基于互联网经济转型和信息技术浪潮下的创新创业活动已成为社会广泛关注的热点。论文利用上海互联网新创企业数的截面数据,采用核密度估计、Ripley's K函数、负二项回归模型等方法探究互联网新创企业的时空演化特征与区位影响因素。结果表明：① 时序变化上,互联网创业在2010年后进入活跃期,行业分布与全国创业形势及上海产业导向相一致。② 空间演变上,整体呈现“大集聚小分散”的分异特征,企业高度集聚于中环线内的同时向郊区中心镇和新城扩散。中心城区企业集聚强度不断增强,集聚规模由4.5 km扩张到6.5 km;在空间上由相对均衡向多中心集聚的形态演变。黄浦-静安-徐汇片、五角场、陆家嘴、张江和漕河泾等5大核心集聚区以其特定的资源优势获得互联网新创企业的青睐。③ 孵化环境、生活环境、商务环境、投资环境等构成互联网创业活动的外部环境需求;产业集聚、技术因子和土地价格等对互联网新创企业区位分布产生了显著影响。

“双创”政策引导下中国创业进入黄金时代,互联网日益成为地区竞争优势的新动能。论文基于1994—2019年中国互联网创业企业数据,利用空间计量和生存分析探究其时空格局及影响因素。研究发现：① 中国互联网创业企业的数量增长呈现前缓后陡的“S”型特征,不同代际的企业生存能力存在差异,但年轻企业的高生存风险在各个世代普遍存在。② 互联网创业企业的生存能力在区域间形成差异化格局：从现存数量看,大城市明显占据优势;从生存时间看,高值区主要集中在东部地区,但随着产业发展与进入数量激增,东部的资源优势与竞争压力并重,中部城市的生存优势反而有所显现。③ 个体、世代与环境因素对企业生存均有显著影响,企业规模与生命周期表现为稳定的保护作用,规模越大、获投轮次越高越有利于生存;较早进入的创业企业生存质量明显较高,创业环境对企业生存整体表现为风险因素。④ 随世代推移,企业规模与周期特征的保护作用下降,区域的孵化环境由激励效应转变为竞争效应,基础设施的保护作用逐渐减弱。研究可为中国互联网创新创业浪潮的纵贯解读提供实证支持,并为创业地理研究提供有益案例。

With the implementation of the "mass entrepreneurship and innovation" strategy, China has entered a golden era of entrepreneurship. As one of the most important innovations, Internet has increasingly become a new driver of regional competitive advantage. Drawing on a unique dataset of Chinese Internet firms during 1994-2019, this study investigated the spatiotemporal dynamics and survival determinants of startups in China by the spatial econometric and survival analysis methods (Kaplan-Meier method and time-dependent Cox regression model). We found that: 1) The number of Internet startups in China reached a high speed of increase during the past 25 years. It grew slowly in the early stage and then rose sharply around 2015, showing a "S-shaped" trend. The survival time of Internet firms across four cohorts is significantly different—those who entered earlier usually have a longer survival time. It is common that new firms face a high survival risk regardless of cohorts, because they are not strong enough to compete with the big companies and resist various risks. 2) The spatial pattern of Internet firm survival varies significantly among regions. There is an obvious urban preference in the existing numbers. Regions with long firm survival time are mainly located in the eastern areas of China, which enjoy a high level of economic development and population concentration. However, with the industrial development and increasing number of entries, both the regional resource advantage and competition pressure of the eastern region have become greater. As a result, the survival advantage of the central areas of China starts to appear. 3) In terms of survival determinants, firm heterogeneity, cohort, and entrepreneurial environment all show significant effects. Among the firm features, larger scale and higher investment rounds usually have a stable protective effect and would reduce the survival risk remarkably. At the cohort level, the average survival time of the early-entering startups is significantly higher, and favorable entrepreneurial environment imposes survival risk as a whole mainly because of the competition effect. 4) While the incubation environment changes from incentive effect to competitive effect over cohorts, the protection effect of firm scale and life cycle, as well as Internet infrastructure, gradually weakens. This study could provide empirical support for the longitudinal development of Chinese Internet innovation and entrepreneurship wave, as well as an interesting case study for the geography of entrepreneurship.

在“互联网+”战略推动下的，互联网创业日益成为中国经济转型的焦点问题，其空间态势对中国“新经济”格局产生深远影响。以2000~2014年间中国互联网创业公司为研究对象，采用变异系数、空间基尼系数和负二项回归等方法探讨中国互联网创业的空间集聚和区位选择。研究发现：总体上，近十几年互联网创业快速兴起并伴随着显著的区域差异；空间结构方面，从先发优势、产业地方化等方面解释中国互联网创业空间集聚的多极化趋势，同时在技术与市场共同作用下产生了不同类型行业的互联网创业公司集聚水平差异，技术性强的互联网创业公司趋向于集聚，而市场性强的互联网创业公司趋向于分散；从区位选择看，负二项回归模型的模拟结果表明互联网创业公司空间区位与风险资本、专业人才、服务业经济水平等方面要素密切相关。

科技企业孵化器政策是助推科技企业孵化器创新发展的制度动力。构建“政策工具—价值创造”二维框架，运用内容分析法对中国2000-2019年中央与地方颁布的182份科技企业孵化器政策文本进行量化分析，借助NVivo12实现政策文本编码和统计分析，揭示政策横向协同情况与纵向演进态势。研究发现:孵化器政策工具应用表现出横向分化态势,政府介入程度较高的策略引导型政策工具和政府主导型政策工具应用较多，参与推动型和自由发展型政策工具运用不足，并呈现出以政府主导型政策工具为主转向策略引导型政策工具与政府主导型政策工具并重的纵向演进态势；同时，孵化器政策工具应用集中在价值孕育阶段，价值初创和价值加速阶段政策工具应用较少。最后，提出完善政策工具组合、强化政策工具与价值创造阶段有效整合等政策建议。