Week 03: National Differences | International Business Management

THE SPARK

AI Skill：CoT Prompting AI Skill: CoT Prompting

把「抽象」拆成可檢核的推理鏈 Turn “abstract” into a checkable reasoning chain

本週指定影片：孫老師《經濟學的殘酷真相》。任務不是背摘要，而是用 AI 把「社會管理技術」這個觀點拆成：主張、機制、假設、可反駁點、以及與 Hill Ch.2–3 的對照。 Required video: Sun’s “The Cruel Truth of Economics.” Your job is not to memorize a summary. Use AI to decompose the “social management technology” claim into: thesis, mechanism, assumptions, falsifiers, and a Hill Ch.2–3 crosswalk.

流程要求：匯出本週 AI 對話紀錄 (Log 1)，並在檔案中標記你觀察到的「AI 邏輯斷裂」或「偷換概念」位置。 Workflow requirement: export your AI dialogue (Log 1), and mark where the model breaks logic or smuggles in assumptions.

我已閱讀並同意參與本學期的教學研究計畫 (Consent Form) I have read and agree to join this semester’s teaching research project (Consent Form)

關鍵轉折：市場分析 → 權力分析 Critical Shift: Market Analysis → Power Analysis

過去企業評估國家環境常用 GDP、人口、成本等指標（效率導向）。但 2026 年更常見的風險來源是：政府如何處理內部矛盾、如何在必要時動用「非市場手段」維穩（安全導向）。 Firms used to prioritize GDP, demographics, and cost (efficiency). In 2026, the decisive risks often come from how a state manages internal tensions and how quickly it can deploy “non-market tools” for regime stability (security).

核心提醒：不要只看「法律寫了什麼」，要追問「法律背後的統治邏輯是什麼」。 Rule of thumb: don’t just read the law—ask what governance logic the law serves.

今天你要練的工具：PESTEL（特別是 P / E / L），以及「潛規則掃描」：誰能定義正業？誰能解釋法律？誰能隨時改規則？ Tools today: PESTEL (especially P/E/L) and an “implicit-rule scan”: who defines legitimate industries, who interprets law, and who can rewrite the rules overnight?

THEORY: POLITICAL ECONOMY & PESTEL

Hill Ch.2–3 給你一套「明文規則」的分析框架：政治體制、經濟體制、法律體系、產權與貪腐，這些會直接影響企業的交易成本與風險。孫老師的影片則補上一個更尖銳的視角：制度不只追求效率，也可能是統治者的「社會管理技術」。 Hill Ch.2–3 equips you with an “explicit rules” framework: political systems, economic systems, legal systems, property rights, and corruption—factors that shape transaction costs and risk. Sun’s video adds a sharper lens: institutions are not only about efficiency; they can be “social management technology” for regime survival.

潛規則
(Implicit Rules) Implicit Rules

制度現場
(Institutions) Institutions

明文規則
(Explicit Rules) Explicit Rules

> 點擊圈層以讀取提示… > CLICK A LAYER TO LOAD…

Hill Ch.2–3: Textbook Decoder (PESTEL-ready)

Formal Institutions (P / E / L)

先用「看得見的規則」做底盤：政治體制（民主/威權）、經濟體制（市場/指令/混合）、法律體系（普通法/成文法/神權法/官僚裁量）。 Start with visible rules: political systems (democratic/authoritarian), economic systems (market/command/mixed), and legal systems (common law/civil law/theocratic law/bureaucratic discretion).

關鍵檢核：Key checks: 產權保護、合約可執行性、貪腐程度、外資保障。property rights, contract enforceability, corruption, investor protection.
管理含義：Managerial implication: 同一份合約，在不同法系的成本與風險完全不同。the same contract carries very different costs and risks across legal systems.
工具：Tool: 用 PESTEL 把資訊放進結構化的「國家風險清單」。use PESTEL to structure a country risk register.

Implicit Rules (Sun’s Lens)

孫老師提醒：經濟制度可能不是「中立」的。它也可能用來管理人口與資源，透過定義「什麼是正業」來分配獎懲，並在系統失衡時吸納或排除「冗餘人口」。 Sun’s reminder: economic systems are not always “neutral.” They can be designed to manage people and resources, define “legitimate work,” allocate rewards/punishments, and absorb or exclude “surplus population” when the system is stressed.

當政治理性凌駕經濟理性，企業要問的不是「哪裡最賺」，而是「哪裡最不容易被犧牲」。 When political rationality overrides economic rationality, the question shifts from “where is most profitable” to “where are we least likely to be sacrificed.”

黑盒子：Black boxes: 法律是統治工具？還是可預測的規則？is law a predictable rule, or a governance tool?
非市場手段：Non-market tools: 外匯管制、數據封鎖、行政審查、資產沒收。capital controls, data restrictions, administrative reviews, expropriation.

The Last 5 Years: 邊界模糊 The Last 5 Years: Blurred Boundaries

過去五年（2021–2026）你會看到「市場」與「指令」的界線正在模糊：美國以產業政策補貼與限制出口，中國以「共同富裕」重塑產業價值，供應鏈則因友岸外包而為政治忠誠度支付溢價。 Across 2021–2026, the boundary between “market” and “command” is blurring: the U.S. deploys industrial policy and export controls; China reshapes sector value under “common prosperity”; and supply chains pay a premium for political alignment through friend-shoring.

CASE STUDY: MISAENG (EP 02–03)

這兩集的重點在於「不同制度邏輯的碰撞」。劇中把公司內部結構隱喻為國際社會：總部的標準化理性（明文規則）與現場的關係/權力現實（潛規則）同時存在。 These episodes focus on a clash of institutional logics. The firm becomes a miniature “international system”: HQ’s standardization logic (explicit rules) collides with field reality—relationships, discretion, and power (implicit rules).

THE INSTITUTIONAL CLASH THE INSTITUTIONAL CLASH

EPISODE 02–03

現場派 vs. 辦公室派 = Subsidiary vs. HQ Field vs. Office = Subsidiary vs. HQ

Ep 2 透過實習生分組報告，展示「現場派（韓錫律）」與「辦公室派（張克萊）」的衝突：現場經驗（tacit）如何被轉譯成總部能使用的標準化語言（codified）。 In Ep 2, the intern presentations reveal the tension between “field logic” (Han) and “office logic” (Jang): how tacit experience is translated into HQ-friendly, codified language.

橋段提示：膠水/無膠水的辯論、翻譯與報告格式之爭，都是「誰有解釋權」的權力遊戲。 Scene cue: the “glue vs no-glue” debate, translation problems, and report-format fights are all about who holds interpretive authority.

Ep 3 你會看到「能力」如何被結構性偏見壓制，以及合規審查如何成為資源分配工具。把它對照 Hill：當法律與制度不穩定時，企業需要的不只是合約，還需要政治敏感度。 Ep 3 shows how “capability” can be suppressed by structural bias, and how compliance review can function as a resource-allocation tool. In Hill terms: when institutions are unstable, contracts are not enough—political sensitivity becomes operational.

Survival Glossary (Week 03)

Industrial Policy

產業政策。政府用補貼、限制出口/投資等手段，直接改變資源配置，以達成國安或霸權目標（政治目的）。 Industrial policy: subsidies, export controls, and investment restrictions used to re-allocate resources for security or strategic goals.

FCPA (Long-arm Compliance)

長臂管轄風險。即使行為發生在海外，也可能被母國法律追究（例如反貪腐規範）。 Long-arm compliance risk: actions abroad can still trigger home-country enforcement (e.g., anti-corruption rules).

Property Rights

產權。你是否真的擁有資產？是否可預期地保護與轉移？它是 FDI 風險的地板。 Property rights: whether ownership is protected and transferable in a predictable way—the “floor” of FDI risk.

Capital Controls

資本管制。你賺得到錢不代表你匯得出去。這會直接改寫投資報酬與退出策略。 Capital controls: profitability does not guarantee repatriation—this reshapes ROI and exit options.

THE RISK DETECTIVE LAB

今天你是跨國企業的「地緣風險分析實習生」。請用 AI 把抽象理論落成可用的輸出：先拆解孫老師的觀點，再把同一套思路用在國家風險偵查與選址辯論。 Today you are a “geopolitical risk analyst intern.” Use AI to turn abstract theory into usable outputs: first deconstruct Sun’s argument, then apply the same logic to country-risk detection and a location choice debate.

User: Intern_RiskAnalyst @ YZU_CM438_Lab

[TASK 1] 你的 CoT Prompt 設計 [TASK 1] Your CoT Prompt Design (Reasoning Chain)

目標：讓 AI 用「可檢核的推理步驟」來拆解影片/文章，而不是只給漂亮的摘要。你的 Prompt 至少要要求：列出主張、機制步驟、假設、可反駁點、與 Hill Ch.2–3 的對照，以及最後的自我質疑。 Goal: force AI to produce a checkable reasoning chain—not just a polished summary. Your prompt should request: claims, mechanism steps, assumptions, falsifiers, a Hill Ch.2–3 crosswalk, and a self-critique.

寫下你的 Prompt（你要貼去 AI 的那段）： Write your prompt (what you will paste into AI):

[TASK 2] Risk Detective + Location Tournament [TASK 2] Risk Detective + Location Tournament (Country Scan)

先用 Prompt 1 把孫老師觀點拆成可操作的「檢核清單」。再用 Prompt 2 對 Country A/B/C（或你自選國家）做風險偵查：不要只看 GDP，要追「經濟手段如何服務政治目的」，以及企業變得太成功時可能面臨的「收割」風險。 Use Prompt 1 to convert Sun’s lens into an operational checklist. Then use Prompt 2 to scan Country A/B/C (or your chosen country): don’t stop at GDP—trace how economic tools serve political goals and what “harvest” risks emerge when your firm becomes too successful.

Prompt 1：拆解「社會管理技術」 Prompt 1: Deconstruct “social management technology”

"你是一位嚴謹的研究助理。請用『可檢核的推理鏈』拆解孫老師《經濟學的殘酷真相》： (1) 用 150 字寫出核心主張； (2) 用 5-7 步寫出他認為制度如何運作（機制鏈）； (3) 列出 3 個隱含假設； (4) 提出 2 個可反駁點（哪些觀察成立就代表他的論點不成立？）； (5) 對照 Hill Ch.2–3：這些主張在哪些制度條件下最容易出現？ (6) 最後請你自我檢查：你剛剛是否偷換概念或過度推論？用『可能錯在哪』列出 3 點。" "You are a rigorous research assistant. Deconstruct Sun’s video using a CHECKABLE reasoning chain: (1) 150-word thesis; (2) a 5–7 step mechanism chain; (3) three hidden assumptions; (4) two falsifiers (what evidence would weaken the thesis); (5) a Hill Ch.2–3 crosswalk: which institutional conditions make these dynamics likely; (6) self-audit: list three ways you might be over-claiming or swapping definitions."

Prompt 2：灰犀牛觀察家（國家風險） Prompt 2: Gray Rhino Observer (Country risk)

"你現在是一位專精於『地緣政治經濟學』的灰犀牛觀察家。我正在評估進入 [Country A/B/C 或自選國家]。請不要給我表面的 GDP 數據。請基於 2024-2026 年的真實案例，分析該國政府如何使用『經濟手段』來達成『政治目的』？請特別分析：如果我的企業在該國變得『太過成功』或『太有影響力』，我會面臨什麼樣的『收割』風險（參考孫老師關於『正業定義權』的觀點）？最後請給我一張 PESTEL 風險清單（每項：風險、觸發條件、早期預警訊號、可行緩解策略）。" "You are a ‘geopolitical political-economy’ gray-rhino observer. I’m evaluating entry into [Country A/B/C or your chosen country]. Please do NOT give me superficial GDP numbers. Using real cases from 2024–2026, analyze how the government uses ‘economic tools’ to reach ‘political goals’. Specifically: if my firm becomes ‘too successful’ or ‘too influential,’ what ‘harvest’ risks do I face (link to the idea of who defines ‘legitimate industries’)? Then provide a PESTEL risk register. For each item: risk description, trigger, early warning indicators, probability (low/medium/high), impact (low/medium/high), and mitigations."

課後反思筆記（輸入並保存）： Reflection notes (type + save):

課堂表現檢核：Vote & Defend Class Participation: Vote & Defend

你必須選邊站並辯護： Pick a side and defend it:

(A) 張克萊型

極度聰明、守規矩、會分析數據，但不懂潛規則。 Smart, rule-following, data-driven—but weak on implicit rules.

(B) 韓錫律型

油條、懂人情世故、會走後門，但可能踩到合規紅線。 Street-smart, relationship-savvy—yet closer to compliance red lines.

> 點選 A/B 以取得你的辯護題目（請引用指定材料）。 > Click A/B to get your defense prompt (cite the assigned materials).

活動：The 2026 Location Tournament Activity: The 2026 Location Tournament

情境：你的小組代表一家掌握關鍵 AI 技術的台灣公司，必須在三個候選國家中選一個設立「第二總部」。做出包含「經濟效率」與「政治安全」的決策矩陣，並準備接受其他組（扮演激進股東）挑戰。 Scenario: your team represents a Taiwan-based AI-critical firm choosing a “second HQ” among three candidates. Build a decision matrix that includes both “economic efficiency” and “political security,” then defend against challenges from other teams (playing activist shareholders).

Country A (US-like)

高補貼，但要求技術共享；長臂管轄（如 FCPA）。 High subsidies, tech-sharing pressure; long-arm jurisdiction (e.g., FCPA).

Country B (SEA/India-like)

高成長，但法律解釋權偏向地方官員；基礎建設不穩。 High growth, but legal interpretation leans to local officials; infrastructure volatility.

Country C (China-like)

供應鏈最完整，但資本管制風險高；政策可能重塑產業價值（共同富裕）。 Most complete supply chain, but higher capital-control risk; policy can rapidly reshape sector value.

學習檢核 (Ticket to Leave) Performance Check (Ticket to Leave)

離開前，請你至少能解釋以下三題（可用英文/中文）： Before you leave, make sure you can explain these three items (EN/ZH OK):

Economic Systems：哪一種現象顯示「市場經濟國家」正在採納「指令經濟」的手段？ Economic systems: Which phenomenon suggests a “market economy” is adopting “command-economy” tools?

展開選項 / 答案Show options / answer

(A) 政府放寬銀行監管，允許更多金融創新。Deregulate banks for financial innovation.

(B) 政府通過法案，直接補貼特定產業並限制出口對象，以達成國安目標。Pass laws to subsidize key industries and restrict exports for security goals.

(C) 企業透過市場機制自由決定產品價格。Firms freely set prices via market mechanisms.

(D) 跨國企業外包給成本最低的國家。Outsource to the lowest-cost country.

Answer: (B)
Legal Systems：普通法（Common Law）系國家的合約通常有什麼特徵？ Legal systems: What is a typical feature of contracts in common-law countries?

展開選項 / 答案Show options / answer

(A) 非常簡短，因為細節已在法典中規定。Very short because details are codified.

(B) 非常詳盡，試圖涵蓋所有突發狀況。Very detailed to cover contingencies.

(C) 不看重文字，只看法官自由心證。Downplays written text; relies on judicial discretion.

(D) 政府官員可直接裁定，不需經法院。Officials decide without courts.

Answer: (B)
Political Economy：孫老師提到「正業」的歷史變化，隱含了什麼對國家風險評估的提醒？ Political economy: What does the shifting definition of “legitimate work” imply for country-risk assessment?

展開選項 / 答案Show options / answer

(A) 經濟發展純粹由技術進步推動。Development is purely driven by technology.

(B) GDP 是衡量福祉的完美指標。GDP perfectly measures welfare.

(C) 制度設計常服務於社會管理與政權生存邏輯，不只是效率。Institutions often serve social management and regime survival, not just efficiency.

(D) 所有國家最終都會走向自由民主。All states converge to liberal democracy.

Answer: (C)

National
Differences