地理科学进展 ›› 2022, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (4): 554-566.doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2022.04.002

• 研究论文 • 上一篇    下一篇

复杂度、关联度与城市技术演化路径——基于北京、上海、深圳的对比分析

王俊松1,2(), 颜燕3   

  1. 1.华东师范大学全球创新与发展研究院,上海 200062
    2.华东师范大学城市与区域科学学院,上海 200062
    3.首都经济贸易大学城市经济与公共管理学院,北京 100070
  • 收稿日期:2021-08-02 修回日期:2021-10-19 出版日期:2022-04-28 发布日期:2022-06-28
  • 作者简介:王俊松(1983— ),女,安徽亳州人,副教授,主要从事经济地理方向研究。E-mail: jswang@re.ecnu.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:
    教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目(21YJCZH159)

Complexity, relatedness and urban technology evolutionary path: A comparative study of Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen in China

WANG Junsong1,2(), YAN Yan3   

  1. 1. Institute for Global Innovation & Development, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China
    2. School of Urban and Regional Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China
    3. College of Urban Economics and Public Administration, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing 100070, China
  • Received:2021-08-02 Revised:2021-10-19 Online:2022-04-28 Published:2022-06-28
  • Supported by:
    MOE Project of Humanities and Social Sciences(21YJCZH159)

摘要:

演化经济地理强调与本地的技术关联对技术演化的影响,在建设科技创新中心的过程中,向复杂技术的升级需要充分考虑本地技术结构及演化特点。论文以北京、上海和深圳3个国际科技创新中心建设城市为例,将复杂性和关联性纳入研究框架,比较分析技术关联和复杂性对城市技术演化的影响。研究发现,北京、上海和深圳的技术结构、技术关联度、复杂性和演化路径存在明显的差异。上海的技术关联度较高,而复杂度偏低;深圳的技术关联度最低,技术复杂度最高;北京居中。从演化趋势看,北京经历了明显的向复杂技术演化的过程;深圳的整体技术复杂度上升幅度最大,但在2006年以后出现向低复杂度技术多元化发展的趋势;上海的技术复杂度上升幅度最小。计量分析表明,与本地技术关联越强的技术越有利于成为3个城市下一阶段的优势技术,但复杂度高的技术更容易成为北京下一阶段的优势技术,对上海和深圳的技术演化没有显著影响。未来国际科技创新中心建设需要充分考虑本地技术基础和演化特征,并制定针对性的技术发展策略。

关键词: 技术演化, 关联, 复杂性, 创新, 城市

Abstract:

In the development of science and technology innovation centers, upgrading to complex technologies requires full consideration of the local technology capacities. Evolutionary economic geography emphasizes the impact of technology relatedness with the local technology capacities on technology evolution. This study took three international science and technology innovation center cities, Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen, as examples, and incorporated complexity and relatedness into the research framework to comparatively analyze the technology relatedness and complexity of the three cities and their impact on technological change. It is found that there are significant differences in technology structure, technology relatedness, complexity, and evolutionary paths among the three cities. Shanghai has higher technology relatedness and lower complexity, Shenzhen has the lowest technology relatedness and highest technology complexity, and Beijing is in between. In terms of evolutionary trends, Beijing has experienced an obvious change to complex technologies; Shenzhen has the largest increase in overall technological complexity, but after 2006 there was a trend toward diversification into low-complexity technologies; and Shanghai has the smallest increase in technological complexity. The econometric analysis shows that technologies with stronger local technology linkages are more likely to become the dominant technologies in the next stage of development in the three cities, but technologies with high complexity are more likely to become the dominant technologies in the next stage of development in Beijing, and have no significant impact on the technology change of Shanghai and Shenzhen. The construction of science and technology innovation centers requires cities to fully consider urban technology base and evolutionary characteristics, and formulate targeted technology development strategies.

Key words: technology evolution, association, complexity, innovation, city