在創業活動蔚為風潮的趨勢下，世界各國的專業研究機構紛紛設立觀察指標，透過瞭望社會的創業精神或活動，作為監督與改善整體創業環境的依據。在眾多調查與指標中，較具學術參考價值與社會影響力者包括美國百森商學院組織的全球創業觀察、由Zoltan J. Acs教授主導發起的全球創業精神暨發展指數、洛桑管理學院出版的世界競爭力年報、世界銀行發展的經商環境報告，以及歐盟創新聯盟計分板等。 在欠缺各項指標與調查的比較研究與整合性探討前，上述機構發展的相關數據與指標排名卻常被廣泛地運用在不同經濟體對內部創業政策的檢視、評估與調整，易產生不易聚焦與引用謬誤之疑慮。因此，本文旨在回顧與分析前述五項國際性調查與指標，並進一步檢討其適用性。研究發現這些調查與指標不僅在發展旨趣上不盡相同，在基礎定義、分析層次、調查方法或研究時限的設計上更存在莫大差異。其次，創業較常被視為探討國家競爭力、創新或商業環境的次指標，由於缺乏主體性使學理與方法上皆略失嚴謹。第三，台灣在多數指標的表現逐年攀升，顯示內部具備濃厚的創業氛圍與優良的創業環境。最後，創業基礎調查與資料庫建置是未來發展國際性創業指標的碁盤，亦是接軌國際研究社群的平台。

As entrepreneurial activities become one of the most prevalent trends in the global business arena, research institutions around the world paid lots of attention on those activities, developed measurement indices to thoroughly understand those activities, and tried to utilize those indices to monitor as well as enhance the soundness of entrepreneurial environment. Based on the criteria of academic value and social influence, five index systems were selected for further investigation and thorough comparison, including: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) developed by Babson College, Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index (GEDI) proposed by Prof. Zoltan J. Acs, World Competitiveness Yearbook (WCY) published by International Institute for Management Development, Doing Business Report conducted by the World Bank, and Innovation Union Scoreboard (IUS) initiated by the European Union. In spite of the lack of a comprehensive comparison and integrated discussion, rankings from those measurement indices were extensively used for investigating, evaluating, and adjusting entrepreneurial policies in different countries; therefore, it is quite common for government agencies to lose their focuses, mistakenly cite the reports, or erroneously interpret the results. The purpose of this study is to review the aforementioned measurement indices and inspect the suitableness of them. Results derived from study are: in addition to the differences on the purposes of these measurement indices, more discrepancies could be found in the definitions of terms, the level of analysis, the process of conducting the investigation, and the time period used for collecting data. Secondly, although it is quite common to think of entrepreneurial activities as the demonstrations of national competitiveness, innovative capability, or the business environment, the rationality of the linkages and the rigorousness of the methods used for connecting different concepts are unconvinced; thirdly, the advances of Taiwan from the rankings of different measurement indices suggest that the climate and the entrepreneurial environment are very prominent; finally, conducting research on entrepreneurial activities and constructing databases for storing relevant data are not only essential for developing international entrepreneurial indices but also vital for researchers as well as practitioners to be geared to international research communities.