“双循环”新格局与京津冀高质量协同发展——基于价值链分工和要素流动视角

贺灿飞, 任卓然, 王文宇

地理学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 77 ›› Issue (6) : 1339-1358.

PDF(8565 KB)
EN中文
PDF(8565 KB)
地理学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 77 ›› Issue (6) : 1339-1358. DOI: 10.11821/dlxb202206004
京津冀协同发展

“双循环”新格局与京津冀高质量协同发展——基于价值链分工和要素流动视角

作者信息 +

"Dual circulation" and Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei high-quality coordinated development: From the division in the value chain and factor mobility perspective

Author information +
文章历史 +

摘要

京津冀地区经历了从竞争、合作到迈向高质量协同发展的过程,在“双循环”新发展格局下,京津冀协同发展面临着新挑战和新目标,亟需实现创新驱动经济转型。本文从价值链分工和要素流动等方面入手,系统梳理了京津冀在“外循环”和“国内大循环”中的价值链地位和辐射能力,以及以“京津冀小循环”为表现的京津冀协同发展现状。结果发现,京津冀在“外循环”中没有形成世界级城市群相对应的技术分工和知识生产能力,处于价值链较低附加值环节;在“国内大循环”中,京津冀占据价值链高附加值环节,并向外输出技术和资本,但吸引和辐射力有限。进一步探究发现,京津冀在“外循环”中相对边缘化的重要原因之一是“京津冀小循环”尚未打通,创新成果难以在城市群内部转化,从而未能实现“创新驱动经济增长新引擎”的城市群定位目标。下一阶段京津冀城市群应以水平知识链、梯度创新链为驱动,构建城市群垂直产业链。具体来说,“内循环”中应着力打造“北京研发—天津高端制造—河北物流服务”协同格局,“外循环”中构建以知识转移和市场突破为核心的“北京创新集聚溢出—河北综合制造—天津研发、航运”分工模式,逐步实现“内循环”反哺“外循环”。

Abstract

The Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei (BTH) region has experienced a path from competition and cooperation to high-quality coordinated development. Under the new development pattern of "dual circulation", the coordinated development of the BTH region is facing new challenges and new development goals, and it is urgent for the region to achieve innovation-driven economic transformation. This paper starts from the aspects of division in the value chain, technology and capital element flow, systematically combs the status in value chain and radiation capabilities of the BTH region in the "international circulation" and "national circulation", and coordinated development status of the BTH region expressed by "internal circulation". It was found that the BTH did not form the capacity corresponding to the world-class urban agglomeration in the "international circulation", and occupies the low value-added link of the value chain. In the "national circulation", the BTH has played a role of R&D service center, so it occupies the high value-added link of the value chain. It also exports technology and capital and becomes a highland of domestic innovation and capital, but its attraction and radiation are limited. Further exploration found that the BTH is relatively marginalized in the "international circulation", which is one of the important reasons that they have not been complementary to each other in "internal circulation". Moreover, Tianjin and Hebei are less attractive to Beijing's capital and technology, so Beijing's patents are difficult to transform within the BTH urban agglomeration. Therefore, the BTH region failed to achieve innovation-driven economic growth. In the next stage, the BTH urban agglomeration should be driven by the horizontal knowledge chain and gradient innovation chain to build a vertical industrial chain. Specifically, in the "national circulation", efforts should be made to create a collaborative pattern, that is, Beijing specializes in research and develop, Tianjin specializes in high-end manufacturing, and Hebei specializes in logistics service. "International circulation" builds a model of "Beijing innovation cluster, Hebei integrated manufacturing, Tianjin R&D and shipping" mode, gradually realize the "national circulation" to feed back the "international circulation".

关键词

“双循环” / 京津冀协同发展 / 城市群 / 价值链 / 要素流动

Key words

dual circulation / Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei coordinated development / urban cluster / value chain / factor mobility

引用本文

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

导出引用
贺灿飞, 任卓然, 王文宇. “双循环”新格局与京津冀高质量协同发展——基于价值链分工和要素流动视角[J]. 地理学报, 2022, 77(6): 1339-1358 https://doi.org/10.11821/dlxb202206004
HE Canfei, REN Zhuoran, WANG Wenyu. "Dual circulation" and Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei high-quality coordinated development: From the division in the value chain and factor mobility perspective[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2022, 77(6): 1339-1358 https://doi.org/10.11821/dlxb202206004

1 引言

自20世纪80年代以来,京津冀区域经济合作经历了重要发展变革。在全球化与“双循环”新格局下,京津冀协同发展作为中国三大发展战略面临着新机遇和新挑战,京津冀城市群在国际循环和国内循环中的角色和使命亟需明确。同时,京津冀城市群在构建新发展格局过程中,如何推进城市群内部高质量协同发展是其下一阶段需要率先考虑的命题。随着世界新一轮科技革命和产业变革,垂直产业链和价值链分工成为全球经济大循环的显著特征[1]。近年来,产业内分工热潮逐渐褪去,发达国家开始将制造业环节移回本国,推行再工业化[2],全球分工和治理体系和进入新的调整期。在生产力和生产关系变革的交互作用下,以贸易保护主义为主要表现的逆全球化趋势不断强化,国际力量对比变化与大国博弈加剧[3]。其中,自2018年以来中美间经历的多次贸易摩擦说明了中国在下一阶段将面临着高度不稳定的国际市场环境,加之新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情带来的产业链断裂等风险,种种迹象表明,中国正处于百年未有之大变局[4],中国以“外循环”为主的经济重心亟需调整。在全球经济大循环动力衰减、庞大内部市场驱动背景下,国内循环动力与重要性提升,因此,中国明确强调要逐步形成“国内大循环”为主体,“国内国际双循环”相互促进的新发展格局。
京津冀合作始于1988年北京和河北环京地区组建的环京经济协作区,随后签订的一系列协议和规划推动了京津冀合作进入新阶段。但是,京津冀三地在产业发展水平、企业研发水平、基础设施配套和人均资源等方面存在“断档”现象[5]。2000年以后,北京市人口和经济总量持续快速增长,北京市资源环境条件和政治中心定位的矛盾逐渐显现。京津冀城市群作为中国北部增长极,需要利用北京集聚优势,解决城市间发展矛盾,提高一体化水平。因此,2015年4月底,中共中央政治局审议通过《京津冀协同发展规划纲要》（简称《纲要》）,明确了三地发展定位和空间布局思路,并将有序疏解北京非首都功能作为战略核心。
京津冀城市群定位世界级城市群,同时肩负着中国科技创新中心、制造业研发基地和商贸物流基地等重要职能,在“双循环”新格局下发挥着资源集成、技术引进与转移、创新提升等决定性作用。国际国内产业链分工调整也将为京津冀城市群高质量协同发展带来新的机遇与挑战。因此,本文将系统梳理京津冀城市群在“外循环”和“内循环”建设中的作用,并在此基础上提出如何通过构建新发展格局推动京津冀高质量协同发展的相关政策建议。

2 文献综述与研究框架

2.1 “双循环”与价值链分工

20世纪中期,技术“时空压缩”、资本“空间出路”和国家开放极大地促进了世界的全球化进程[6],以信息、生产要素等为支撑的“流空间”逐渐开始替代“地理空间”的重要性。跨国公司主导下的各国生产活动紧密联系在一起,共同参与全球范围的生产活动和价值分工,学界解释这种现象为“全球价值链”[7-8],中国参与“外循环”本质就是参与全球价值链的过程。1978年改革开放后,中国各区域基于地方比较优势,迅速融入全球产业分工体系中,逐渐成为全球最大的贸易国。然而中国外向型经济模式削弱了国内区域间分工程度[9],出现了发展差距拉大、区域分割严重[10]、价值捕获低端锁定问题[11],中国依托广阔腹地优势构建“国家价值链”的重要性得到关注,即促进“国内大循环”,实现“双循环”发展。
区域分割等问题导致中国当前难以在全国范围内形成合理的生产和价值分工,因此,需要明确“内循环”应在何种尺度构建价值链分工体系。有学者认为,在区域尺度的价值分工较为合理[12],其中,基于空间邻近和紧密产业联系的城市群是最优选择[13]。以区域联系为基础的价值链能够促进生产要素空间集聚,发展相关多样化的区域产业知识[14],从而推动区域经济发展和产业升级,抵御外部风险[15]。国内已经形成了以长三角城市群为典型的一定程度的区域性分工和城市群分工[16]。具体来说,长三角城市群以江苏、浙江生产,上海服务为分工模式,使生产要素快速集聚,成为区域性发展高地[17],促进区域价值链形成。

2.2 作为“点”的城市群：城市群在“双循环”中的作用

城市群是以一个特大城市为核心,依托发达的基础设施网络将3个以上大城市连接形成的高度同城化、一体化的城市群体[18]。经济全球化将城市群作为国家参与国际分工和竞争的基本地域单元[19],因此,城市群是参与“双循环”的主要载体。城市群作为“流空间”中的点要素,在“外循环”和“内循环”中承担的功能不同。对外开放是城市群推动商品、资本等生产要素国际循环的基本功能。在国家级城市群中,北京、上海和广州均为“全球城市”①(①资料来源于2020年GaWC发布的全球城市名单（https://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2020t.html）。)。全球城市具有全球—地方市场高度互联、拥有国际化环境、具有高水平的先进生产者服务业的特点[20],且集中了产业发展所需的先进基础设施、管理知识和技术,集聚经济发达[21],因此,跨国公司进行对外投资时会首先选择东道国中的全球城市。Goerzen等研究发现跨国公司更有可能在全球城市中设立其外国子公司,且以市场和服务为导向时在全球城市设立子公司的概率更大[20]。全球城市及其形成的世界级城市群也是对外投资和进出口贸易最活跃的区域。2019年京津冀城市群和长三角城市群②(②按照2019年《长江三角洲区域一体化发展规划纲要》,长三角城市群包含上海市、江苏省、浙江省和安徽省全域。)对外直接投资总额分别占中国对外投资总额的16.3%和28.7%③(③根据中华人民共和国商务部对外投资和经济合作司历年对外直接投资统计公报计算得到。),长三角城市群进出口总额占中国进出口总额的比重达到36.4%④(④根据国家统计局发布的货物进出口总额计算得到。)。强大的外资流入和进出口成为中国城市群增长的主要引擎[22]。城市群是不仅是对外经济循环的门户,更是国内创新驱动经济增长引擎。研究发现,2000—2015年京津冀城市群创新综合水平逐步提升[23],长三角城市群知识生产与合作在城市群尺度和国家尺度分别起到了知识孵化器和合作枢纽的作用[24-25]。

2.3 作为“面”的城市群：区域协同发展

城市群不仅体现为地理邻近,更重要的是功能关联[26]。城市群想要实现对外开放门户和创新驱动,需要充分发挥其作为流空间中“面”要素的特性,打通“内部小循环”,实现区域协同。区域协同发展通常可以划分为3个阶段,从空间演变角度来看,区域协同的第一阶段核心—边缘特征明显,区域间贸易保护和市场分割较强,第二阶段区域空间形态从明显的分割结构向扁平化转变,最后进入协同发展阶段,空间形态转变为均质的扁平化阶段[27]。从内部联系和差异角度来看,区域协同发展通常经历缺乏联系、发展差异较大的“不同不和”阶段,区域间联系不断加强、差距相对缩小的“同而不和”阶段,以及区域间发展相对均衡,成为分工合理的利益共同体,即“和而不同”阶段[28]。传统以行业类型为特征的空间分工结构已经转向以价值区段为特征的空间经济结构[29],相应地,城市群职能分工正在从水平向垂直转变[30]。因此,除了空间形态和经济差异外,区域内产业链和价值链也逐渐受到关注[26,31]。对国内中原城市群的研究发现,其生产性服务业发育迟缓,专业化分工正在弱化,由此认为城市群内核心城市应加快发展高级生产性服务业,次级城市则应积极发展一般生产性服务业,其他城市可以错位打造特色制造业基地,实现价值链合理分工[26]。对京津冀城市群而言,研究发现北京的知识密集型职能专业化水平最高,生产制造职能最低,天津生产职能专业化水平最高,知识密集型职能仅次于北京,河北则在生产与知识密集型职能方面均不占优势[32]。京津冀城市群已经形成了价值链分工差异,但未能基于三地细分比较优势形成高效率的分工体系,“京津冀小循环”尚未打通。
在经济发展差异较大的情况下,实现价值链合理分工、打通内部循环的基础是要素在区域间充分、顺畅流动。现有研究对城市群之间和部分城市群内资本、知识和专利技术等的流动进行了刻画[23,33 -34]。研究发现北京、天津和唐山是京津冀创业风险投资的三中心,且创业风险投资在城市间的流动呈现出网络性和向心性,对周边城市有一定带动作用,但京津冀金融环境和服务业水平发展滞后,创新成果转化和资金吸引能力较弱[33]。还有研究基于论文合著数据研究了粤港澳大湾区城市群知识多中心演化的过程,揭示了知识在城市群间流动的机制,发现制度邻近、地理邻近和等级邻近对知识多中心演化具有重要影响[35]。基于专利转移的研究发现东北三省技术转移格局呈现等级、接触和跳跃式混合扩散模式,显示出核心—边缘结构,技术流动既存在路径依赖,也表现出路径创造模式[34]。上述研究表明当前中国城市群内要素流动仍存在一定障碍,从而制约了区域价值链合理分工进程。
综上,本文将首先判断京津冀城市群在“外循环”与“内循环”中的价值链分工地位,识别其中存在的问题;进一步考察京津冀城市群在“国内大循环”中的价值链分工与要素市场地位;最后通过要素流动与经济联系等探究“京津冀小循环”,即京津冀协同发展现状;进而提出如何在“双循环”新格局下推动京津冀高质量协同发展,实现创新驱动转型的政策建议,研究框架如图1所示。
图1 研究框架

Fig. 1 Research framework

Full size|PPT slide

3 数据与研究方法

3.1 数据来源

贸易数据来源于2000—2020年《中国海关进出口贸易数据库》,该数据包含详细的企业代码、企业所在地、产品类别、产品进出口额等。本文首先将产品代码统一到2007年版本,然后根据Manova等[36]的方法剔除仅从事代理报关业务的贸易公司。投入产出表数据来自《2012年中国31省区市区域间投入产出表》[37]。专利转移数据来自国家知识产权局的2005—2018年专利数据。城市间风险投资数据由清科私募通2000—2019年企业风险投资事件加总到城市尺度得到。京津冀三地GDP和人口数据来自《中国城市统计年鉴》,城市间最短公路里程数据来自百度地图⑤(⑤查询两城市间驾车最短里程得到,网址为https://map.baidu.com/。)。

3.2 研究方法

产品出口反映了区域制造生产能力,在后疫情时代,以制造业为核心的实体经济不仅决定区域经济增长,更决定了区域应对外部危机的能力。制造业发展也是北京市乃至京津冀城市群参与全球竞争的关键问题。因此,本文在“外循环”部分主要通过出口数据考察京津冀城市群相较于其他地区参与全球价值链的程度与分工优势。在“内循环”部分,本文除了考察京津冀在国内的价值链分工,还通过要素流动考察了其对国内其他城市的辐射作用。最后,通过京津冀内部要素流动情况和城市联系等探究了北京对天津和河北的带动作用及三地协同发展现状。

3.2.1 “外循环”研究方法

（1）计算出口产品和出口市场比较优势。出口产品或出口市场比较优势计算方法为：
RCAc,i=Expc,i/∑iExpc,i∑cExpc,i/∑c,iExpc,i
（1）
式中：c代表城市或者城市群;i代表产品类别或者市场类型;Expc, i代表c地区i产品对i市场的出口额。如果RCAc, i大于1,则说明c地区出口i产品或出口到i市场具有比较优势,反之则不具备比较优势。
（2）根据出口产品技术复杂度确定其技术定位。产品技术复杂度数据来源于Hidalgo等开发的经济复杂度观测网站⑥(⑥网址为https://oec.world/。),取所有产品技术复杂度的四分位数,将产品划分为低、中低、中高和高技术出口产品。
（3）构建京津冀生产知识网络。生产不同产品需要的劳动力、土地、资本、技术、制度和原料均不相同,因此产品是其产地生产知识和能力的综合表征[38]。本文通过构建产品空间表征京津冀生产知识网络。产品空间是由作为节点的产品和作为边的产品关联构成的,产品关联是指两种产品对劳动力、技术、制度和资本等生产要素组合需求的相似性[38]。构建产品空间的核心为计算产品关联,本文采用郭琪等[39]的方法,计算公式为：
∅i,j,t=minPVcit>0|Vcjt>0,PVcjt>0|Vcit>0
（2）
式中：c代表出口企业;i和j代表HS四位数出口产品。如果c企业在t年出口了产品i,Vcit取值为1,否则为0。为计算出的产品关联尽量准确,本文以2000—2016年中国出口产品数据做出全国产品空间,然后叠加京津冀出口产品额得到京津冀出口产品空间。产品空间中绝大多数产品间是弱关联[38,40],为保证纳入产品空间网络的是真正意义上具有关联的产品组合,本文以产品间技术关联的99%分位数作为门槛值,剔除 ∅i,j小于0.33的关联,产品空间中共保留456个产品、6906个关联。

3.2.2 “国内大循环”研究方法

（1）绘制各城市群价值链分布图。投入产出表数据将产业划分为42种类型,首先将42类产业划分为高、中、低附加值3类,高附加值产业包括科学研究和技术服务、金融、信息传输、软件和信息技术服务等7类;中附加值产业包括通用设备、电气机械和器材、教育等6类;低附加值产业包括农林牧渔产品和服务、石油和天然气开采产品、纺织品等29类。然后根据各城市群在上述产业中的总增加值作为其在对应价值链中的增加值,并计算价值链分布占比。
（2）构建京津冀城市群与其他城市专利网络。本文将京津冀视为整体,利用社会网络分析方法构建京津冀城市群和其他城市专利网络,并利用Gephi 0.9.2可视化,计算网络特征和节点性质,其中涉及的网络分析指标的含义与计算方法如表1所示。
表1 城市专利网络指标内涵、文中含义及计算方法

Tab. 1 The connotation, meaning and calculation method of the indicators of city patent network

指标名称 指标内涵 文中含义 计算方法
紧密中心性 节点可达性 城市与其他城市进行专利转移的难易程度 经过一个节点的平均最短路径长度的倒数
中介中心性 节点对通过路径的控制能力 城市在专利转移网络中的中转和衔接能力 经过一个节点的最短路径的数量
度/出度/入度 节点连通度 与某一城市产生专利联系的城市数量/城市对外转出专利/接受转入专利的城市数量 连接一个节点的边数量/从节点发出的边的数量/连入节点的边的数量
加权度/加权出度/加权入度 节点加权连通度 城市专利联系数量/城市转出专利数量/转入专利数量 将城市间专利数量作为权重对度/出度/入度加权得到
网络密度 网络中节点连接的紧密程度 全国城市专利联系的紧密程度 网络中真实存在联系与可能存在联系数量的比值
（3）构建中国创业风险投资网络。本文将创业风险投资事件数据加总到城市尺度,利用城市网络分析方法构建中国创业风险投资网络。

3.2.3 “京津冀小循环”研究方法

“京津冀小循环”部分研究方法与上述方法一致,涉及的其他方法主要为计算京津冀城市经济联系与经济隶属度。区域经济联系是衡量区域内经济一体化程度的指标,可以反映中心城市对周边城市的辐射能力和周边城市对中心城市辐射的接受程度[41];经济隶属度反映了城市对另一城市的经济依赖性。本文参考孙久文等[41]的方法,采用空间引力模型计算京津冀13个城市间经济联系强度和经济隶属度,计算公式为：
Ri,j,t=Pi,t×Gi,t×Pj,t×Gj,tDi,j2,Fi,j,t=Ri,j,t∑i=1nRi,j,t
（3）
式中：Ri, j, t表示t年城市i和城市j间的经济联系强度;Pi, t为城市户籍人口;Gi, t为城市GDP;Di, j为城市间最短公路里程;Fi, j, t为j城市对i城市的经济隶属度。

4 京津冀城市群在“双循环”中的价值链分工及协同发展现状

4.1 “外循环”中的京津冀城市群

4.1.1 产品和市场比较优势

本文基于出口数据计算京津冀比较优势,展示了其在全球价值链中的产品分工（图2）。可以发现,京津冀城市群出口额最多的产品是机械制造这一高附加值产品,也是2001—2020年间京津冀主要的出口增长产品。但从比较优势来看,京津冀机械制造产品出口比较优势逐渐丧失。京津冀城市群其他产品出口额在2001—2020年均有提高,比较优势也略有提升。值得注意的是,京津冀城市群比较优势最高的产品是低附加值的矿产品,且其比较优势在20年间有所强化。
图2 京津冀城市群不同产品出口额与比较优势

Fig. 2 The export volume and export comparative advantages of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration

Full size|PPT slide

图3基于出口数据展示了京津冀城市群在世界市场中的比较优势,反映了其价值链地域联系。东亚、欧洲、东南亚、北美等传统经济发达地区是京津冀城市群的主要出口市场。2001—2020年间京津冀城市群在各出口市场中出口额稳步增长,在东南亚涨幅最大。但从比较优势来看,京津冀城市群在发达地区市场的出口优势丧失,其中欧洲出口优势下降幅度较大;而在东南亚、拉丁美洲、南亚等发展中地区出口优势增加,对新兴市场的开发较好,在拉丁美洲和撒哈拉以南非洲优势涨幅最大。总体来看,京津冀城市群在“外循环”中具有比较优势的产品和市场是附加值较低的边缘产品和新兴市场。
图3 京津冀城市群在各出口市场出口额与比较优势

Fig. 3 The export volume and export comparative advantages of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration in various export markets

Full size|PPT slide

4.1.2 出口产品技术分工

基于出口数据考察了中国主要城市群在“外循环”中的出口产品技术分工桑基图（图4）。总体来看,京津冀城市群相较于其他城市群在出口额和出口高技术产品方面处于劣势,且这种趋势在2001—2020年间逐渐加剧。研究时段内,京津冀高技术产品比较优势从0.66下降为0.60,中高技术比较优势从1.36下降到0.77。这表明京津冀城市群在“外循环”中相较于中国其他城市群,技术分工处于中低价值链地位。
图4 京津冀城市群在“外循环”中的技术分工

Fig. 4 Technology division of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration in the "national circulation"

Full size|PPT slide

4.1.3 生产知识网络演化

基于出口数据绘制京津冀产品空间,表征京津冀在“外循环”中的生产知识网络（图5）。生产知识网络中的产品越靠近核心密集区,表明其与其他产品关联性越强,所需的生产知识越丰富,通常处于价值链更高位置。2001—2020年京津冀城市群知识总量逐渐丰富,依靠核心区域的知识衍生出更多生产知识。然而,京津冀城市群的生产知识结构在研究时段内发生了较大变化。从2006年开始,核心区域的优势生产知识逐渐减少,到2020年时,京津冀城市群的优势生产知识基本分布在边缘。这说明该地区在“外循环”产业竞争力逐渐被其他地区超越,生产知识优势和价值链地位逐渐被挤压到边缘区域。
图5 京津冀城市群“外循环”知识网络演化
注：节点代表出口产品,节点大小代表出口额,颜色代表产品类别;三角形代表产品具有比较优势,圆形代表产品不具备比较优势;边的长短代表生产知识关联程度。

Fig. 5 The evolution of the "national circulation" knowledge network of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration

Full size|PPT slide

4.1.4 京津冀三地生产分工优势

2001年北京市的比较优势产品是中低技术和低技术产品,天津市比较优势产品是高技术和中高技术产品,河北省比较优势产品则为中高、中低和低技术产品（图6）。到2016年,北京市优势产品仅有低技术产品,且比较优势提高,说明北京市在“外循环”价值链生产环节中衰退较为严重,难以承担大规模高技术行业生产环节。而天津市优势产品仅有高技术产品,这意味着未来天津市具备承接京津冀城市群在“外循环”中高附加值产品制造的能力。河北省中高技术产品比较优势下降,而低技术产品比较优势上升。到2020年,北京市完全失去中高技术和高技术生产优势,天津和河北则具备了较强的高技术和中高技术生产能力。
图6 京津冀城市群“外循环”生产分工比较优势

Fig. 6 Comparative advantages of production division in "national circulation" of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration

Full size|PPT slide

4.2 “国内大循环”中京津冀城市群的功能与联系

4.2.1 价值链分布

根据《2012年中国31省区市区域间投入产出表》绘制三大城市群在战略新兴产业中的国内价值链分布（图7）,可以发现三大城市群的产品增加值占据了战略新兴产业各附加值环节的40%~50%,尤其是在金融、研发、软件技术服务等高附加值环节中,三大城市群增加值占中国增加值的48.45%。其中,长三角在各个环节的占比均为最高,且各环节分布均衡,珠三角虽然规模较大,但高附加值的研发实力相对较弱。京津冀城市群的增加值主要分布在高附加值环节,这是由于北京和天津分布着大量高校、科研院所和企业研发和售后中心,便于发展电子信息、软件服务等高附加值环节。但京津冀城市群高端产业的中低附加值环节与高附加值环节差距过大,内部形成了服务强、生产弱的不利局面,难以实现城市群内部循环畅通。
图7 三大城市群在战略新兴产业中的国内价值链分布

Fig. 7 The domestic value chain distribution of the three major urban agglomerations in emerging industries

Full size|PPT slide

进一步观察三大城市群在传统产业中的价值链分布（图8）,其主要分布在高附加值环节,达到70%以上,中低附加值环节则仅占35%。这表明在传统产业中,三大城市群更专注于技术研发、金融服务等环节,相对于战略新兴产业,更少涉足中低附加值环节,其他城市则因为三大城市群的高附加值环节生产能力过强难以进入该环节。京津冀城市群在传统产业中的高附加值生产优势在三大城市群中最弱,而中低附加值环节较强,表明京津冀在传统产业中没有附加值优势。
图8 三大城市群在传统产业中的国内价值链分布

Fig. 8 The domestic value chain distribution of the three major urban agglomerations in traditional industries

Full size|PPT slide

4.2.2 技术转移

本文选取2005—2018年专利转移数据衡量技术在京津冀城市群和中国其他地级市之间的转移情况（图9）。其中,由于2015年和2018年专利转移条目数激增,因此仅将当年城市间专利转移数大于10的数据纳入网络中。
图9 2005—2018年京津冀城市群与中国地级市专利转移
注：图中节点大小与其度中心性成正比;节点颜色越偏向红色表示加权出度越大,越偏向蓝色表示加权出度越小;边的粗细与节点间专利转移数量成正比。

Fig. 9 Patent transfer between Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration and prefecture-level cities of China in 2005-2018

Full size|PPT slide

2005—2018年京津冀城市群与中国地级市专利转移网络密度稳定提高（表2）,说明全国城市与京津冀城市群之间的技术联系越来越紧密。专利转移网络两极分化明显,京津冀城市群始终位于专利网络的中心,与网络中大部分节点都有直接联系,深圳、上海、广州等城市也处于专利网络中的核心地位。
表2 2005—2018年专利转移网络密度及京津冀城市群的节点性质

Tab. 2 The density of the patent transfer network and the node's properties of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration in 2005-2018

指标 2005年 2010年 2015年 2018年
紧密中心性 0.5468 0.6386 0.6797 0.8657
中介中心性 6560.94 14612.95 18214.40 10558.85
网络密度 0.028 0.036 0.085 0.204
度 79 166 338 473
入度 39 71 183 228
出度 40 95 155 245
加权度 293 1626 6670 15006
加权入度 129 474 3306 7574
加权出度 164 1152 3364 7432
出度/入度 1.0256 1.3380 0.8470 1.0746
京津冀在网络中的中介中心性在2015年前稳定上升,2018年有所下降,表明京津冀在专利转移网络中的中转和衔接能力有先上升、后下降趋势。京津冀城市群的网络紧密中心性不断提升,对其他城市专利转移能力增强。2005—2018年京津冀技术转入强度逐渐增大,直接接受京津冀技术转移的城市由2005年的40个增加到2018年的245个,转出专利数量从2005年的164个增加到2018年的7432个。研究时段内,京津冀接受专利转移的城市和专利数量也不断增加,2018年中国大部分城市都对京津冀进行了技术转移,当年京津冀接受专利转移数量也从129个增加到7574个。出度与入度的比值反映了京津冀在中国专利网络中的作用,总体来看,京津冀技术输出与输入基本持平。

4.2.3 资本流动

资本流动是“内循环”顺畅进行的重要方面。清科私募通企业风险投资数据显示,2000—2019年中国城市风险投资数波动上升,京津冀城市群的创业风险投资波动情况与全国基本保持一致,占比始终维持在20%以上（图10）,表明京津冀城市群在中国资本市场中始终占据核心地位。但其占比在2007年后波动较大,2007—2014年京津冀投资事件数占比保持稳定增长,但2014年后持续下降,这可能是因为《纲要》提出后,京津冀三地创业风险投资从全国逐步转移到城市群内部。
图10 京津冀创业风险投资事件数与投资数占比

Fig. 10 The proportion of national and Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei venture capital events and Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei investment

Full size|PPT slide

京津冀对其他城市投资净事件数总体为正,但表现不稳定（图11）。2010—2015年间净投资事件数较高,表明在此期间京津冀资本流出强度大于流入强度,在中国资本市场中为资本输出角色。2016—2019年京津冀在资本市场中的流入和流出基本持平,这可能也与《纲要》的提出有关。
图11 2000—2019年京津冀对其他城市投资净事件数

Fig. 11 Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration's net investment events to other cities in 2000-2019

Full size|PPT slide

中国创业风险投资网络显示,京津冀、长三角和珠三角城市群在投资网络中呈现“三足鼎立”的空间格局,成渝城市群的投资活力也逐渐显现（图12）。2000—2014年京津冀仅与长三角、珠三角和成都投资联系较强,随后,厦门、武汉等城市也进入了京津冀投资强度的第一梯队。与京津冀资本联系位于第二梯队的城市从2000年之初的东南沿海城市逐渐增加了西部和东北部城市,京津冀与东南沿海的资本联系也大幅增强,相较于长三角和珠三角地区,京津冀的投资空间范围更加广泛。总的来说,京津冀在“国内大循环”中占据了高附加值环节的主导地位,集聚了全国的人力资源、技术和资本等生产要素,发挥着产业链上游的研发技术和资本输出的角色,但辐射能力仍然有限。
图12 2000—2019年中国创业风险投资网络
注：基于自然资源部标准地图服务网站GS(2020)4619号的标准地图制作,底图边界无修改。

Fig. 12 National venture capital network in China in 2000-2019

Full size|PPT slide

4.3 “京津冀小循环”中的三地协同发展现状

在《纲要》对京津冀三省功能定位的指导下,北京应将其专利创新成果转移到天津进行制造生产,河北则作为物流基地,同时北京向天津和河北疏解一般制造业等非首都功能。

4.3.1 京津冀三地生产知识网络结构

图13展示了2020年北京、天津和河北的生产知识网络结构,反映了三地的产业结构和优势产业。从产业总体结构来看,北京和天津有较强的同构现象,其产品集中于生产知识网络的右侧核心部分和下侧边缘部分,主要产业为纺织业、机械制品及零件和金属制品等。河北和北京、天津的产业组成有较大差异,主要集中在生产知识网络中心部分的陶瓷与玻璃制品、塑料和橡胶制品等产业。从优势产业来看,北京和天津的优势产业形成了一定区分,北京主要以发电机、电气与通讯工具、机械制品等为优势,天津在此基础上还发展出化学工业、交通工具等优势产业。河北虽然产业结构丰富程度不及北京和天津,但其产业优势较为明显,金属制品、纺织业等优势均较为显著。总体来看,三地产业存在同构现象,暂未形成合理的分工优势。
图13 2020年京津冀三地知识网络结构
注：节点代表出口产品,节点大小代表出口额,颜色代表产品类别;三角形代表产品具有比较优势,圆形代表产品没有比较优势,边的长短代表生产知识关联程度。

Fig. 13 Knowledge network structure of Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei in 2020

Full size|PPT slide

4.3.2 北京向天津、河北的技术转移

基于专利转移数据展示了2004—2018年北京市向天津、河北转移的专利数量（图14,2004年前转移数量为0）。2004—2013年北京向天津和河北转移专利总数始终不超过100个,2014年略有提升,总数达到200个。2015年《纲要》通过,伴随着以市场化方式开展知识产权运营服务试点在京建设,北京向天津和河北转移专利数量激增,2018年转移总数达到927个,其中向天津转移407个,且对天津和河北的专利转移数量占对全国的比例也在波动中上升。这说明《纲要》实施鼓励了北京向天津和河北转移技术。
图14 2004—2018年北京向天津和河北转移专利数量

Fig. 14 Number of patents transferred from Beijing to Tianjin and Hebei in 2004-2018

Full size|PPT slide

专利转移弦图显示与北京技术联系强度较大的城市由保定、石家庄逐渐演变为天津、廊坊和唐山,技术转移空间分布很不均衡（图15）。保定在1968年前是河北省省会,拥有较强的产业技术和与首都密切的经济联系,随时间推移,其历史遗留优势消失。省会城市石家庄则由于其产业基础相对单一,且与北京地理距离较远,导致其与北京技术联系较弱。但其作为省会,技术联系更加广泛,与省内大多数城市均有技术联系。与北京地理距离较近的廊坊和经济副中心天津、传统重工业城市唐山则逐渐成为与北京技术联系紧密的城市。
图15 2001—2018年京津冀城市间专利转移强度弦图

Fig. 15 Chord diagram of patent transfer inside Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration in 2001-2018

Full size|PPT slide

4.3.3 北京对天津、河北的投资

2000—2019年北京对天津和河北的创业风险投资总量稳定增长,投资城市从仅有唐山、天津两城市扩展到京津冀全域（图16）。其中,北京对天津的投资数量最多,2015—2019年的544个投资事件中天津为340件（表3）,其次是石家庄,为69件,唐山也是北京投资的主要目的地。
图16 2000—2019年北京和天津对京津冀城市创业风险投资事件数

Fig. 16 Number of venture investment events of Beijing and Tianjin to cities in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region in 2000-2019

Full size|PPT slide

表3 2000—2019年北京对天津和河北的投资强度

Tab. 3 Beijing's investment intensity in Tianjin and Hebei in 2000-2019

年份 2000—2004 2005—2009 2010—2014 2015—2019
对天津、河北的投资事件总数(件) 3 45 187 544
对全国的投资事件数(件) 209 891 4709 13382
对天津、河北的投资强度(%) 1.44 5.05 3.97 4.07
但从投资强度来看,2005年后北京对天津、河北的投资占对中国总投资的百分比保持低水平稳定,在4%~5%左右。这说明北京暂未将天津、河北作为其资本转移的首选目的地,其资本流出仍然集中在长三角、珠三角等企业活力较高、投资前景较大的地区。

4.3.4 京津冀城市经济联系与隶属度

选取北京、天津为京津冀一级中心城市,石家庄、唐山为次级中心城市[42],计算2014年与2018年京津冀其他城市与中心城市的经济联系与经济隶属度。2014年京津冀城市间经济联系呈现出明显的核心—边缘特征,北京、天津和廊坊市经济联系较强,处于经济核心位置,其他城市为边缘城市。北京和天津与周边城市的经济联系和隶属度明显高于其他城市,而石家庄和唐山暂未显示出对周边城市的强经济引力。到2018年,城市间经济联系均有显著提升,但核心—边缘特征仍未改变（表4）,北京和天津对周边城市的经济集聚效应持续提升,经济隶属度相较于2014年更高。总的来说,京津冀次级中心城市的经济引力并未发挥出来,以北京和天津为核心的经济中心逐渐强化。
表4 2018年京津冀城市经济联系与经济隶属度

Tab. 4 Economic ties and economic subordination between cities in Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei in 2018

北京 天津 石家庄 唐山
经济联系 经济隶属度(%) 经济联系 经济隶属度(%) 经济联系 经济隶属度(%) 经济联系 经济隶属度(%)
天津 1873.89 39.63
石家庄 184.89 14.55 111.68 8.79
唐山 457.22 30.70 604.51 40.59 33.69 2.26
秦皇岛 52.81 8.87 44.56 7.48 5.53 0.93 70.07 11.76
邯郸 62.98 4.99 42.05 3.33 170.79 13.52 13.77 1.09
邢台 54.04 4.02 41.69 3.10 246.22 18.32 10.95 0.82
保定 576.85 33.32 285.49 16.49 278.84 16.11 56.27 3.25
张家口 146.27 48.16 36.60 12.05 14.55 4.79 14.65 4.82
承德 94.80 27.78 37.38 10.96 6.94 2.03 52.55 15.40
沧州 280.95 18.41 644.23 42.21 78.80 5.16 74.81 4.90
廊坊 2733.06 65.96 935.70 22.58 37.71 0.91 86.47 2.09
衡水 75.09 13.81 70.54 12.97 100.76 18.53 14.29 2.63

5 “双循环”背景下京津冀高质量协同发展优化建议

上述分析表明,京津冀城市群在“国内大循环”中占据战略新兴产业价值链较高地位,具备发展创新产业的知识和要素基础。但在“外循环”中京津冀城市群相较于国内其他城市群在出口额、产品附加值和生产能力中都较弱。进一步探究发现,京津冀内部发展差距大,分工不明确,因此“小循环”尚未打通,这也是其在“外循环”中辐射能力较弱的重要原因。基于此,本文认为京津冀应以推动水平知识链、梯度创新链为核心,构建联系紧密的上下游产业链,建立创新产业地域综合体,推动城市群向价值链高附加值环节攀升,实现内部高质量协同发展。具体来说,京津冀城市群在“内、外循环”中应进行优势互补型的分工优化。

5.1 “内循环”中京津冀协同发展分工格局

在“内循环”中京津冀已经处于战略新兴产业中高端价值链地位,应继续发展战略新兴产业相关生产知识,如发展金融、商贸等高端服务业以及人工智能、新能源、新材料、现代交通和节能环保等高端制造业,继续向价值链高端攀升。具体来说,北京重点发展产业所需的创新研发知识,天津和河北则基于其产业基础发展相关生产知识,同时注重北京研发知识向天津和河北转移,推动京津冀内部形成关联多样化的水平知识链和梯度创新链,建成创新产业地域综合体。以此为支撑,京津冀在“国内大循环”中可以逐步形成具有辐射影响力的知识中心,成为梯度创新链的第一梯队,在更大范围内发展相关产业,带动华北、东北区域价值链提升。
北京已经失去生产优势,因此应依照其在《纲要》中的定位,继续深化其创新驱动能力,重点发展金融、技术研发服务等创新产业,依托中关村科技园及其各分园建立创新产业生态链。天津和河北两地应充分利用北京市非首都功能疏解的契机,补足高端制造能力并提升重点产业竞争力。就天津而言,其已经拥有强大的制造业基础,专利研发能力在城市群中具有竞争力和辐射能力,因此可以承接北京中高端产业制造环节和部分中端产业研发环节转移,如通用设备制造业、运输设备制造业、废弃资源综合利用业,打造区域性研发辐射中心和中国高端制造业中心。河北则可以依托北京产业疏解和教育、公共服务等功能疏解,建立高技术产业园区,对其已有的能源材料工业等传统产业进行技术更新和结构转型,同时承接北京向外转移的中端价值链生产环节,注重与京津相关产业链的衔接分工。此外,河北应打造京津冀与全国进行商贸联系的枢纽,充分发挥其腹地优势,建成中国物流商贸基地,形成基于价值链分工的“北京研发—天津高端制造—河北物流服务”的协同效应。

5.2 “外循环”中京津冀协同发展分工格局

京津冀在“外循环”中仍处于知识网络和出口市场中的边缘位置,因此,要提升其在“外循环”中的价值链地位、突破现有市场约束,应从提升其知识链融合和产业链协同入手,促进核心技术竞争力提升,在知识网络核心位置发展出相关多样化知识。实现知识链融合提升的核心是打造紧密联系、相互溢出的区域协同关系。北京仍应发挥三地研发知识集聚溢出地作用,加强自身研发的同时,积极通过专利转移、风险投资等方式将技术和资本对天津和河北转移。河北在“外循环”中应充分发挥其充足的土地资源优势,吸纳北京知识转出,对本地产业链进行“强链”、同时发挥为天津和北京“补链”的辅助性生产作用,发展综合性制造业。
此外,京津冀要实现“外循环”畅通还应从打通世界市场海上通道入手。天津是“外循环”中提升产品竞争力和打通贸易通道的关键,天津应在提升自身研发强度,承接高端制造业的同时,依托其华北、西北地区的广大港口腹地优势,建立东北亚重要航运中心,以东北亚市场为锚,开辟远洋航线,向其他亚洲地区和更广阔的新兴和发达国家市场发展贸易,增强城市群国际贸易韧性。天津还可以依托其国内航运港口影响力,发展物流仓储等港口经济,为以北京为核心的高端商品进出口发挥更大作用。最终京津冀形成“外循环”中基于知识转移、市场开拓的“北京创新集聚溢出—河北综合制造—天津研发、航运”的协同格局。

5.3 京津冀协同发展与“内外循环互动”

“内、外循环”虽然对京津冀协同发展分工模式有不同的要求,但从根本上看,其都要求京津冀三地增强知识流动,具体表现为北京部分中高端研发环节和中低端产业生产环节向天津、河北转移,专利、资本等创新驱动要素从北京向城市群内其他城市充分流动。城市群总体应鼓励与现有地区本底生产知识相关联的新产业出现,将知识链向知识网络核心区域升级,逐渐构建密集相关多样化的产业知识结构。不同的是,天津和河北在“内、外循环”中分别承担了对外商贸枢纽角色,即河北应建设成为国内物流基地,而天津着力打造具有世界影响力的航运中心,推动京津冀国际市场拓展。在此过程中,“内循环”可能在城市群驱动下首先得到强化,向创新产业地域综合体迈进,随后将其创新成果以产业链升级带动产品技术升级的形式反哺“外循环”。
具体来说,京津冀当前的政策导向应偏重于如下方面：① 发挥北京生产性服务业优势,为创新成果在城市群内部转化提供资金和人才。借力生产性服务业资本和人才优势,推动三地高端创新要素合理配置,实现创新驱动型经济增长。② 通过公司内组织网络空间重组,将北京的人才和资本携带专利在天津和河北转化。推动企业创新成果在城市群内转化和孵化的同时,通过示范效应和溢出效应,带动天津河北自主创新能力提升。③ 延长战略新兴产业垂直产业链并升级水平知识链,在城市群内构建创新产业地域综合体,实现价值链整体升级。

6 结论与讨论

本文以中国海关进出口数据、全国投入产出表、城市间风险投资、专利转移数据等为基础,系统梳理了京津冀城市群在“外循环”和“国内大循环”中的地位和功能以及“京津冀小循环”发展现状与特征,主要结论如下：① 相较于长三角和珠三角,京津冀在“外循环”中价值链地位相对较弱,没有形成世界级城市群应有的功能定位;② 京津冀城市群在国内大循环中发挥了研发服务中心的功能,占据了高附加值环节,且集聚了全国大量的技术和资本等生产要素,尤其发挥了技术交换和资本输出的角色,但吸引和辐射能力有限;③ 京津冀在《纲要》发布后协同发展能力较以往有较大提升,专利转移、投资联系和经济联系等提升明显,但其城市群内部投资和专利转移强度仍然较低,以城市群与中国其他城市联系为主,区域间要素和经济联系仍然不均衡,核心—边缘结构显著。本文认为,京津冀城市群应在“内、外循环”中分别打造“北京研发—天津高端制造—河北物流服务”协同格局和“北京创新集聚溢出—河北综合制造—天津研发、航运”分工模式,通过产业链升级促进“内循环”,并以其产品升级结果反哺“外循环”,实现国际市场突破。
京津冀城市群在“外循环”和“内循环”价值链中扮演了完全不同的角色。“外循环”中京津冀处于价值链分工的中低环节,且优势出口知识从知识网络核心区逐渐移向边缘。“内循环”中京津冀则占据了战略新兴产业的高价值链环节,展现出金融、研发、技术服务等方面的优势,与国内各要素市场的联系也愈发紧密,成为资本输出高地。京津冀城市群以“创新驱动发展经济增长新引擎”为定位,但本文发现,由于北京的专利技术难以在城市群内部转化,导致其“有创新”但“未驱动”,从而难以在“外循环”中获得优势。因此京津冀城市群在“双循环”中呈现出“向内看”大于“向外看”的特点。
此外,从地区关系来看,京津冀在“内、外循环”中均表现出了对新兴市场和外围地区开发大于对传统市场和核心地区开发的特征。在世界市场中,京津冀城市群对拉丁美洲、撒哈拉以南非洲和大洋洲等新兴市场优势上升,而在传统欧美市场中优势下降。在国内要素市场中,京津冀投资范围更为广泛,向西部、东北部的投资明显大于长三角和珠三角地区。京津冀城市群尤其是北京存在大量国有企业,因此,京津冀城市群在“内、外循环”中边缘市场和地区的优势一方面来自其创新驱动不足,另一方面也受到政府意志国有资本影响。
面对全球化收缩趋势,中国提出建立“双循环”发展新格局具有重要战略意义。“双循环”新格局下,地区延伸价值链,构建不同尺度高度分工协作的产业链是核心。京津冀作为国家级城市群,在构建新发展格局的“国内大循环”中具有引领价值链、聚集生产要素和溢出知识等重要作用。在构建新发展格局过程中,也会促进“京津冀小循环”畅通,实现京津冀高质量协同发展。本文认为,在推动“双循环”新格局过程中,京津冀实现高质量协同发展应从知识联系出发,并在“内循环”“外循环”和“内、外循环”3个层次中通过专利、资本转移等方式,促进三地形成知识本底相互关联的多样化知识,形成水平知识链。北京研发成果应尽量在城市群内部转化为生产,保证研发端与制造端地理邻近,在不同层次中进行不同方向的创新成果转移,形成梯度创新链,进而构建京津冀联系紧密、有机互动的垂直产业链。

参考文献

列表( 原文顺序 | 文献年度倒序 | 文中引用次数倒序 ) 可视化分析
[1]
Jiang Xiaojuan, Meng Lijun. Mainly inner circulation, outer circulation empowerment and higher level double circulation: International experience and Chinese practice. Journal of Management World, 2021, 37(1): 1-19.
[江小涓, 孟丽君. 内循环为主、外循环赋能与更高水平双循环: 国际经验与中国实践. 管理世界, 2021, 37(1): 1-19.]
本文引用 [1]
[2]
Yang Wenlong, You Xiaojun, Du Debin. The evolutionary properties and functions of the geo-economic system from the perspective of global commodity trade network. Geographical Research, 2021, 40(2): 356-372.
https://doi.org/10.11821/dlyj020200010
摘要

Since the financial crisis, the world economy has emerged as geo-economy and showed network features. To expand and deepen the research paradigm of geo-economic system, a systematic and dynamic perspective is needed to explore its intrinsic properties and the operating law. Considering the importance of the commodity trade in measuring geo-economic system, this perspective provides an effective path to study the geo-economic system. In this paper, we constructed an analytical framework of geo-economic system on the basis of System Dynamics to examine the evolutionary properties, functional levels and types of the global geo-economic system from 1996 to 2016 from the perspective of global commodity trade network. The result shows that, firstly, in terms of the attribute features, geo-economic system has the small world property. Its evolution is conjugated with the development of the world economy. The scale-free property of degree gradually disappears, and the construction of geo-economic relations is balanced. The scale-free property of weighted degree is significant, and the increase in the number of intermediate-order countries optimizes the weight-degree fractal structure. Geo-economic system belongs to the mismatch network. Geo-economic links follow the selection mechanism and tends to weaken. Secondly, in terms of the functional level, geo-economic system presents a strong relationship-dependent effect and the third-party effect. The association between the weighted degree centrality and eigenvector centrality is the highest and displays a spatial match, both of which gradually form a spatial pattern of East-West parallelism with China and the US acting as two cores. The betweenness centrality and the closeness centrality show spatial homogenization. The quantity distribution of its function type presents a “pyramid” structure, indicating the power of countries in the world economy, while spatially three core-periphery clusters show a “circle” structure. The competitiveness of the central geo-economic zone increased. The network structure of the transformation geo-economic zone is diverse and complicated. The function level of some countries in the general geo-economic zone leaped, while the isolated geo-economic zone remains stable. Natural geospatial separation, national socio-economic development, the interaction and coupling among functional zones are important factors driving the spatial evolution of geo-economic functional zones.

[杨文龙, 游小珺, 杜德斌. 商品贸易网络视角下地缘经济系统的属性与功能演进. 地理研究, 2021, 40(2): 356-372.]
https://doi.org/10.11821/dlyj020200010
本文引用 [1] 摘要
金融危机以来,世界经济发生了深刻变革。“区域化、集团化、碎片化”逐渐取代经济全球化成为国际社会最为活跃的内容,以“地缘”为基础的经济板块日益涌现。本文结合系统动力学理论构建地缘经济系统的分析框架,从商品贸易网络的研究视角,对1996—2016年地缘经济系统的属性特征、功能等级的演进过程深入分析,得出如下结果。① 在属性特征演进层面,地缘经济系统具备小世界性,其变化趋势与世界经济局势的阶段性发展共轭;商品贸易网络度分布的无标度性逐渐消失,地缘经济关系呈均衡化,而权重度的无标度性显著,中间位序的国家数量增多使权重度分形结构趋于优化;商品贸易网络属于异配型网络,地缘经济系统遵循择优选择机制但趋向弱化。② 在功能等级演进层面,地缘经济系统具有较强的关系依赖性,第三国效应凸显;商品贸易网络的权重度中心性与特征向量中心性的关联度最高且空间同配,逐步形成以中美为核心的东西并立格局,介数中心性和接近中心性呈现空间均质化发展态势;功能类型在数量特征上呈“金字塔”型结构,在空间分布上形成三个“核心-边缘”集聚的“圈层结构”,核心型地缘经济区之间的竞争性强化,中转型地缘经济区的联系网络呈复杂化,一般型地缘经济区的部分国家出现等级跃升,孤立型地缘经济区保持稳定。③ 自然地理空间分异、国家社会经济发展、不同功能区的交互耦合是地缘经济功能区空间演进的重要因素。
[3]
Wang Yiming. Changes unseen in a century, high-quality development, and the construction of a new development pattern. Management World, 2020, 36(12): 1-13.
[王一鸣. 百年大变局、高质量发展与构建新发展格局. 管理世界, 2020, 36(12): 1-13.]
本文引用 [1]
[4]
Yu Miaojie. Great changes and dual circulation development pattern. Journal of Shanghai University of International Business and Economics, 2020, 27(6): 19-28.
[余淼杰. “大变局”与中国经济“双循环”发展新格局. 上海对外经贸大学学报, 2020, 27(6): 19-28.]
本文引用 [1]
[5]
Zhang Xuehua, Xu Wenbo, Zhang Baoan. Pre-evaluation of the role of Xiongan new district in the low carbon synergy development of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration. Economic Geography, 2020, 40(3): 16-23, 83.
[张雪花, 许文博, 张宝安. 雄安新区对京津冀城市群低碳协同发展促进作用预评估. 经济地理, 2020, 40(3): 16-23, 83.]
本文引用 [1]
[6]
Liu Weidong. The impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on the development of economic globalization. Geographical Research, 2020, 39(7): 1439-1449.
https://doi.org/10.11821/dlyj020200514
摘要

The COVID-19 pandemic is considered the biggest crisis confronted with the world after the Second World War, which has brought huge impacts on people’s health and daily life, economic growth and employment as well as national and international governance. Increasing pessimism is buzzing among scholars, critics, entrepreneurs, the mass and even government officials, and views like the end of economic globalization, large-scale spatial restructuring of global supply chains and fundamental change of the world economic governance structure are becoming prevailing on the media. This paper tries to address the issue of the development trend of economic globalization in the post-pandemic era by developing a framework of globalization’s Triangle Structure to understand its dynamics in addition to a summary of the on-going impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. We argue that the spatial fix of capital accumulation, time-space compression led by technological advance and openness of nations are the three major drivers of economic globalization, and the changes and interactions of these three drivers decide the development trend of economic globalization. From such a dynamic viewpoint, economic globalization is an ever-changing integration process without an end but constant fluctuations. The cost of decoupling of nations from globalization would be very huge because they have been highly integrated by global production networks and trade networks and no nation can afford a complete decoupling. The so-called de-globalization phenomena are just short-term adjusting strategies of nations to cope with power reconfigurations brought by economic globalization. The pandemic will have little impacts, or probably nothing, on the spatial fix of capital accumulation and time-space compression led by technological advance, but may temporarily influence some nations' openness. If the pandemic does not last long, economic globalization will resume from the shock soon after the world goes back to normal, and develop and restructure according to its own dynamics. Thus, we tend to believe the pandemic at most slams the brake of globalization and would not be able to put it into reverse. Economic globalization will not stop or reverse, but develop towards a more inclusive stage.

[刘卫东. 新冠肺炎疫情对经济全球化的影响分析. 地理研究, 2020, 39(7): 1439-1449.]
https://doi.org/10.11821/dlyj020200514
本文引用 [1] 摘要
新冠肺炎疫情是第二次世界大战以来世界面临的最大危机,给世界带来巨大的冲击,包括人们的心理和生活、经济增长与就业、国家治理及世界治理等。这些影响使很多学者、评论家、大众、企业家乃至政府官员产生了非常悲观的情绪,舆论中不乏经济全球化将终结、全球供应链将大规模调整、世界治理格局将彻底改变等言论。本文通过建立“全球化的三角结构”剖析了经济全球化的动力机制,并结合疫情对世界的主要影响,试图揭示后疫情时代经济全球化的走势。我们认为,资本的“空间出路”、技术的“时空压缩”和国家的开放程度是驱动经济全球化的三个基本力量,这三者的变化及其相互作用结果影响着全球化进程。从动力机制看,全球化是一个没有终点且不断变化的历史过程,它不会倒退,而是波动。过去半个世纪以来,世界各国已经被全球化紧密地联系在一起,相互脱钩的代价极其昂贵,没有国家会选择完全脱钩。所谓的逆全球化现象,是全球化发展过程中世界格局变化及各国应对策略调整的结果。新冠肺炎疫情并不能影响全球化的资本和技术驱动力,但是可能影响国家的开放程度。如果疫情持续时间不是很长,经济全球化将很快会回归原有的发展轨迹,继续进行调整。各国也将继续围绕经济全球化进行斗争、妥协、再斗争,直至形成一个相对稳定的状态。因此,经济全球化可能因为应对疫情而踩下急刹车,甚至暂退半步,但很快将继续前行,向着“包容性全球化”的方向发展。
[7]
Gereffi G, Kaplinsky R. The Value of Value Chains: Spreading the Gains from Globalisation. Brighton: IDS Bulletin, 2001.
本文引用 [1]
[8]
Humphrey J, Schmitz H. How does insertion in global value chains affect upgrading in industrial clusters? Regional Studies, 2002, 36(9): 1017-1027.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340022000022198
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0034340022000022198
本文引用 [1]
[9]
Shen Jianfei. Distribution activities, market segmentation and depth of production fragmentation in domestic value chain. Finance & Trade Economics, 2018, 39(9): 89-104, 121.
[沈剑飞. 流通活动、市场分割与国内价值链分工深度. 财贸经济, 2018, 39(9): 89-104, 121.]
本文引用 [1]
[10]
Wang Jieyu, Guo Qi, Zhou Yi, et al. Impact of market segmentation on growth of manufacturing industry in China:Regional and industrial differences. Progress in Geography, 2013, 32(11): 1592-1601.
https://doi.org/10.11820/dlkxjz.2013.11.002
摘要
Since the reform and opening-up policies first started, China has experienced rapid economic growth. From 1979 to 2011, average annual growth for China's GDP is nearly 10 percent. Economic growth is always the focus of attention of the general public. Economic theories emphasize that the quality and quantities of the input factors affect economic growth. With the development of economic geography, the new economic geography, represented by Krugman, provides a new direction for the study of economic growth. Under the framework of imperfect competition and increasing returns to scale, new economic geography takes the geographic factors into the mainstream economics to explain the phenomenon of spatial agglomeration and diffusion. At present, China is in a special period of economic transition. On the one hand, due to the tax reform, administrative decentralization and the economic performance evaluation system for local officials by the central government, market segmentation in China is serious, manifested by regional malignant competition, redundant construction and local protection. On the other hand, in recent years, China promulgated a number of regional development plans to coordinate the regional development, and urban agglomeration has become the leading area of economic development. Why market segmentation exists in some regions, but regional integration exists in some other regions? Considering the differences in market segmentation and the differences in economic growth, we can't help but wonder how market segmentation affects economic growth and whether the relationship between the two changes from region to region, and from industry to industry. Solving these problems is of great significance to the current situation of China's economic growth. In this paper, based on the actual situation of China's regional economic development, we study the impact of market segmentation, characteristic of China's economic transition period, on economic growth.We focus on the differences among the regions and industries and take the manufacturing industry as the breakthrough point. In the frame of new growth theory and new economic geography, this paper constructs a linear model for the impact of market segmentation on economic growth. And from different geographic scales, the market segmentation is divided into international market segmentation, domestic market segmentation and geographic segmentation. Our study resulted in a panel data model based on manufacturing industries data from 2003 to 2009. By estimating random effects, the results were robust to prove that: (1) international market segmentation and geographic segmentation have significant impact on the growth of manufacturing industry in China. (2) In terms of regional differences, the growth of manufacturing industry is more sensitive to international market segmentation and geographic location segmentation in Eastern China, more sensitive to geographic location segmentation and topography segmentation in Central China, and more sensitive to geographic topography segmentation in Western China, respectively. (3) As far as industrial differences are concerned, international market segmentation, geographic topography segmentation and domestic market segmentation each has significant effect on labor intensive industry, capital intensive industry and technology intensive industry, respectively. Thus, for the specific type of region or industry, reducing the specific type of market segmentation is of great importance for the economic development in the future.
[王洁玉, 郭琪, 周沂, 等. 市场分割对中国制造业增长的影响: 区域与产业差异. 地理科学进展, 2013, 32(11): 1592-1601.]
https://doi.org/10.11820/dlkxjz.2013.11.002
本文引用 [1] 摘要
本文从中国区域经济发展的实际情况出发,以制造业为切入点,研究转型时期特有的市场分割现象对经济增长的影响,并关注这一影响的区域与产业差异。在新增长理论和新经济地理学框架下,将不同地理尺度上的市场分割分为国际市场分割、国内市场分割和地理分割,构建了市场分割对经济增长影响的线性模型。以中国2003-2009 年制造业数据为基础建立城市面板模型,采用随机效应估计进行研究。结果表明：① 3 种市场分割中,国际市场分割、地理分割对中国制造业增长影响显著。② 从区域差异来看,对东部地区制造业增长影响显著的是国际分割和地理区位上的分割；对中部地区制造业增长影响显著的是地理分割,包括地形和区位上的分割；对西部而言,地形上的分割影响显著。③ 从产业差异来看,对劳动密集型、资本密集型、技术密集型产业影响显著的分别是国际市场分割、地形分割和国内市场分割。未来根据不同区域、不同产业类型,切实减少相应的市场分割,对于经济发展十分重要。
[11]
He Canfei, Chen Hanghang. Participation in global production networks and export product upgrading. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2017, 72(8): 1331-1346.
https://doi.org/10.11821/dlxb201708001
摘要
<p>Organized globally and led by trans-national enterprises, global production networks (GPNs) develop rapidly along with the advancement of technology and deepening of trade liberalization. GPN provides great opportunities for developing countries to blend in global economy and realize their technological advance, as well as value chain upgrading. Facing the pressure of shifting model of economic development, China has urgent need of optimizing export trade though she has experienced marvelous success especially on export trade during the past few decades, so that the study on export product upgrading can be particularly important. Based on such consideration, this article focuses on how participating GPN influences China's export product upgrade. This article uses the conception of quality to quantitively describe product upgrade, and we calculate the product quality based on data of customs trade database from 2000 to 2011. The result shows that export product quality presents a declining trend from east to west of China, and the average quality of the whole country fluctuates a lot during 2000-2011 with a slight rising trend showing up recently. We then build several econometric models to examine whether participating in GPN matters, and how exactly this influence works. The results show that participating in GPN has remarkable influence on export product upgrading especially in eastern China, but market dispersion does not help in product upgrading. We also find that R&D investment cannot promote regional position in global value chain in eastern China, forming a typical "Low-end lock-in". Capital- and technology-intensive products benefit a lot from participating in GPN while labour-intensive exports may open markets with low-quality products. Fiscal decentralization is a key determinant in eastern and central provinces, and local governments tend to give more support to technology-intensive product upgrading.</p>
[贺灿飞, 陈航航. 参与全球生产网络与中国出口产品升级. 地理学报, 2017, 72(8): 1331-1346.]
https://doi.org/10.11821/dlxb201708001
本文引用 [1] 摘要
随着技术进步和贸易自由化发展,在全球范围内组织生产的跨国公司所主导的全球生产网络迅速发展并不断深化。全球生产网络为发展中国家融入全球经济体系、实现技术进步和产业升级提供了契机。同时,中国经济发展进入“新常态”,出口贸易的发展方式亟待转变,对出口产品升级的研究显得尤为重要,而参与全球生产网络可能是中国出口产品升级的重要途径。本文利用2000-2011年中国海关贸易数据库对中国出口产品质量进行了测算,并以此为基础衡量出口产品升级。研究发现,中国出口产品质量有波动上升迹象,东中西区域产品质量基本呈现递减趋势。统计分析结果表明,参与全球生产网络直接促进了中国出口产品的升级,尤其是深入融合到价值链中对出口产品质量有明显的正向促进作用。东部地区的研发投入能够促进出口质量升级,但研发投入不能通过提高垂直专业化的程度来提升质量,印证了出口企业提升价值链地位能力的不足。地区财政自主权在中部地区和东北地区起到了至关重要的作用,并且地方政府倾向于支持技术密集型产品的升级。
[12]
Zhang Shaojun, Liu Zhibiao. Is regional integration a stepping stone or a stumbling block to the domestic value chain: Taking the Yangtze River Delta as an example. Finance & Trade Economics, 2010(11): 118-124.
[张少军, 刘志彪. 区域一体化是国内价值链的“垫脚石”还是“绊脚石”: 以长三角为例的分析. 财贸经济, 2010(11): 118-124.]
本文引用 [1]
[13]
Fei Wenbo, Yu Lihong, Ye Xiaojia. The flying geese model of regional value chain division in urban agglomeration: Based on the research of integrated circuit industry in Yangtze River Delta. Soft Science, 2021, 35(5): 13-19.
[费文博, 于立宏, 叶晓佳. 城市群区域价值链分工的 “雁阵模式”: 基于长三角集成电路产业的研究. 软科学, 2021, 35(5): 13-19.]
本文引用 [1]
[14]
He Canfei, Zhu Shengjun. The principle of relatedness in China's regional industrial development. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2020, 75(12): 2684-2698.
https://doi.org/10.11821/dlxb202012010
摘要

Geographical distribution and agglomeration of industries have been a long lasting concern of economic geographers. Some studies have stressed geographical proximity and industrial agglomeration as the key driving force of uneven distribution of industries. Recently, evolutionary economic geography, based on evolutionary economics, has adopted a dynamic and historic perspective to study the evolution of regional industrial dynamics. It argues that geographical proximity is neither sufficient nor necessary for efficient knowledge spillovers; instead, it calls for more attention to the idea of cognitive proximity as well as its importance in regional industrial dynamics. The idea is that for knowledge spillovers to take place effectively, some kind of cognitive proximity in terms of shared competencies must be in place. Inspired by this, we examine China's regional industrial development through the lens of cognitive proximity, and propose the "principle of relatedness", that is, the probability of a region to enter/exit one specific economic activity is heavily dependent on regional pre-existing economic profile and local knowledge base. This paper first introduces some key, relevant concepts, and then reviews empirical studies that are underpinned by the "principle of relatedness". Furthermore, it discusses the applicability of "principle of relatedness" in the Chinese context. Our main findings are as follows: (1) theories on resource base view and knowledge spillovers both support the existence of the "principle of relatedness"; (2) the "principle of relatedness" enables us to better understand China's regional economic development, innovation and resilience; however, (3) the effectiveness of the "principle of relatedness" may be compromised by external shocks and internal institutions. One policy implication from the "principle of relatedness" as well as our empirical research is that Chinese regions should seek to diversify related industries and enhance related variety of their regional profiles. In doing so, they are able to become more economically resilient and achieve more sustainable economic development.

[贺灿飞, 朱晟君. 中国产业发展与布局的关联法则. 地理学报, 2020, 75(12): 2684-2698.]
https://doi.org/10.11821/dlxb202012010
本文引用 [1] 摘要
产业地理学研究产业空间分布及其动态演化规律。基于地理邻近性的集聚理论揭示了产业地理不平衡分布的内在机制。演化经济地理学借鉴演化经济学的历史视角,从历史角度考察经济活动空间分布的渐进演化机制,认为地理邻近性不是产业地理格局演化的充分必要条件,以认知邻近性为核心的多维邻近性能够提供更好的解释。本文从认知邻近视角系统地分析了中国区域产业发展与布局动态演化规律,总结出中国产业发展与布局的“关联法则”,即一个企业或区域进入（或退出）某项经济活动的概率是该企业或地区拥有的基于相关知识基础的经济活动的函数。本文全面地回顾了关联法则涉及的关键概念,梳理企业和区域尺度的实证研究成果,讨论关联法则在中国的适用性及其补充和拓展。本文指出：① 在认知邻近视角下,基于资源转换和组织学习等理论基础,关联法则研究了企业或区域发展新产业与现有产业之间的关系。② 关联法则不仅适用于中国企业和区域尺度,还会影响区域经济发展、创新和韧性等。③ 外部联系、冲击以及内部制度环境等可能会降低区域产业动态对本地产业基础的依赖性。关联法则指出中国区域需培育内生发展模式,围绕现有区域能力、技术和知识积累发展区域产业和实现区际产业优化布局与分工,逐步建立相关多样化的产业体系,增强区域韧性,支撑国内经济循环。
[15]
He Canfei, Chen Tao. External demand shocks, related variety and resilience of export. China Industrial Economics, 2019(7): 61-80.
[贺灿飞, 陈韬. 外部需求冲击、相关多样化与出口韧性. 中国工业经济, 2019(7): 61-80.]
本文引用 [1]
[16]
Wang Deli, Fang Chuanglin. Industrial division and linkage among regions of China. Geographical Research, 2010, 29(8): 1392-1406.
https://doi.org/10.11821/yj2010080005
摘要

Based on the expansive use of input-output analysis, this study uses an index system to establish regional division models and cross-regional industrial linkage models (including gravity model of inter-regional, gravity model of inter-industry, cross-region model of inter-industry linkage). Also, it explores characteristics of China's industrial division and linkage from the perspective of specific industries. The results show that: (1) In the aspects of industrial division: Central, Northwest and Southwest China are regions with more static comparative advantage industries, but Beijing, Tianjin and coastal region are regions having more dynamic comparative advantage industries. Regional gradient has been formed between industries; however, some of the regions have similar industrial structures and inter-provincial similar industries. (2)Industrial linkage in cross-regional areas: ① Characteristics of inter-regional linkage: Intensity of inter-industry linkage region is greatly affected by economic status and distance of space, and spatial distribution. Linkage of industries between coastal and inland areas is weak, and it is loose between eastern and western China. ② Characteristics of inter-industrial linkage: Integrated correlation of industries has a significant change between 1987 and 2002. The inter-related intensity of industries is gradually increasing. It is positively correlated between industries associated intensity and their comprehensive linkage industries. ③ Interaction characteristics of inter-regional industries: Inter-regional industrial linkage has clear space directivity to the neighborhood area, and the same industry in different regions has different intensities of inter-regional linkage and range of industrial linkage. Adjacent regions have strong linkage between industries. There is a close relation between industry-level linkage and the level of regional economic development. Horizontal linkage of cross-regional industry increased, and the mixed pattern of horizontal and vertical linkage in industries is emerging. Primary industry, tertiary industries and manufacturing industry in secondary industry are weak linkage industries, and there is lack of effective convergence among them. The cooperative areas are more concentrated on low-tech energy and raw material-based industries and related downstream industries, so the regional advantage has not been effectively integrated.

[王德利, 方创琳. 中国跨区域产业分工与联动特征. 地理研究, 2010, 29(8): 1392-1406.]
https://doi.org/10.11821/yj2010080005
本文引用 [1] 摘要
基于对投入产出分析方法的扩展运用,建立指标体系,构建区域产业分工模型与跨区域产业联动模型(包括区域间引力模型、产业间引力模型、跨区域各产业间联动模型),从具体产业角度探索中国跨区域产业分工与联动的特征。研究发现:(1)在区域产业分工方面:中部、西北、西南地区是静态比较优势产业较多的区域,而沿海及京津地区是动态比较优势产业居多的地区,区域间产业梯度已经形成。(2)在跨区域产业联动方面:①区域间产业联动强度受经济地位及空间距离的影响显著,沿海与内陆之间跨域产业联动性较弱;②1987~2002年间,各产业综合关联度发生显著变化,产业间关联强度逐渐增大;③跨区域产业联动具有明显邻域空间指向性,区域联动层次与经济发展水平具有密切关系,尽管产业间横向联动与纵向联动相结合的混合型联动格局正在形成,但合作领域多集中于科技含量较低的能源原材料型产业与相关下游产业之间。
[17]
Xu Yusen, Zhang Yan. Empirical research on central effect of producer services in metropolitan area: Taking the Yangtze River Delta area for example. Urban Problems, 2011(11): 9-15.
[徐雨森, 张延. 大都市圈生产性服务业中心效应实证研究: 以长江三角洲为例. 城市问题, 2011(11): 9-15.]
本文引用 [1]
[18]
Fang Chuanglin, Wang Zhenbo, Ma Haitao. The theoretical cognition of the development law of China's urban agglomeration and academic contribution. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2018, 73(4): 651-665.
https://doi.org/10.11821/dlxb201804005
摘要

Urban agglomeration refers to a highly integrated city and town group. It comes into being with the development of industrialization and urbanization to the advanced stage. The formation and development of urban agglomeration is a long natural process, which is transformed from competition to cooperation. China is in a new stage of urbanization transition, and has entered a new era of leading the global urban agglomeration development in the 21st century. The research and experience model of China's urban agglomeration has been accepted by global urban agglomeration construction as reference. In this paper, the natural law of urban agglomeration is proposed, including developmental gradual law, multi-scale transmission law of space intensive utilization, the combination law of spatial crystal structure, the natural growth of the breeding tree, and the gradient upgrade law of sustainable development. Following these laws, Chinese geographers have made great contributions to the research and development of China's urban agglomerations, which focuses on academic theory, technical method, decision support and planning practice. We developed and scientifically defined the concept of urban agglomeration, and first adopted the identification standard of urban agglomeration space. We established the spatial intensive development and layout simulation decision support technology chain in urban agglomeration, and developed related software chain. We laid out the new pattern of 5+9+6 in the spatial organization of China's urban agglomerations, and formulated the first China's urban agglomeration planning technical regulation. We completed the development plan of most urban agglomerations in China, which has become an important basis for decision-making at the national level. In the future, geographers will play a growing role and shoulder the responsibility in the development of Chinese urban agglomerations. We should combine qualitative and quantitative methods, and use big data and intelligent decision support technology to solve a series of problems in the development of this cause. Only in this way can Chinese geographers make greater contributions to the development of urban agglomerations.

[方创琳, 王振波, 马海涛. 中国城市群形成发育规律的理论认知与地理学贡献. 地理学报, 2018, 73(4): 651-665.]
https://doi.org/10.11821/dlxb201804005
本文引用 [1] 摘要
城市群是国家工业化和城镇化发展到高级阶段的产物,是高度一体化和同城化的城市群体,城市群形成发育过程是一个各城市之间由竞争变为竞合的漫长自然过程,遵循自然发展规律。中国正处在新型城镇化转型发展的新阶段,已进入21世纪引领全球城市群发展的新时代,中国城市群研究与建设的经验模式正在被全球城市群建设所效仿和借鉴。本文从理论上梳理并提出了城市群形成发育遵循的自然规律,包括城市群形成发育的阶段性规律、城市群多尺度空间集约利用传导规律、城市群空间晶体结构组合规律、城市群自然生长的育树成林规律和城市群可持续发展的梯度爬升规律。地理学家遵循这些发展规律,从学术理论、技术方法、决策支持和规划实践等方面为中国城市群的研究和发展做出了不可替代的重大贡献,主要包括提出并科学界定了城市群概念,提出了城市群空间范围的识别标准,创建了城市群空间集约拓展与布局仿真决策支持技术链,研制了城市群空间集约拓展与布局仿真决策支持系统软件链,提出了中国城市群空间组织的“5+9+6”新格局,研制出国内第一部《城市群规划技术规程》,编制完成了全国多数城市群发展规划,转化为国家决策的重要依据。未来中国城市群的发展与研究中,地理学家发挥作用的空间越来越大,地理学家肩负着不可推卸的责任使命,应责无旁贷地采用定性与定量相结合的研究方法,引用大数据、智能决策支持技术等新手段解决城市群发展面临的一系列问题,一如既往地为城市群发展吸纳众智、献计献策,发挥更大作用,做出更大贡献。
[19]
Fang Chuanglin. Progress and the future direction of research into urban agglomeration in China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2014, 69(8): 1130-1144.
https://doi.org/10.11821/dlxb201408009
摘要

Urban agglomeration has been the inevitable result of China's rapid industrialization and urbanization over the last 30 years. Since the early 2000s, urban agglomeration has become the new regional unit participating in international competition and the division of labor. China has declared urban agglomeration the main spatial component of new types of urbanization over the next decade as clarified at the first Central Urbanization Working Conference and in the National New-type Urbanization Plan (2014?2020). However, research on urban agglomeration remains weak and needs to be strengthened. From 1934 to 2013, only 19 papers published in Acta Geographica Sinica contained the theme of urban agglomeration (0.55% of the total number of articles published) and the first paper on urban agglomeration appeared less than 10 years ago. Despite a small number of divergent studies, this work has contributed to and guided the formation of the overall pattern of urban agglomeration in China. For example, spatial analyses have promoted the formation of the fundamental framework of China's urban agglomeration spatial structure and guided the National New-type Urbanization Plan; spatial identification standards and technical processes have played an important role in identifying the scope and extent of urban agglomeration; serial studies have facilitated pragmatic research; and problems with the formation and development of urban agglomeration have provided a warning for future choices and Chinese development. Future research into urban agglomeration in China should (1) review and examine new problems in China's urban agglomeration options and cultivation; (2) critically consider urban agglomeration when promoting the formation of the 5+9+6 spatial pattern; (3) rely on urban agglomeration to construct new urbanization patterns such as 'stringing the agglomerations with the axis, supporting the axis with the agglomerations'; and (4) deepen national awareness about resources, environment effects and environmental carrying capacity in high density urban agglomerations, management and government coordination innovation, the construction of public finance and fiscal reserve mechanisms, the technical regulation of urban agglomeration planning, and standards for identifying the scope and extent of urban agglomeration.

[方创琳. 中国城市群研究取得的重要进展与未来发展方向. 地理学报, 2014, 69(8): 1130-1144.]
https://doi.org/10.11821/dlxb201408009
本文引用 [1] 摘要
中国的城市群是近30年来伴随国家新型工业化和新型城镇化发展到较高阶段的必然产物,自21世纪初期城市群成为国家参与全球竞争与国际分工的全新地域单元之后,中国连续10年把城市群提升为推进国家新型城镇化的空间主体,首次召开的中央城镇化工作会议和《国家新型城镇化规划 (2014-2020年)》进一步明确了城市群作为推进国家新型城镇化的主体地位。然而,城市群在中国的研究目前尚处在亟待加强的薄弱环节。系统总结从1934-2013年的80年间发表在地理学报的城市群主题论文,只有不到19篇,仅占总篇数的0.55%,不仅发表篇数少,而且发表时间短,首次发表城市群研究成果不到10年,研究单位和作者群体集中,研究内容瞄准国家需求但比较发散。即便如此,仅有的城市群研究成果还是对国家城市群总体格局的形成起到了引领作用,做出了重要贡献。具体体现在,提出的城市群空间格局推动国家形成了中国城市群空间结构的基本框架,引导国家新型城镇化规划把城市群作为推进新型城镇化的主体形态,提出的城市群空间范围识别标准与技术流程对界定国家城市群范围起到了重要作用,提出的城市群系列研究领域带动城市群的研究向着纵深与实用方向拓展,提出的中国城市群形成发育中存在的问题对未来城市群的选择与发展起到了警示作用。以这些研究进展和成果为基础,未来中国城市群选择与培育的重点方向为：以问题为导向,深刻反思检讨中国城市群选择与发育中暴露出的新问题;以城市群为主体,重点推动形成&#x0201c;5+9+6&#x0201d;的中国城市群空间结构新格局;以城市群为依托,重点推动形成&#x0201c;以轴串群、以群托轴&#x0201d;的国家城镇化新格局;以国家战略需求为导向,继续深化对城市群形成发育中重大科学问题的新认知,包括深入研究城市群高密度集聚的资源环境效应,科学求解城市群高密度集聚的资源环境承载力,创新城市群形成发育的管理体制和政府协调机制,研究建立城市群公共财政制度与公共财政储备机制,研究制定城市群规划编制技术规程与城市群空间范围界定标准等。
[20]
Goerzen A, Asmussen C G, Nielsen B B. Global cities and multinational enterprise location strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 2013, 44(5): 427-450.
https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2013.11
http://link.springer.com/10.1057/jibs.2013.11
本文引用 [2]
[21]
Sassen S. Cities in a World Economy. Los Angeles: Sage, 2012.
本文引用 [1]
[22]
Zhao S X B, Zhang L. Foreign direct investment and the formation of global city-regions in China. Regional Studies, 2007, 41(7): 979-994.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701281634
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00343400701281634
本文引用 [1]
[23]
Ma Haitao, Lu Shuo, Zhang Wenzhong. Coupling process and mechanism of urbanization and innovation in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration. Geographical Research, 2020, 39(2): 303-318.
https://doi.org/10.11821/dlyj020181155
摘要

Urban agglomeration is not only the main form of new urbanization, but also the incubator of innovation. Theoretically, there is a complex interaction between urbanization subsystem and innovation subsystem in urban agglomeration. The Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration is a national-level urban agglomeration designated by the national new urbanization planning, and it takes "the new engine of national innovation-driven economic growth" as its core function positioning. Therefore, exploring the coupling relationship between urbanization process and innovation and development of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration is beneficial to understand the relationship between urbanization and innovation and the development of this urban agglomeration. The comprehensive evaluation index system of urbanization and innovation is constructed by combing the internal theoretical relationship between two subsystems of urbanization and innovation. With the help of coupling coordination degree model and geo-detector factor detection method, this paper analyzes the evolution process and mechanism of coupling coordination relationship between urbanization and innovation in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration. The findings: (1) The comprehensive level of urbanization and innovation in the study area presents a trend of steady growth, and the coupling and coordination relationship between urbanization and innovation also develops in a good direction on the whole, but the comprehensive level and coupling relationship are different in space. Specifically, the gap between the high level of Beijing and Tianjin and the overall low level of 11 cities in Hebei is obvious. (2) The Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration has been characterized by the coupling coordination type of innovation lag since 2007. Moreover, most of the cities in recent years show the type of coupling coordination of innovation lag, which can be clearly concluded that the main reason for the coupling coordination level of this urban agglomeration in the past period of time is that the innovation level is relatively inadequate to support the urbanization. (3) The interaction between urbanization and innovation in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration is very significant, especially the impact of economic urbanization and social urbanization on innovation, and the impact of innovation resources on urbanization is more prominent. It is also found that the role of innovation ability in promoting urbanization is relatively inadequate during the study period. In the future, the key direction of promoting the coordination level of urbanization and innovation coupling in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration is to accelerate the improvement of urban agglomeration and the comprehensive level of innovation in each city.

[马海涛, 卢硕, 张文忠. 京津冀城市群城镇化与创新的耦合过程与机理. 地理研究, 2020, 39(2): 303-318.]
https://doi.org/10.11821/dlyj020181155
本文引用 [2] 摘要
城市群是国家新型城镇化的主体形态,也是创新的孵化器;城市群区域的城镇化子系统与创新子系统之间理论上存在复杂交互关系。京津冀城市群是国家新型城镇化规划确定的国家级城市群,并将&#x0201C;全国创新驱动经济增长新引擎&#x0201D;作为其核心功能定位,因此有必要探索京津冀城市群的城镇化过程与创新发展之间的耦合关系,这对理解城镇化与创新之间的关系和京津冀城市群的发展问题都有裨益。通过梳理城镇化与创新两个子系统之间的内在理论关系,构建城镇化与创新的综合评价指标体系,借助耦合协调度模型和地理探测器因子探测方法,分析京津冀城市群城镇化与创新两子系统之间的耦合协调关系演变过程及作用机理。研究发现：① 京津冀城市群城镇化和创新的综合水平都呈现稳步增长的趋势,城镇化与创新的耦合协调关系总体向好的方向发展,但综合水平和耦合关系的空间差异都较大;② 创新滞后是京津冀城市群城镇化与创新耦合协调水平提升的关键阻力,近年京津冀城市群地区及多数城市表现为创新滞后的耦合协调类型;③ 京津冀城市群城镇化与创新的交互影响非常显著,特别是经济城镇化和社会城镇化对创新的影响、创新资源对城镇化的影响表现比较突出。
[24]
Li Y C, Phelps N A. Knowledge polycentricity and the evolving Yangtze River Delta megalopolis. Regional Studies, 2017, 51(7): 1035-1047.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1240868
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00343404.2016.1240868
本文引用 [1]
[25]
Li Y C, Phelps N. Megalopolis unbound: Knowledge collaboration and functional polycentricity within and beyond the Yangtze River Delta region in China, 2014. Urban Studies, 2018, 55(2): 443-460.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098016656971
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0042098016656971
本文引用 [1]
[26]
Shi Yajuan, Zhu Yongbin, Huang Jinchuan. Evolution of industrial specialization pattern in Zhongyuan urban agglomeration and its functional orientation. Economic Geography, 2017, 37(11): 84-91.
[史雅娟, 朱永彬, 黄金川. 中原城市群产业分工格局演变与功能定位研究. 经济地理, 2017, 37(11): 84-91.]
本文引用 [3]
[27]
Sun Jiuwen, Yuan Qian. Strategic comparison of joint development of Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei. Comparative Economic & Social Systems, 2014(5): 1-11.
[孙久文, 原倩. 京津冀协同发展战略的比较和演进重点. 经济社会体制比较, 2014(5): 1-11.]
本文引用 [1]
[28]
Zhu Heliang, Ye Tanglin, Zhang Guixiang. Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Blue Book:Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Development Report (2018). Beijing: Social Science Literature Publishing, 2018.
[祝合良, 叶堂林, 张贵祥. 京津冀蓝皮书:京津冀发展报告(2018). 北京: 社会科学文献出版社, 2018.]
本文引用 [1]
[29]
Tang Zilai, Zhao Miaoxi. Economic globalization and transformation of urban system in the Yangtze River Delta region: Interlocking network and value-added hierarchy. Urban Planning Forum, 2010(1): 29-34.
[唐子来, 赵渺希. 经济全球化视角下长三角区域的城市体系演化: 关联网络和价值区段的分析方法. 城市规划学刊, 2010(1): 29-34.]
本文引用 [1]
[30]
Wang Jianjun, Xu Xueqiang. The review and preview of urban function evolution. Human Geography, 2004, 19(3): 12-16.
[王建军, 许学强. 城市职能演变的回顾与展望. 人文地理, 2004, 19(3): 12-16.]
本文引用 [1]
[31]
Wu Kang. Functional division and complementarity of industry networks in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei city region. Research on Economics and Management, 2015, 36(3): 63-72.
[吴康. 京津冀城市群职能分工演进与产业网络的互补性分析. 经济与管理研究, 2015, 36(3): 63-72.]
本文引用 [1]
[32]
Zhang Xiaotao, Yi Yunfeng, Wang Chun. The evolution of the functional division of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration from the perspective of value chain 2003-2016: Also on the differences in the functional division of the three major urban agglomerations in China. Macroeconomics, 2019(2): 116-132, 160.
[张晓涛, 易云锋, 王淳. 价值链视角下的京津冀城市群职能分工演变: 2003—2016: 兼论中国三大城市群职能分工水平差异. 宏观经济研究, 2019(2): 116-132, 160.]
本文引用 [1]
[33]
Fang Jiawen, Liu Haimeng. How and why venture capital flows in the Beijing- Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration. Progress in Geography, 2017, 36(1): 68-77.
https://doi.org/10.18306/dlkxjz.2017.01.007
摘要

Venture capital is an effective driving force in the collaborative innovation of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration. Based on the Zero2 IPO database, this study analyzed the spatiotemporal distribution of urban venture capital using social network theory and examined the mechanism of this distribution using a gravity model and panel data regression. The results show that, first, the gross venture capital of this urban agglomeration showed a four-year-period fluctuation. Second, the distribution is becoming less uneven due to the spin-off effects of Beijing, Tianjin, and Tangshan, where venture capital has concentrated in the past years. Third, venture capital flows between different cities are gradually forming a network with strong connection between core and peripheral cities, as well as weak connection between peripheral cities. The distribution of venture capital has become more even between different stages of entrepreneurship. With regard to the influencing factors of this distribution, information infrastructure and economic development have played significant positive roles, while innovation activities are not keeping in pace with venture capital flows partially due to the underdevelopment of financial instruments and service sectors.

[方嘉雯, 刘海猛. 京津冀城市群创业风险投资的时空分布特征及影响机制. 地理科学进展, 2017, 36(1): 68-77.]
https://doi.org/10.18306/dlkxjz.2017.01.007
本文引用 [2] 摘要
创业风险投资是京津冀城市群一体化协同创新进程中的重要驱动力。本文利用社会网络分析方法分析了京津冀城市群创业风险投资的时空分布特征,在此基础上利用引力模型和计量分析模型揭示京津冀城市群创业风险投资时空分布的影响机制。主要结论为：京津冀城市群的创业风险投资网络在总额方面具有一定的周期波动性,其时空分布的不均衡性缓慢降低,创业风险投资的三中心(北京、天津和唐山)对周边城市具有一定的带动作用;创业风险投资在城市间的流动呈现出一定的网络性,但是发育缓慢,具有很强的向心性;创业风险投资对创业项目不同阶段的投资从偏重创业后期逐步趋向各阶段均衡发展;信息基础设施发展水平和经济发展水平与创业风险投资之间具有较强的正相关作用;金融环境、服务业发展水平相对滞后,对创新创业成果的转化和资金吸引能力较弱。
[34]
Liu Chengliang, Niu Caicheng. Spatial evolution and factors of interurban technology transfer network in Northeast China from national to local perspectives. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2019, 74(10): 2092-2107.
https://doi.org/10.11821/dlxb201910010
摘要

Interurban technology transfer becomes an essential channel for regions or cities to obtain external knowledge. Based on patent transaction data among cities during 2005-2015, this study investigates the interurban technology transfer network of Northeast China, aiming to explore spatial evolution of technology transfer network in this region from national to local perspectives based on social network analysis (SNA). A negative binomial regression analysis further reveals the factors of interurban technology transfer network. The results of the study are as follows: (1) From the national perspective, the interurban technology transfer network of Northeast China presents a core-periphery structure. The spatial pattern of "divergence in the northeast region" and "convergence in the coastal areas" has been formed. (2) From the local perspective, the technology transfer network of Northeast China shows a centripetal contraction situation, and its four hubs, namely, Harbin, Changchun, Shenyang and Dalian, play the role of technology gatekeeper. The interurban technology transfer flows present the characteristic of strengthening nationalization and weakening localization, which are more likely to emerge between the Northeast-Southeast China rather than among the Northeast China. (3) Both path-dependence and path-creation exist in the spatial dynamics of intercity technology flows in Northeast China. From the national perspective, technology flows from Northeast China to the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei, Yangtze River Delta and Pearl River Delta urban agglomerations with Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen as the core respectively, while the local intercity technology transfer in Northeast China presents a mixed diffusing mode including hierarchical, contagious and jump diffusions. In addition, the local network mainly focuses on intra-provincial technology flows which centered on Haibin, Changchun, Shenyang and Dalian. (4) Some drivers, such as geographical proximity, the similarity of industrial structure, economic differences, the similarity of innovation capability, technology absorptive capacity, foreign direct investment, are evidenced to play a significant or determining role in interurban technology transfer of Northeast China.

[刘承良, 牛彩澄. 东北三省城际技术转移网络的空间演化及影响因素. 地理学报, 2019, 74(10): 2092-2107.]
https://doi.org/10.11821/dlxb201910010
本文引用 [2] 摘要
从全国—本地视角,以东北三省为研究区,基于2005-2015年的专利权转移数据,融合社会网络、GIS空间分析和计量方法,定量刻画东北三省技术转移网络的空间演化规律。结果显示：① 全国视角下东北三省城际技术转移网络呈现“核心—边缘”等级层次性结构,形成了专利技术由东北辐散向全国沿海辐合的空间格局。② 本地视角下东北三省技术转移网络呈现出向心收缩结网态势,“哈长沈大”四大核心城市在本地网络中扮演“技术守门者”角色。技术转移表现出“强全国化,弱本地化”特征。③ 东北三省城际技术流动既存在路径依赖,也不断涌现路径创造。全国视角下,技术转移以东北三省核心城市为流源,基本流向以北京、上海和深圳分别为枢纽的京津冀、长三角和珠三角城市群。本地城际技术转移以哈尔滨、长春、沈阳、大连为集散中心,集中于省内转移,呈现等级、接触和跳跃式混合扩散空间模式。④ 地理距离接近度、产业结构相似度、经济水平差异度、创新能力相似度、技术吸收能力、外商直接投资对东北三省城际技术转移存在一定影响。
[35]
Ma Haitao, Huang Xiaodong, Li Yingcheng. The evolution and mechanisms of megalopolitan knowledge polycentricity of Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2018, 73(12): 2297-2314.
https://doi.org/10.11821/dlxb201812003
摘要

The concept of megalopolis, since its original inception six decades ago, has inspired many new terms that mainly describe large-scale urbanized forms such as megaregions and polycentric urban regions. However, recent studies have increasingly focused on the two key functions that megalopolises act as an incubator of new ideas and trends and as a hub that articulates knowledge exchange at the megalopolitan, national, and global scales. While the recent studies have mainly analyzed the functional aspects of megalopolis based on China's Yangtze River Delta region, this paper investigates the evolving process and mechanisms of knowledge collaboration within and beyond Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA) - one of the most promising and vibrant megalopolises in China. In addition, the GBA megalopolis is unique because it contains Hong Kong and Macao, which have a different political system from China's mainland. Drawing upon a dataset of publications that were indexed in Web of Science Core Collection during the 1990-2016 period, this paper uses the Gini coefficient to measure the degree of knowledge polycentricity of the GBA megalopolis. Here, knowledge polycentricity is further classified into attribute polycentricity of knowledge production and functional polycentricity of knowledge collaboration within and beyond the GBA megalopolis. Whereas the attribute polycentricity refers to the distribution inequality of the total publications of GBA cities, the functional polycentricity represents the distribution inequality of GBA cities' knowledge collaboration at different geographical scales. Our empirical results show: (1) knowledge production of the GBA megalopolis as a whole has experienced a robust and continuous growth. The degrees of both attribute polycentricity and functional polycentricity have also been on the increase in general, although there are some fluctuations in early years and some deviations in recent years. During the ten years after Hong Kong and Macao returned to China (the 2000-2010 period), the degree of knowledge polycentricity of the GBA megalopolis especially enjoyed the fastest rise; (2) The degree of functional polycentricity decreased with the expansion in the geographical scales at which it is measured, confirming the findings of previous studies that functional polycentricity is scale-dependent. Moreover, we find that the degree of functional polycentricity becomes more fluctuated at the global scale while it tends to increase continuously at the megalopolitan scale; (3) The evolving process of knowledge polycentricity of the GBA megalopolis is influenced by institutional proximity, geographical proximity and status proximity between cities. Specifically, the mobility of researchers, the collaboration of universities and research institutes, and the coordination of local governments are three major forces promoting the evolution of knowledge polycentricity of the GBA megalopolis. Overall, the increasing knowledge polycentricity would be of significance for the GBA megalopolis to form a knowledge-driven region of collective collaboration.

[马海涛, 黄晓东, 李迎成. 粤港澳大湾区城市群知识多中心的演化过程与机理. 地理学报, 2018, 73(12): 2297-2314.]
https://doi.org/10.11821/dlxb201812003
本文引用 [1] 摘要
基于1990-2016年“Web of Science”核心合集所收录的科研论文合著数据,借助基尼系数测度属性和功能多中心性的方法,对粤港澳大湾区城市群的知识多中心性及其知识网络的演化进行了研究。结果发现：① 伴随着粤港澳大湾区城市群知识生产总量的持续增长,其多中心性程度呈现出阶段性、阶梯式提升的特征,分别经历了波动、增长和分化的发展阶段,港澳回归后的2000-2010年间是多中心性快速增长的重要阶段。② 粤港澳大湾区城市群在区域、国家和全球尺度上的功能多中心性程度随着尺度增加逐级递减,进一步证实了功能多中心性的尺度规律性;而且发现了多中心在演化中的尺度敏感性,全球尺度上的多中心性会存在不确定的峰值,而区域尺度上的多中心性可能会持续增加。③ 城市群多中心的演化是受制度接近、地理接近和等级接近影响,在研究人员移动、科研单位联动和政府政策推动及其行动主体间的相互作用下实现的,多中心程度的增加有助于推动粤港澳大湾区城市群构建科研协同创新共同体。
[36]
Manova K, Zhang Z W. Export prices across firms and destinations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2012, 127(1): 379-436.
https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr051
https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/qje/qjr051
本文引用 [1]
[37]
Liu Weidong, Tang Zhipeng, Han Mengyao, et al. Interregional Input-output Table of China's 31 Provinces, Autonomous Regions and Municipalities in 2012. Beijing: China Statistics Press, 2018.
[刘卫东, 唐志鹏, 韩梦瑶, 等. 2012年中国31省区市区域间投入产出表. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2018.]
本文引用 [1]
[38]
Hidalgo C A, Klinger B, Barabási A-L, et al. The product space conditions the development of nations. Science, 2007, 317(5837): 482-487.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17656717
本文引用 [3] 摘要
Economies grow by upgrading the products they produce and export. The technology, capital, institutions, and skills needed to make newer products are more easily adapted from some products than from others. Here, we study this network of relatedness between products, or "product space," finding that more-sophisticated products are located in a densely connected core whereas less-sophisticated products occupy a less-connected periphery. Empirically, countries move through the product space by developing goods close to those they currently produce. Most countries can reach the core only by traversing empirically infrequent distances, which may help explain why poor countries have trouble developing more competitive exports and fail to converge to the income levels of rich countries.
[39]
Guo Qi, Zhou Yi, He Canfei. Exporters' agglomeration, enterprise's related production capacity and enterprise's export expansion. China Industrial Economics, 2020(5): 137-155.
[郭琪, 周沂, 贺灿飞. 出口集聚、企业相关生产能力与企业出口扩展. 中国工业经济, 2020(5): 137-155.]
本文引用 [1]
[40]
Neffke F, Henning M, Boschma R. How do regions diversify over time? Industry relatedness and the development of new growth paths in regions. Economic Geography, 2011, 87(3): 237-265.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2011.01121.x
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2011.01121.x
本文引用 [1]
[41]
Sun Jiuwen, Ding Hongjun. Research on the stage of Beijing - Tianjin - Hebei regional integration. Research on Economics and Management, 2012, 33(7): 52-58.
[孙久文, 丁鸿君. 京津冀区域经济一体化进程研究. 经济与管理研究, 2012, 33(7): 52-58.]
本文引用 [2]

基金

国家自然科学基金重点项目(41731278)
PDF(8565 KB)

2826

Accesses

0

Citation

Detail
段落导航
相关文章

/

〈 〉