/inward index) to classify 30 countries across the world. The results suggest there are 8 categories that could be identified by these indexes: 1. Manufacture-Oriented, Comprehensive innovation state: Sweden and Swiss. 2. Manufacture-Oriented, Knowledge-based production state: Japan, German, Finland, and Taiwan 3. Manufacture-Oriented, Technical/capital dependent production state: Italy, Singapore, South Korea, Ireland, and China 4. Commerce-Oriented, Technical export state: US, Netherlands 5. Commerce-Oriented, Commerce investment state: UK, Spain, France and Demark 6. Commerce-Oriented, Technical/capital dependent commerce state: Hong Kong, Belgium, Austria, India, and Israel. 7. Commerce-Oriented, Basic commerce export state: Norway, New Zealand and Australia. 8. Technical/capital dependent state: Brazil, Thailand, Philippines, South Africa, and Russia After identified the advantages and disadvantages of Taiwan's industrial development, in sum, this paper discusses the strategic direction for Taiwan's next generation industrial development. The Industrial Economics and Knowledge Center at Industrial Technology Research Institute of Taiwan have foresighted four scenarios for Taiwan's future industrial development: Innovator of soft economy, Value initiator and champion, Pioneer of new life style, and Hub of international network. Based on our comparative results, we conclude value initiator and champion should be our future vision of industrial development. Strategic thinkings of Taiwan's next generation industrial development are suggested in the discussion session.