本文从创新型城市试点建设的视角检验“以点带面”这一中国特色改革举措产生作用的过程与机理。以创新型城市试点建设为准自然实验,构建双重差分模型,检验该政策的实施对邻近城市创新活动的影响。研究发现:①创新型城市试点建设对邻近城市产生了“示范效应”,提升了其创新水平;“示范效应”具有空间差异性,东部地区最大;“示范效应”具有动态波动性,随时间变迁起伏变化。②“示范效应”具有城市异质性,在不同邻近距离、不同等级城市间均表现不同。③创新型城市试点建设通过政府政策制定的邻里效应和促进试点邻近城市创新要素集聚共同产生影响。本文的研究一方面为创新型城市试点建设的综合评价提供了新视角,另一方面也为政策措施的改进提供了思路。
Abstract
Construction of pilot projects is a policy making process with Chinese characteristics. From the perspective of innovative-city construction, this paper examines whether there is "point to area" effect in the process of implementing pilot projects and further analyzes its mechanism. Innovative-city construction is an important measure to build innovative country and realize the innovation-driven development strategy. In 2008, Shenzhen was approved as the first national innovative-city pilot area. Then in 2010, the Ministry of Science and Technology issued "Notice on Promoting the National Innovative-city Pilot Work", identifying Dalian, Qingdao and other 16 cities as the national innovative-city pilot areas. By 2019, the number of national innovative-city pilot area reached 78. In terms of implementation process, this is a typical Chinese experience of "pilot-extended-demonstration". However, few empirical studies focused on the effect of innovative-city construction, especially the demonstration effect of innovative-city construction.
In China, pilot policies usually have two political missions. On the one hand, pilot project construction is a summary of experience. In the policy formulation process, local governments of pilot cities are encouraged to try various solutions to problems based on local characteristics, and feedback the experience to the central government. On the other hand, pilot project construction is supposed to produce a demonstration effect. The typical successful experience of the pilot area is promoted through media reports, experience exchange meetings, visits and learning activities, so that other regions imitate them, thereby producing the effect of "point to area".
However, pilot cities usually receive policy incentives from the central and other levels of government, they may also trigger the accumulation of resources from other regions, especially neighboring cities. As a result, pilot cities will have a negative impact on the innovation of neighboring cities, presenting the so-called "siphon effect". Based on this, this research attempts to answer the following questions: Does the pilot city have an impact on the innovation of neighboring cities? Is this effect a demonstration effect? Is it continuous? Is it heterogeneity with urban characteristics? What are the paths?
Using the panel data of 266 cities at or above prefecture-level from 2003 to 2016, we evaluate the effect produced by the innovative-city construction pilot project. In order to control possible problems of sample self-selection, we use the propensity score matching method (PSM) to process the samples. Then, a double difference model (DID) is employed to evaluate the "pilot effect" and its dynamic evolution, and a triple difference model (DDD) is constructed to test heterogeneity. Further study examines the policy diffusion path and factor flow path from the perspective of peer effect and factor agglomeration.
The findings are as follows: (1) Innovative-city construction has a demonstration effect, which significantly improves the innovation level of neighboring cities. The effect is the largest in the east and the smallest in the west. Furthermore, the effect is persistent and reaches a peak in the third year after the pilot. (2) The demonstration effect is heterogeneous with urban characteristics, it is more significant among cities that are not geographically connected to the pilot cities, and cities at sub-provincial level or above. (3) Innovative-city construction acts on neighboring cities through the neighborhood effect of government innovation policy and promoting the agglomeration of innovation elements in neighboring cities.
The policy implications of this study include: (1) The government should continue to expand the scale of innovative-city construction and promote the orderly diffusion of innovative city. In the process of layout of innovative cities, the positive externality of innovative city construction should be considered. The comprehensive strategic layout of innovative cities should be carried out from multiple angles such as geographical location and city level. (2) In order to achieve a more positive demonstration effect, the policy diffusion path should be fully utilized. It is necessary to sum up the experience and achievement of innovative city construction in time. At the same time, advanced experience should be promoted through a variety of channels to expand the influence. (3) Regional interaction should be strengthened and collaborative innovation should be encouraged. The interconnection of innovation elements should be fully considered when a series of supporting measures are taken to construct innovative cities. Regional cooperation networks should be actively formed to achieve a win-win result.
关键词
创新型城市 /
试点 /
示范效应 /
政策扩散 /
要素流动
Key words
innovative-city /
pilot /
demonstration effect /
policy diffusion /
factor flow
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1]朱凌, 陈劲, 王飞绒.创新型城市发展状况评测体系研究[J].科学学研究, 2008, 26(1):215-222
[2]周晶晶, 沈能.基于因子分析法的我国创新型城市评价[J].科研管理, 2013, 34(S1):195-202
[3]许治, 陈志荣, 邓芹凌.国家级创新型城市技术成就指数俱乐部收敛效应[J].科学学研究, 2013, 31(5):650-
[4]李政, 杨思莹.创新型城市试点提升城市创新水平了吗[J].经济学动态, 2019, 1(8):70-85
[5]曾婧婧, 周丹萍.区域特质、产业结构与城市创新绩效——基于创新型城市试点的准自然实验[J].公共管理评论, 2019, 1(3):66-97
[6]晏艳阳, 谢晓锋.区域创新政策对微观主体创新行为的影响——基于创新型城市建设的研究[J].财经理论与实践, 2019, 40(6):2-8
[7]胡钰.创新型城市建设的内涵、经验和途径[J].中国软科学, 2007, 1(4):32-38
[8]尤建新, 卢超, 郑海鳌, 等.创新型城市建设模式分析——以上海和深圳为例[J].中国软科学, 2011, 1(7):82-92
[9]韩博天.通过试验制定政策:中国独具特色的经验[J].当代中国史研究, 2010, 17(3):103-112
[10]黄秀兰.论改革开放进程中的政策试验[J].探索, 2000, 1(3):66-69
[11]周望.政策试点是如何进行的?——对于试点一般过程的描述性分析[J].当代中国政治研究报告, 2013, 1(00):83-97
[12]周望.中国“政策试点”:起源与轨迹[J].福州党校学报, 2014, 1(1):27-31
[13]陈那波, 蔡荣.试点”何以失败?——市生活垃圾“计量收费”政策试行过程研究[J].社会学研究, 2017, 32(2):174-198
[14]章文光, 宋斌斌.从国家创新型城市试点看中国实验主义治理[J].中国行政管理, 2018, 1(12):89-95
[15]刘瑞明, 赵仁杰.国家高新区推动了地区经济发展吗?——基于双重差分方法的验证[J].管理世界, 2015, 1(8):30-38
[16]项后军, 何康.自贸区的影响与资本流动——以上海为例的自然实验研究[J].国际贸易问题, 2016, 1(8):3-15
[17]吴怡频, 陆简.政策试点的结果差异研究——基于年至年中央推动型试点的实证分析[J].公共管理学报, 2018, 15(1):58-70
[18]李智超.政策试点推广的多重逻辑——基于我国智慧城市试点的分析[J].公共管理学报, 2019, 16(3):145-156
[19]韩瑞栋, 薄凡.自由贸易试验区对资本流动的影响效应研究——基于准自然实验的视角[J].国际金融研究, 2019, 1(7):36-45
[20]魏江, 刘怡, 胡胜蓉.基于主成分分析法的创新型城市评价研究[J].湖南大学学报社会科学版, 2009, 23(3):53-58
[21]吴素春, 聂鸣.创新资源状况对创新型城市建设的影响——对我国创新型试点城市的实证研究[J].技术经济与管理研究, 2013, 1(2):111-115
[22]聂飞, 刘海云.国家创新型城市建设对我国质量的影响[J].经济评论, 2019, 1(6):67-79
[23]Walker JL.The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States[J].American Political Science Review, 1969, 63(3):880-899
[24] Berry WD, Lowery D.Understanding United States Government Growth: an Empirical Analysis of the Postwar Era[M]. [S.l.]: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1987: 78-90.
[25]Kelejian HH, Murrell P, Shepotylo O.Spatial Spillovers in the Development of Institutions[J].Journal of Development Economics, 2013, 101(3):297-315
[26]李健.公益创投政策扩散的制度逻辑与行动策略——基于我国地方政府政策文本的分析[J].南京社会科学, 2017, 1(2):91-97
[27]邓慧慧, 赵家羚, 虞义华.地方政府建设开发区:左顾右盼的选择[J].财经研究, 2018, 44(3):139-153
[28]Audretsch DB, Feldman MP.R&d Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation and Production[J].The American Economic Review, 1996, 86(3):630-640
[29]魏守华, 姜宁, 吴贵生.内生创新努力、本土技术溢出与长三角高技术产业创新绩效[J].中国工业经济, 2009, 1(2):25-34
[30]卞元超, 吴利华, 白俊红.高铁开通、要素流动与区域经济差距[J].财贸经济, 2018, 1(6):147-161
[31]邓慧慧, 赵家羚.地方政府经济决策中的“同群效应[J].中国工业经济, 2018, 1(4):59-78
[32]Acharya V, Xu Z.Financial Dependence and Innovation: the Case of Public Versus Private Firms[J].Journal of Financial Economics, 2017, 124(2):223-243
[33]Balsmeier B, Fleming L, Manso G.Independent Boards and Innovation[J].Journal of Financial Economics, 2017, 123(3):536-557
[34]Kalcheva I, Mclemore P, Pant S.Innovation: the Interplay Between Demand-side Shock and Supply-side Environment[J].Research Policy, 2018, 47(2):440-461
基金
国家社会科学基金重点项目(16ATJ003,2016.02—2021.04);全国统计科学研究项目(2018LZ24,2018.09—2020.09)。