PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY ›› 2016, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (4): 450-461.doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2016.04.006

• Articles • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Relationship between infrastructure and socioeconomic development in Beijing

Yajuan SHI1,2(), Yongbin ZHU3,*(), Jinchuan HUANG1   

  1. 1. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, Beijing 100101, China
    2. Institute of Urban Science and Region Development, Henan University of Technology, Zhengzhou 450001, China
    3. Institute of Policy and Management, CAS, Beijing 100101, China
  • Online:2016-04-27 Published:2016-04-27
  • Contact: Yongbin ZHU;
  • Supported by:
    National Key Technology Support Program, No.2012BAJ15B01


Infrastructure has positive spillover effects on economic development. This study took Beijing as a research area and measured the direct and indirect contribution of infrastructure on economic growth, input-output relationships between infrastructure sectors and other economic sectors, as well as the coordination degrees of infrastructure with socioeconomic development level. This study indicates that: (1) the average rate of contribution of infrastructure to economic growth during 1978-2014 was about 34.9% in Beijing. In 1985-1990, 1990-1995, and 1995-2000, the contribution rates reached 45%. With regard to direct contribution, that is, the share of value-added of infrastructure sector in GDP, the postal-telecommunication infrastructure had the highest direct contribution, which accounted for 9% of GDP. This was followed by transportation, energy, and water-related sectors; (2) transportation and energy sectors had relatively high induction coefficients, indicating that the growth of other economic sectors increased the demand for these two infrastructure sectors, and hence drove their growth. It also reflects that these two infrastructure sectors were mostly demanded by other economic sectors and tended to have restriction effects on economic development, thus required to be constructed in advance; (3) infrastructure development in Beijing lagged behind the city’s socioeconomic development, especially for the water-related infrastructure, which is still the weakest of all infrastructure sectors and has the lowest coordination degree with the socioeconomic development level, despite that it has gradually improved. On the other hand, transportation, energy, and postal-telecommunication sectors have recently reached a highly coordinated state with socioeconomic development. Among them, the postal-telecommunication sector has developed with the most impressive rate. To conclude, the coordination degree of infrastructure and socioeconomic development in Beijing has entered a moderately coordinated stage since 2010.

Key words: infrastructure, contribution rate, influence coefficient, induction coefficient, coordination degree, Beijing City