地理科学进展, 2023, 42(2): 249-259 doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2023.02.004

研究论文

长江经济带经济韧性空间分异与驱动因素

袁丰,1, 熊雪蕾2, 徐紫腾2, 于灵慧1,3

1.中国科学院南京地理与湖泊研究所,中国科学院流域地理学重点实验室,南京 210008

2.河南大学黄河文明与可持续发展研究中心暨黄河文明省部共建协同创新中心,河南 开封 475001

3.中国科学院大学,北京 100049

Spatial differentiation and driving factors of economic resilience in the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China

YUAN Feng,1, XIONG Xuelei2, XU Ziteng2, YU Linghui1,3

1. Nanjing Institute of Geography and Limnology, Key Laboratory of Watershed Geographic Sciences, CAS, Nanjing 210008, China

2. Key Research Institute of Yellow River Civilization and Sustainable Development, Collaborative Innovation Center on Yellow River Civilization Jointly Built by Henan Province and Ministry of Education, Henan University, Kaifeng 475001, Henan, China

3. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

收稿日期: 2022-05-4   修回日期: 2022-11-15  

基金资助: 国家自然科学基金项目(42171189)
国家自然科学基金项目(42001138)
国家自然科学基金项目(42101178)
中国科学院南京地理与湖泊研究所自主部署项目(NIGLAS2022GS06)

Received: 2022-05-4   Revised: 2022-11-15  

Fund supported: National Natural Science Foundation of China(42171189)
National Natural Science Foundation of China(42001138)
National Natural Science Foundation of China(42101178)
Science and Technology Planning Project of NIGLAS(NIGLAS2022GS06)

作者简介 About authors

袁丰(1982— ),男,江苏无锡人,副研究员,主要从事城市和区域发展研究。E-mail: fyuan@niglas.ac.cn

摘要

2008年金融危机对中国实体经济造成了巨大冲击,考察危机后区域经济恢复过程的不平衡性和差异化机制,有利于为推动区域高质量和可持续发展提供参考借鉴。论文基于多维韧性测度框架,全面考察国际金融危机后长江经济带经济韧性动态演变过程,重点分析了抵抗力、恢复力的时序变化特征和空间分异格局。在此基础上,采用固定效应面板回归模型,重点考察经济结构特征对不同阶段区域经济韧性的影响。研究发现:从总体层面来看,长江经济带遭受冲击后的抵抗力呈先上升后下降的趋势,整体表现为高水平抵抗力,而恢复力呈明显的波动特征;出口韧性的抵抗力和恢复力的波动远大于GDP、工业、消费、就业维度的波动;回归模型表明,多样化和相关多样化、区域创新能力等因素,虽然在危机初期抵御风险的过程中作用有限,但有利于区域在危机过后尽快实现恢复增长。研究有助于探索建立适应中国高质量发展的经济韧性测度框架,可以为推动长江经济带高质量发展提供参考。

关键词: 区域经济韧性; 抵抗力; 恢复力; 相关多样化; 非相关多样化; 长江经济带

Abstract

The 2008 global financial crisis had a huge impact on China's real economy, and inspecting the imbalance and differentiation mechanism of the regional economic recovery process after the crisis is conducive to providing a reference for promoting regional high-quality and sustainable development. Based on the multidimensional resilience measurement framework, this study comprehensively investigated the dynamic evolution process of economic resilience in the Yangtze River Economic Belt after the 2008 global financial crisis, and focused on the temporal variation characteristics and spatial differentiation patterns of resistance and resilience. On this basis, the fixed effect panel regression model was used to analyze the role of factors such as industrial development status, regional development foundation, level of opening up, government management level, and innovation environment on economic resilience. The study found that at the overall level, the resistance of the Yangtze River Economic Belt after the impact showed a trend of first rising and then declining and the overall performance was high, but the resilience showed a trend of decline-rise-decline and the overall performance was low. The fluctuations in export resistance and resilience were much greater than the fluctuations in the dimensions of GDP, industry, consumption, and employment. Regression models showed that diversity and related diversity and regional innovation capabilities, although limited in the process of resisting risks in the early stage of the crisis, were conducive to the rapid regional resumption of growth after the crisis, areas with strong government management capabilities may hinder economic recovery to a certain extent, and the ability to open up to the outside world has no significant impact on resistance and resilience.

Keywords: regional economic resilience; rebound; recovery; related diversity; unrelated diversity; the Yangtze River Economic Belt

PDF (4275KB) 元数据 多维度评价 相关文章 导出 EndNote| Ris| Bibtex  收藏本文

本文引用格式

袁丰, 熊雪蕾, 徐紫腾, 于灵慧. 长江经济带经济韧性空间分异与驱动因素[J]. 地理科学进展, 2023, 42(2): 249-259 doi:10.18306/dlkxjz.2023.02.004

YUAN Feng, XIONG Xuelei, XU Ziteng, YU Linghui. Spatial differentiation and driving factors of economic resilience in the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China[J]. Progress in Geography, 2023, 42(2): 249-259 doi:10.18306/dlkxjz.2023.02.004

当今世界正面临百年未有之大变局,金融危机、贸易争端、新冠疫情等风险交织叠加,给世界经济蒙上一层阴影的同时,也给镶嵌在全球生产网络中的经济“马赛克”带来了一系列冲击和挑战[1-2]。在此背景下,经济韧性(resilience)的概念被广泛应用到区域和城市研究中,用以识别和解释区域经济遭受外部冲击的抵御、恢复和转型能力,成为后危机时代经济地理学者参与区域经济复兴问题讨论的核心概念之一[3-5]

韧性的概念自被学者引入区域经济研究,历经了从工程韧性—生态韧性—演化韧性的演进脉络[6]。工程韧性的概念建立在经济体具有最佳均衡状态的前提假设上,因此,经济体一旦被外部冲击推离初始均衡状态,自我纠正的市场机制便会被自动唤醒以恢复初始均衡状态[7-8],相关研究注重系统对干扰(冲击)的抵抗力和恢复到冲击前均衡状态的速度[9]。生态韧性的概念强调生态系统具有非线性、多阈值、不确定性、不稳定性、突变等特征[10],认为系统在面对外部冲击和扰动时可以改变自身结构和功能,从而进入一个异于初始均衡的新状态[7]。近年来,韧性概念日益与演化、复杂性等理论融合,强调区域经济系统的非均衡、自适应和非线性特征,关注区域产业、技术、劳动力、制度等结构适应冲击的能力,研究的重点也摒弃盲目追求系统应对短期冲击时的适应性,转而关注区域保持经济长期发展的能力[11-14]

学界对中国区域经济韧性的研究方兴未艾,现有研究大多基于多指标综合评价法和核心变量评价法,定量测度区域经济韧性的时间转换过程和空间分异特征,并从产业结构、开放水平、创新能力、制度政策等方面揭示影响区域经济韧性分异演化的驱动因素[3,14-15]。随着国际经贸风险和公共卫生安全风险的加剧,对中国区域经济韧性研究的广度和深度不断拓展。在研究案例地上,从关注资源型城市、老工业基地等弱势区域转型[13,16],进一步拓展到诸如长三角、粤港澳、京津冀等城市群区域经济韧性的比较研究。在研究时间尺度上,除了关注外部冲击带来的短期抵抗力外,开始讨论区域经济韧性的长期适应性问题。

本文以长江经济带为案例,基于多维韧性测度框架,重点考察2008年国际金融危机后长江经济带经济韧性的长期和短期表现。长江经济带是中国改革开放空间布局与“两横三纵”城市化战略格局的重要组成部分,约占全国国土面积的21%,常住人口和地区生产总值均超过全国的40%,是中国经济中心所在、活力所在。与此同时,长江经济带横跨中国东、中、西三大区域,自然环境条件和经济社会水平迥异,成为学者研究中国空间不平衡性和区域协调发展的天然试验地。其中比较有代表性的有杨桂山等[17]编著的《长江保护与发展报告》、曾刚等[18]自2015年起每年发布的《长江经济带城市协同发展能力指数》年度研究报告。2008年金融危机爆发以后,中国实体经济遭受了巨大冲击和严峻挑战。作为中国经济的半壁江山,长江经济带更是首当其冲,以此为案例考察不同城市应对危机的抵抗力和危机过后的恢复力及其空间分异机理,有助于探索适应中国高质量发展的经济韧性测度框架,也可以为推动长江经济带经济高质量发展提供决策参考。

1 理论机制与研究假说

经济地理学者认为,产业结构是影响区域经济韧性的最关键因素[19]。早期研究重点关注产业结构的专业化和多样化特征对抵御风险和经济恢复的影响。一般认为,多样化的产业结构可能会分散产出需求和投入供给波动风险[20],从而使得区域经济在风险来临时更具抵抗力,而在复苏阶段又为区域经济增长提供了更多潜在发展路径的可能[19,21-22]。与此同时,过度专业化往往会增加区域的脆弱性并降低应对冲击和风险的能力,特别是外部冲击涉及区域的主要经济部门,那么区域将很难有回旋余地来缓冲衰退。因此,本文提出假设1:产业结构多样的区域更能够承受外部冲击,并更快从冲击中恢复。

关联性概念的引入突破了产业结构的多样化—专业化二分法[23]。该研究脉络认为并不是所有的多样化都能提升区域对风险的应对能力,多样化地区在外部冲击中的表现取决于产业间的相关程度[9]。相关多样化意味着区域可以通过相似的能力、共享能力或投入产出联系弥补区域遭受冲击时面临的供应链断裂的风险,因而有利于提升区域韧性[24-25],但也有研究表明,外部风险也容易通过产业技术联系向整个区域扩散,从而降低风险抵御的能力[22]。相关多样化对恢复力的作用具有一定的共识,认为有利于通过新的产业路径的培育实现长期经济成功[26]。不相关多样化意味着区域间产业和技术联系不紧密,在遭受外部冲击中有利于分散系统性风险,但也意味着会增加产业重新组合形成新产业发展路径的机会,一定程度上影响区域的恢复能力[19,22]。在区域面对外部冲击的抵抗力等短期能力方面,往往认为产业多样化强的地区比专业化地区于更能分散风险带来的冲击,因此具有更强的抵抗冲击的能力。相关多样化程度较高的地区往往被认为产业间更容易从相互学习、技术共享、劳动力资源互通中受益[27],而非相关多样化保持了产业之间的独立性,在一定程度上降低风险性[28]。因此,本文选取进一步将多样化分解为相关多样化、非相关多样化来表征产业结构状态,提出假设2:相关多样化有利于提升区域对冲击的抵抗能力和恢复能力。

区域经济韧性被认为是区域历史资产和外界环境共同影响而不断自我强化的历史路径依赖[12]。能否突破危机从而实现创造性发展,除了取决于产业结构等区域资产和发展基础以外,区域制度安排、创新氛围、地方领导力等同样起着至关重要的作用[29]。对于金融危机这一特定冲击来说,区域外资吸引力和对外开放程度也是理解区域经济韧性的重要方面[30]。由于国际投资减少和消费需求降低,在短期内更容易受到金融危机的冲击[31]。但同时,开放程度强的区域由于有着更多外部产业联系、更多贸易伙伴,对于在经济危机过后的恢复中起到了正向重要[32]。因此,提出假设3:开放程度高的区域更易受到外部冲击的影响,但也更有能力从危机中恢复。

大量研究表明,技术和知识密集型的经济在危机中更有韧性[33]。无论冲击与否,经济复兴的需求一直存在于发展的过程中,创造新的增长路径以抵消区域经济不可避免的衰退过程显得尤为重要。因此,区域应对冲击的长期能力可以根据区域创新能力来重新定义[34]。通过创新建立恢复力可以使一个地区实现长期可持续发展,同时克服消极锁定对区域经济增长造成的羁绊影响[35]。但对于创新在抵抗阶段的影响,现有研究并没有得出一致的结论。因此,提出假设4:创新能力有利于提升区域经济遭受冲击后的恢复能力。

2 研究方法与数据来源

2.1 区域经济韧性测度

定量测度区域经济韧性的方法主要有指标体系法和核心指标法2种。指标体系法是通过构建相关指标体系反映区域经济韧性的能力,但关于指标的选取以及权重设定方面广受质疑。替代性的方法是采用核心指标法(如区域就业、失业率、GDP、工业增加值和可支配收入)对区域经济韧性进行测度。由于区域经济系统的复杂性和多变性,运用核心变量法进行测度过于宏观和单一,难以体现韧性概念的不同维度,新近研究倡导基于多核心变量从不同维度对区域经济韧性进行综合考察[36]

为有效避免单一维度指标解释力不足的问题,本文综合选择GDP、出口、消费、工业、就业5个维度对区域经济韧性进行表征,主要基于以下考虑:① GDP和就业是最常用的核心指标,本文同样纳入经济韧性多维测度框架;② 考虑到长江经济带经济增长动力仍然处于动态调整的阶段,内需消费、出口在危机发生时极易受到影响,同时也可以作为区域逐步走出危机的重要表征指标;③ 考虑到金融危机对可贸易商品的出口影响大,工业维度也被考虑到测度框架中。本文主要基于韧性的多维测度框架[36],采用GDP、出口额、工业增加值、就业人数、社会消费品零售总额5个指标。以金融危机发生的2008年为基期,采用2009—2018年各省市各维度指标的增长率与2008年相应维度指标的增长率之差来表征金融危机时期该维度的韧性,综合经济韧性值采用5个维度韧性值的平均加权和。

2.2 专业化指数和多样化指数测度

分别以规模最大行业区位商来测度地区专业化水平,以数据离散度的倒数来测度地区多样化的水平,计算公式分别如下:

rzii=maxj(eij/ej)
rdii=1/eij-ej

式中:rzii表示城市i的专业化水平,rdii表示城市i的多样化水平,值越大,分别表示专业化或多样化水平越高,反之越低;eij表示产业j在城市i中的就业比例,ej是产业j的就业人数在长江经济带所占的份额。

2.3 相关多样化与非相关多样化测度

相关多样化与非相关多样化最早常见于制造业部门间的测度,随着这2个指标被引入区域经济韧性研究,也逐渐应用于全部经济部门间的测度,经济部门间的投入产出联系是关联性的重要来 源[37]。参考Frenken等[38]提出的相关和非相关多样化的研究方法,通过进一步采用熵指标方法对相关多样化和非相关多样化进行计算。为保证数据统计口径一致和计算的准确性,本文以2003年后《中国城市统计年鉴》中的城市产业划分作为标准,将19类产业作为测算的小类部门。

假定经济系统中有m个大类部门,m个大类部门下又细分为n个小类部门(nm),以此来解释相关多样化和非相关多样化的分解过程。以就业份额为例,对于第s个大类部门来说,就业人员比重Ps是小类部门就业人员比重Pi之和,S为第s个大类部门中所有小类部门的集合:

Ps=Pi

那么,可用熵指标来判断一个大类部门内部各细分产业的多样化程度EWs

EWs=(Pi/Ps)ln(Ps/Pi)

在大类部门层面上,m个部门之间的多样化熵指标EA计算公式如下:

EA=s=1mPsln(1/Ps)

从整个经济系统的角度看,总体多样化ET的表达式为:

ET=i=1nPiln(1/Pi)

基于熵指标的特性,对总体多样化加以分解:

ET=s=1mPiln1Pi=s=1mPiPsPslnPsPi+ln1Ps=s=1mPsPiPslnPsPi+ln1Ps=s=1mPsEWs+EA

式中:s=1mPsEWs表示一个经济系统中大类部门内的多样化熵指标EWs与该部门所占份额Ps的乘积,它是衡量大类部门内部存在更强投入产出联系的细分行业的多样化程度的标准,也就是相关多样化(rv);EA表示经济系统各大类部门之间的多样化熵指标,代表了产业关联相对较弱的部门多样化水平,也就是非相关多样化(uv)。通过这种方法,用熵指标衡量的经济系统产业多样化被分解为2个部分,即相关多样化和非相关多样化。

2.4 数据来源与回归模型

本文以长江经济带为研究对象,考察区域经济韧性空间分异及其驱动因素。由于数据获取限制,以108个地级及以上城市为基本分析单元,地区(州)、省辖县等行政单元不纳入分析。数据主要采集自相应年份的《中国城市统计年鉴》以及长江经济带各省市的统计年鉴、统计公报等,数据分析基于ArcGIS、Stata等软件或者平台进行处理。

本文以经济韧性评价值作为被解释变量。重点考察专业化(rzi)、多样化(rdi)、相关多样化(rv)、非相关多样化(uv)、对外开放水平(ftr)、政府管理能力(ins)、区域创新能力(inv)、区域发展基础(pgdp)为主要解释变量,如表1所示。区域经济基础往往决定了一个地区在面对区域经济遭受冲击的下限,它在某种程度上影响着该地区面对冲击时的抗压能力以及恢复水平,和经济韧性密切相关。该维度已经被很多学者[39-40]作为影响因子来对区域经济韧性进行解释,一般用一个地区的人均GDP来表征。政府管理能力作为区域经济发展的重要推动力量,是用来分析和解释区域经济韧性的重要影响因素,本文用财政自给水平表征,具体采用财政公共预算收入与财政公共预算支出比值表示。已有研究表明,区域的创新能力不仅是一个区域抵抗冲击的重要力量,也是区域打破僵局、最终获得创新型发展活力的不竭动力[34-35],本文用地方财政科技支出来对地方创新能力进行表征。对外开放水平在一定程度可以衡量城市对外部冲击的敏感程度,一般而言,城市对外开放水平越高,产业经济受到外部冲击而产生波动的可能性就越大,本文采用实际利用外资(FDI)占GDP的比重来衡量对外开放水平。

表1   变量的统计性描述

Tab.1  Descriptive statistics of independent variables

变量变量名称观察值均值标准差最小值最大值
resi区域经济韧性1080-0.070.18-0.542.37
pgdp人均GDP(元)108045413.3530387.366025199017
ins财政自给水平10800.4910.2370.0551.541
inv地方财政科技支出(万元)1080114048.69314760.4912554263655
ftrFDI/GDP10800.020.0200.27
rzi专业化指数10803.583.651.2432.41
rdi多样化指数10802.430.920.955.80
rv相关多样化指数108020.6212.811.5963.38
uv非相关多样化指数10801.710.210.932.29

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


本文采用面板数据对区域经济韧性的影响因素进行回归分析。该模型通常有3种形式,即POOL模型(混合回归模型)、FE模型(固定效应模型)和RE模型(随机效应模型),判断最终选用哪个模型为最优模型可以通过F检验、BP检验和Hausman检验进行判定。在FE模型和POOL模型之间,若F检验的P值小于0.05,则选用前者;在RE模型和POOL模型之间,若BP检验的P值小于0.05,则选用前者;在FE模型和RE模型之间,若Hausman检验的P值小于0.05,则选用FE模型。

本文分别对长江经济带地市层面108个城市的样本进行面板模型估计,时间区间为2段,分别为冲击发生以后的第一阶段(2009—2011年)和第二阶段(2012—2018年),最终本文面板模型设置为:

resiit=β0+β1insit+β2invit+β3ftrit+β4pgdpit+β5rziit+β6rdiit+β7rvit+β8uvit+εit

式中:resiit是被解释变量,表示长江经济带中城市it年的经济韧性;β1~β4分别代表政府管理能力、区域创新能力、对外开放水平、区域发展基础指标的回归系数,β5~β8分别代表产业结构中的专业化、多样化、相关多样化和非相关多样化的回归系数,β0为常数项,εit为随机扰动项。

3 长江经济带经济韧性的动态演化和时空分异

3.1 总体时序特征

图1刻画了2008年金融危机发生以后长江经济带总体韧性的表现。在抵抗期,长江经济带遭受金融危机冲击后抵抗力快速下降,然后在2010年和2011年快速上升,整体表现为高水平抵抗力,这可能是因为全球金融危机爆发以后国家积极的经济干预政策和中国较强的产业基础叠加作用造成的。在恢复期,恢复力呈现“下降—上升—下降”的趋势,在2016年下降至最低水平,2017年小幅回升以后又转为下降态势,整体表现为低水平恢复力。这一方面是由于金融危机对全球经济造成了结构性的冲击,全球经济增长普遍低迷;另一方面也是中国经济由高速增长转向高质量发展阶段,在各经济指标的增速上表现出了一定的放缓。

图1

图1   2009—2018年长江经济带总体经济韧性时序特征

Fig.1   The changing overall economic resilience in the Yangtze River Economic Belt during 2009-2018


3.2 分维度时序特征

图2刻画了2008年金融危机发生以后长江经济带5个维度(GDP维度、工业维度、消费维度、就业维度、出口维度)上的韧性时序演变。在抵抗期(2009—2011年),金融危机对全部5个维度均造成了冲击,但不同维度的抵抗力表现出明显的差异性。金融危机发生后的第一年,出口维度的抵抗力最低,急速下降到-0.44,这与金融危机带来的国际需求下降密切相关;GDP、工业、消费、就业维度的抵抗力相对较高,但也都下降到了0值以下。随后的2010年和2011年,GDP、工业、消费维度的抵抗力强势反弹,出口更是从先前最低水平一跃成为分维度中表现最好的,这可能是由于国际贸易需求反弹和西方主要工业国家生产恢复缓慢造成的;这一时期,就业和消费维度的抵抗力波动不大,依然难以恢复到金融危机前的增长速度。从恢复期(2012—2018年)来看,GDP、工业、消费、就业等4个维度的恢复力虽然仍然处于负值,但波动幅度小,相对稳定。出口维度的恢复力较GDP、工业、消费、就业维度更弱,波动更剧烈,一方面是受到国际消费需求持续放缓的影响,另一方面也是金融危机后发达国家实行制造业振兴计划造成的。

图2

图2   2009—2018年长江经济带分维度经济韧性时序特征

Fig.2   Five dimensions of economic resilience in the Yangtze River Economic Belt during 2009-2018


3.3 空间分异特征

为深入探究长江经济带各地市在遭受冲击后2个阶段中的韧性表现的异同,选取危机后抵抗力阶段的初始状态(即2009年)以及危机后的恢复力阶段的结束状态(即2018年)作为关键节点进行重点分析,如图3。从抵抗力来看,长江经济带经济抵抗力差异显著。5类水平的区域经济韧性的城市相间分布,且中水平、中低水平和低水平的韧性城市占比较大,而具有高韧性和中高韧性城市的占比较小。长江上游高抵抗力的城市相对较多,长江中游韧性最好的城市为九江市、抚州市、景德镇市,长江下游韧性最好的城市为滁州市,可能的原因是这些地区开放型经济水平相对较弱,受到金融危机的冲击影响较少。与此相对应,中心城市和省会城市除了南昌之外,抵抗力普遍处于中、低水平。从恢复力来看,长江经济带恢复力呈现很强的聚集性,相对而言,长江中游城市表现出较高的恢复力。

图3

图3   2009、2018年长江经济带经济抵抗力和恢复力空间格局

Fig.3   Spatial patterns of economic resilience in the Yangtze River Economic Belt in 2009 and 2018


为更直观地表达长江经济带各城市抵抗力和恢复力之间的关联关系,本文计算第一阶段(2009年)长江经济带各城市的抵抗力的中值以及第二阶段(2018年)恢复力的中值,并根据中值将抵抗力和恢复力分成高值和低值,最后得出4种类型组合状态,分别为高抵抗力—高恢复力、高抵抗力—低恢复力、低抵抗力—高恢复力、低抵抗力—低恢复力(图4)。其中,低—高型的抵抗力—恢复力类型主要分布在江浙沪地区以及安徽省东北部的地市、湖南北部、西部和湖北南部的地市,低—低型的抵抗力—恢复力类型主要分布在安徽省西部和湖北省东北部地区的地市、湖南省中部的地市和四川省东部地区的地市,高—高型的抵抗力—恢复力类型主要分布在江西省以及和与之相连的湖南省南部地市、四川省东北部的地市和云南省的东部和南部地市,高—低型的抵抗力—恢复力类型则基本是以重庆市和其周边地市为主。总体来看,4种类型在空间分布上较为广泛,上中下游均有分布,但依然表现出明显的组团式集聚连绵分布格局,一定程度上说明了邻近区域之间的产业关联特征。

图4

图4   长江经济带抵抗力—恢复力类型分布格局

Fig.4   Spatial distributions of resistance-resilience types in the Yangtze River Economic Belt


4 长江经济带经济韧性的影响因素分析

基于前述模型,分别运用混合回归(Pool)、固定效应模型(FE)、随机效应模型(RE),对冲击发生后的抵抗期和恢复期的经济韧性进行回归分析,结果如表2所示。首先,通过F检验、LM检验和Hausman检验对混合、固定和随机3种回归模型进行选择,在2个阶段的检验中,以F统计量比较混合回归模型与固定效应模型,Prob>F=0.05,即选择固定效应。以拉格朗日乘子检验来比较混合回归模型和随机效应模型,Prob>chibar2=1.0000,即不存在随机效应,以Hausman检验来比较固定效应模型和随机效应模型,Prob>chibar2=0.05,即拒绝原假设,因此,本文采用固定效应模型进行回归。

表2   经济韧性影响因素分阶段回归结果

Tab.2  Results of regression analysis of driving factors of economic resilience in different periods

变量抵抗期(2009—2011年)恢复期(2012—2018年)
POOL模型FE模型RE模型POOL模型FE模型RE模型
pgdp0.6630***3.3820***0.6630***0.9530***2.3160***0.9530***
(0.1210)(0.2010)(0.1210)(0.0619)(0.0930)(0.0619)
ins-0.3970***0.2480-0.3970***-0.9150***-0.4120***-0.9150***
(0.1130)(0.1870)(0.1130)(0.0639)(0.0948)(0.0639)
inv0.20700.80700.20700.2050**0.2590*0.2050**
(0.2690)(0.4970)(0.2690)(0.0932)(0.1530)(0.0932)
ftr-0.11800.2490-0.11800.1390***0.00730.0073
(0.0729)(0.1990)(0.0729)(0.0454)(0.0700)(0.0700)
rzi0.0039***0.2990*0.1960**0.1340***0.10100.1340***
(0.0006)(0.1660)(0.0768)(0.0411)(0.0978)(0.0411)
rdi0.02040.14600.02040.04820.2200***0.0482
(0.0628)(0.1510)(0.0628)(0.0366)(0.0516)(0.0366)
rv0.05990.25300.05990.1280***0.9180***0.1280***
(0.0696)(0.3040)(0.0696)(0.0377)(0.0849)(0.0377)
uv-0.0344-0.2030-0.0344-0.05740.0754-0.0574
(0.0617)(0.2210)(0.0617)(0.0375)(0.0620)(0.0375)
常数项0.04140.1420**0.04140.02790.0518**0.0279
(0.0578)(0.0558)(0.0578)(0.0308)(0.0230)(0.0308)
F检验Prob>F=0.05Prob>F=0.05
LM检验Prob>chibar2=1.0000Prob>chibar2=1.0000
Hausman检验Prob>chi2=0.05Prob>chi2=0.05
R20.12290.72170.48720.32780.75380.6218

注:*、**、***依次代表在10%、5%和1%水平下显著,括号内为标准误。

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


4.1 抵抗期经济韧性的影响因素

由固定效应模型结果可知,在抵抗期(2009—2011年),专业化指数(rzi)的回归系数为正且通过了10%的显著性检验,多样化指数(rdi)的回归系数为正但并不显著,表明相对于多样化的产业结构,专业化更有利于提升抵抗期的城市经济韧性,这与理论预期不一致[21]。造成这一结果的原因有可能是本文纳入了全部三次产业进行了分析,制造业占比在其中占据了举足轻重的份额。事实上,制造业占比高的城市,往往拥有更多的细分行业门类,对金融危机的冲击有着较强的抵抗力,这可能是造成专业化指数的回归结果有别于单纯考察制造业部门结果的重要原因。类似于多样化指数,不相关多样化指数(uv)和相关多样化指数(rv)的回归结果也不显著。区域发展基础(pgdp)的回归系数显著为正,表明经济发展水平较高的城市更能抵御冲击时的波动。对外开放水平(ftr)、政府管理能力(ins)、区域创新能力(inv)等3个变量的影响均不显著,说明在冲击发生时,政府的管理能力、外部联系网络以及城市创新能力对金融危机冲击的缓冲能力并不强。或者说,区域遭受冲击的第一时间,企业、政府等主体还来不及立即采取相应的措施去抵抗冲击,即使对冲击采取了一定有针对性的措施,但诸如增加创新投入等措施在短时间内难以取得立竿见影的成效。

4.2 恢复期经济韧性的影响因素

在恢复期(2012—2018年),专业化和多样化结构呈现出完全不同的影响效果。具体来说,专业化指数(rzi)的回归系数不显著,而多样化指数(rdi)的回归系数显著为正,表明多样化的产业结构更有可能通过培育出新的产业路径等方式提升城市的经济韧性。进一步考察不相关多样化和相关多样化的作用时,发现相关多样化指数(rv)的回归系数显著为正,而不相关多样性指数(uv)并不显著,说明相关多样化产业结构中的技术和产业联系有利于区域经济韧性的恢复和提升,这与现有研究的结果一致[26-27]。区域发展基础(pgdp)的回归系数显著为正,表明经济发展水平较高的城市在恢复期同样有着更好的表现。区域创新能力(inv)的回归系数也显著为正,表明从长期来看,对创新投入的投资有利于提升城市经济韧性,支持了创新对长期经济韧性的正向激励作用的观点[33]。对外开放水平(ftr)的作用并不显著,这可能是由于国际金融危机的长期效应依然存在,减弱了外商直接投资对城市经济增长的拉力。政府管理能力(ins)显著为负,相较于在抵抗阶段这一作用是正向而言,有可能是政府过度干预经济会造成恢复期的增长乏力,一定程度上损害城市的经济韧性。

5 结论与讨论

韧性已经成为当下学术界讨论危机下区域经济增长和恢复的重要理论概念。本文以长江经济带为实证区域,以2008年国际金融危机作为外部冲击,基于GDP、消费、出口、就业、工业5个维度全面考察长江经济带经济韧性动态演变,重点考察了抵抗力、恢复力的时空分异特征。在此基础上,构建面板回归模型检验经济结构、区域发展基础、对外开放水平、政府管理水平、创新环境等因素对不同阶段经济韧性的影响。在产业结构衡量方面,本文采用全部经济部门进行考察,以便更为系统地考察经济结构对区域经济韧性的影响。此外,在韧性测度方面,采用了多维韧性测度框架,以求更全面地反映经济韧性的时空特征。主要结论如下:

从总体层面来看,长江经济带遭受冲击后的抵抗力呈先上升后下降的趋势,而恢复力表现出明显的震荡下降特征。特别是出口韧性的抵抗力和恢复力的波动远大于GDP、工业、消费、就业维度的波动,这与金融危机带来的全球经济衰退有关。2009—2018年经济韧性的抵抗力—恢复力的空间分布类型呈现出一定的组团式集聚分布特征。从影响因素来看,多样化、相关多样化、不相关多样化对抵抗期的经济韧性提升作用不明显,而专业化指数表现出明显的促进作用,这一结论与单纯以制造业为对象的研究结果并不一致,一定程度上说明制造业和服务业应对冲击的表现上的异质性。但是多样化和相关多样化对恢复期经济韧性作用与已有研究一致,即多样化的产业结构特别是相关多样化的产业结构,可以促进区域经济在危机过后尽快实现恢复增长。区域创新能力对抵抗力无显著影响,但能显著提升恢复力,即创新环境越好的地区恢复速度越快,恢复能力越强。

已有研究表明,相关多样化在抵抗风险中作用存在不确定性,但在长期来看呈现更为积极的作用[25-26]。本文一定程度上证实了区域创新发展和相关多样化有助于提升区域长期韧性的假设。研究结果可以为推动长江经济带高质量发展提供一定的科学依据。2008年金融危机以后国家迅速出台了战略性新兴产业发展战略,希冀通过创新驱动发展和培育新的经济增长点来带动经济转型升级,但在实践中也普遍出现了一哄而上、水土不服等问题。结合本文的研究结论,长江经济带在实施创新区域发展战略和培育战略性新兴产业过程中,需要建立基于地方能力的创新和产业扶持体系。一方面,根据本地知识技术基础、经济结构特点和地方比较优势,选择适合地方的战略性新兴产业领域进行重点培育,实现区域产业的相关多样化发展[41];另一方面,也要认识到创新不一定全部源于高科技产业领域和研发活动,不是所有地区都应发展高科技产业,对于后发地区选择跟地方资源和能力匹配的产业更有可能成为推动经济增长的源泉,而且商业模式和产业业态的创新也有助于区域转型[42]

区域面临的风险和冲击是多样的,需要进一步拓展区域经济韧性研究的范围和深度。本文尚存在一定局限性:首先,本文探讨了所有行业的结构特征对金融危机后区域抵抗力和恢复力的影响,但本文所采用的行业分类相对较粗,难以刻画细分行业之间的产业和技术联系,下一步研究可依靠经济普查等更为细颗粒的数据进行深化研究,并进一步区分服务业、制造业组内关联对区域经济韧性的影响;其次,本文更多关注了金融危机对区域经济韧性的影响,贸易争端、新冠疫情等冲击的影响特征和作用不同[43-44],值得经济地理学者进一步探讨不同类型冲击对区域经济韧性的短期和长期影响,并更加关注制度、规则、治理结构等系统能动性对韧性的影响。

参考文献

刘卫东.

新冠肺炎疫情对经济全球化的影响分析

[J]. 地理研究, 2020, 39(7): 1439-1449.

DOI:10.11821/dlyj020200514      [本文引用: 1]

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。

[Liu Weidong.

The impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on the development of economic globalization

Geographical Research, 2020, 39(7): 1439-1449.]

DOI:10.11821/dlyj020200514      [本文引用: 1]

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.

高菠阳, 刘卫东, Glen Norcliffe, .

国际贸易壁垒对全球生产网络的影响: 以中加自行车贸易为例

[J]. 地理学报, 2011, 66(4): 477-486.

[本文引用: 1]

[Gao Boyang, Liu Weidong, Norcliffe G, et al.

Trade barriers and the global production network: A case study of bicycle trade between China and Canada

Acta Geographica Sinica, 2011, 66(4): 477-486.]

DOI:10.11821/xb201104005      [本文引用: 1]

In previous researches, the framework of global production network was established based on free trade and neo-liberalism. However, the globe is not flat. Trade barriers broadly exist and deeply influence the economic globalization. In this article, we explore the issue of trade barriers and its impacts on global production networks. We try to sketch a theoretical interpretation of the trading arrangements under trade barriers, and illustrate the argument with material gathered during our recent investigations into the production networks that connect the bicycle industry in China with Canada. Our research shows that: (1) with trade barriers, the traditional network pattern organized by producers and distributors has changed. Third parties, including trade agency, trade show, bank, and so on, took active part in the trading process and became one of the important poles of the global production networks. (2) Originally, the very metaphor of a network seems to allow more flexibility than a chain, although even so, the breaking of connections in a network often viewed as unfortunate in previous research. However, in our research, we found that the production networks linkage are very flexible. The linkages amongst the very actors in the trading systems are frequently negotiated and switched. At the same time, quality control and labor welfare have become more important than cost control. (3) The spatial organization of the global production network shows differently in two aspects. On one hand, the producers are more labor-oriented and market-oriented than before. On the other hand, the third parties intend to gather along financial clusters and services clusters.

贺灿飞, 夏昕鸣, 黎明.

中国出口贸易韧性空间差异性研究

[J]. 地理科学进展, 2019, 38(10): 1558-1570.

DOI:10.18306/dlkxjz.2019.10.011      [本文引用: 2]

金融危机时期,中国区域出口韧性表现出危机第一阶段(2008—2009年)的抵抗力、危机第二阶段(2009—2011年)的恢复力、产品结构转换提升力。论文构建了区域-产品层面的区域出口贸易韧性指标,通过区域出口贸易额、产品结构等不同层面刻画了金融危机后各区域抵抗力、恢复力的空间差异。实证研究表明:相关多样化产业结构不仅在短期可以增强区域产品的抵抗力,在长期还可以提高区域产品的恢复力并且助推区域产品实现结构升级;应急型税收政策短期内一定程度上可以有效缓解危机冲击,但其影响范围及作用时间均是有限的;外企出口占比高的区域产品对区域产品结构升级影响不明显,但加工贸易方式推动了区域产品在危机中的结构升级。

[He Canfei, Xia Xinming, Li Ming.

Spatial difference and mechanisms of China's export trade regional resilience

Progress in Geography, 2019, 38(10): 1558-1570.]

DOI:10.18306/dlkxjz.2019.10.011      [本文引用: 2]

After the global financial crisis, the resilience of China's regional exports is reflected in three stages: resistance in the first stage of the crisis (2008-2009), resilience in the second stage of the crisis (2009-2011), and promotion in product structure transformation after the crisis. This study constructed a regional export trade resilience index at the regional-product level, and described the spatial differences of regional resilience and resilience after the financial crisis with regard to regional export trade volume and product structure. The results of the regional-product level econometric model show that the diversification of related industrial structure not only can enhance the resistance of regional products in the short run, but also can improve the resilience of regional products in the long run, and further promote the upgrading of regional product structure. Emergency tax policy can effectively alleviate the impact of crisis in the short term, but its impact is limited and does not last; regional products with high export proportion of foreign enterprises have little effect on the upgrading of regional product structure, but processing trade promotes the upgrading of regional product structure in the crisis.

Bristow G, Healy A.

Regional resilience: An agency perspective

[J]. Regional Studies, 2014, 48(5): 923-935.

DOI:10.1080/00343404.2013.854879      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Martin R, Sunley P.

On the notion of regional economic resilience: Conceptualization and explanation

[J]. Journal of Economic Geography, 2015, 15(1): 1-42.

DOI:10.1093/jeg/lbu015      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Tóth B I.

Regional economic resilience: Concepts, empirics and a critical review

[J]. Miscellanea Geographica, 2015, 19(3): 70-75.

DOI:10.1515/mgrsd-2015-0017      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Holling C S.

Resilience and stability of ecological systems

[J]. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1973, 4(1): 1-23.

DOI:10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245      URL     [本文引用: 2]

Simmie J, Martin R.

The economic resilience of regions: Towards an evolutionary approach

[J]. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2010, 3(1): 27-43.

DOI:10.1093/cjres/rsp029      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Martin R.

Regional economic resilience, hysteresis and recessionary shocks

[J]. Journal of Economic Geography, 2012, 12(1): 1-32. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbr019.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

Folke C.

Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses

[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2006, 16(3): 253-267.

DOI:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Boschma R, Capone G.

Institutions and diversification: Related versus unrelated diversification in a varieties of capitalism framework

[J]. Research Policy, 2015, 44(10): 1902-1914.

DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.013      URL     [本文引用: 1]

陈梦远.

国际区域经济韧性研究进展: 基于演化论的理论分析框架介绍

[J]. 地理科学进展, 2017, 36(11): 1435-1444.

DOI:10.18306/dlkxjz.2017.11.012      [本文引用: 2]

区域韧性在中国已成为新兴研究热点,然而国内学者依然将韧性研究局限于均衡论的认识论范畴内。本文首先通过回顾国际最新研究动态从认识论层面辨析均衡论和演化论这两种韧性认知视角的本质区别,由此介绍西方经济韧性的演化论转向。然后从宏观和微观角度阐述演化论视角下区域韧性的形成机制,介绍相关定量测度方法;在此基础上形成系统的西方最新有关研究经济韧性的理论分析框架。未来研究应该在演化论视角基础上强化演化经济地理、创新地理(区域知识网络)和区域韧性这三个研究分支的联系,还应该加强产业历史演化过程的案例研究,并利用专利数据等开放数据源构建产业空间基础数据库。

[Chen Mengyuan.

An international literature review of regional economic resilience: Theories and practices based on the evolutionary perspective

Progress in Geography, 2017, 36(11): 1435-1444.]

DOI:10.18306/dlkxjz.2017.11.012      [本文引用: 2]

Regional resilience has become a trendy research branch. However, traditional Chinese research of resilience had been limited within the equilibrium-based epistemology. This article, based on a review of international literature, clarifies different definitions of economic resilience: engineering resilience, ecological resilience, and evolutionary resilience. The article rejects equilibrium-based epistemology of resilience and argues instead the evolutionary perspective. Then, it introduces the formation mechanism of economic resilience from macro and micro aspects; and introduces quantitative measurement of network analysis. This article concludes that resilience should be extended to the economic field and evolutionary-based perspective. Chinese researchers should notice connections between three research branches — namely evolutionary economic geography, innovation geography, and regional resilience. Future research should focus on case studies of urban and regional economies. They should also explore the existing open patent data source to establish the quantitative database of industry space.

Hu X, Hassink R.

Exploring adaptation and adaptability in uneven economic resilience: A tale of two Chinese mining regions

[J]. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2017, 10: 527-541.

DOI:10.1093/cjres/rsx012      URL     [本文引用: 2]

Martin R, Gardiner B.

The resilience of cities to economic shocks: A tale of four recessions (and the challenge of Brexit)

[J]. Papers in Regional Science, 2019, 98(4): 1801-1832.

DOI:10.1111/pirs.12430      [本文引用: 2]

This paper examines the resilience of British cities to major economic shocks. Using a novel data set for 85 cities, it analyses their resistance to and recovery from the last four major recessions, over the period 1971 to 2015. It reveals a distinct shift in the relation between resistance and recovery between these shocks, as well as major differences between northern and southern cities. Some possible factors shaping these patterns are explored, and tentative estimates of the likely impact of the Brexit shock (Britain's withdrawal from the European Union) are also provided. A key implication is that differences in resilience to major shocks can contribute to the long-run growth paths of cities.

关皓明, 杨青山, 浩飞龙, .

基于“产业—企业—空间”的沈阳市经济韧性特征

[J]. 地理学报, 2021, 76(2): 415-427.

DOI:10.11821/dlxb202102012      [本文引用: 1]

新常态背景下,东北地区与其他区域相比经济下行明显,适应能力较差,即区域经济韧性较弱。产业和企业是区域宏观经济的中微观载体,有助于揭示区域宏观经济韧性的中微观特征,却鲜少有研究。本文从宏观经济增量、中观产业增量及结构变化和微观企业空间动态,分析了1978年以来沈阳市经济韧性的特征。研究发现:① 在全国经济周期影响下,沈阳市经济韧性的变化呈现出“弱—强—弱”的周期性特征,主要是受第二产业韧性的波动变化影响。以支柱产业演替为代表的新老路径产业的韧性变化差异明显,其中老路径产业中机械产业韧性的“强—弱”变化对第二产业的韧性变化影响较大,其韧性减弱主要是由自身竞争力不足造成的。② 在全国经济“增速换挡”放缓的影响下,企业存活率的结果表明,老路径产业企业的韧性强于新路径产业企业的韧性;除食品产业外,其余产业老企业的韧性都强于新企业的韧性。另外初步发现,老路径产业和新路径产业中的电子等技术密集型制造业的新进入企业表现出对中心城区的“空间”路径依赖性,“空间集聚”对企业存活存在正向积极作用。

[Guan Haoming, Yang Qingshan, Hao Feilong, et al.

Economic resilience characteristics of Shenyang City based on a perspective of industry-enterprise-space

Acta Geographica Sinica, 2021, 76(2): 415-427.]

DOI:10.11821/dlxb202102012      [本文引用: 1]

In the era of China's New Normal, compared with other regions in China, the Northeast region has been in obvious economic downturn featured by its weak adaption, or in other words, weak regional economic resilience. However, there is a lack of study on how middle or micro economic sectors, particularly industries and enterprises could shape the resilience level of regional macro economy. This paper, therefore, tries to fill this gap by analyzing the multi-level characteristics of Shenyang's economic resilience since 1978, with regard to its economic growth, industrial restructuring, and enterprise spatial dynamics. We found that affected by China's development status, resilience level of Shenyang's economy shows a weak-strong-weak cycle, driven by the fluctuation of its secondary industry. There are obvious differences in the resilience level of old and new paths in Shenyang. In particular, due to its low competitiveness, the resilience level of mechanical industry in old paths has weakened and imposed greater impacts on secondary industry. Meanwhile, the survival rate of old and new enterprises indicates that the resilience level of old paths enterprises is stronger than that of the new paths ones under the context of national economy slowing down; except for enterprises in food industry, the resilience level of old enterprises is stronger than that of the new ones. Moreover, this research indicates that new enterprises of technology-intensive industry such as the old paths and the electronic industry in new paths show a spatial path dependence of city center, and spatial agglomeration has positive effects on enterprises' survival.

Hu X H, Hassink R.

Place leadership with Chinese characteristics? A case study of the Zaozhuang coal-mining region in transition

[J]. Regional Studies, 2017, 51(2): 224-234.

DOI:10.1080/00343404.2016.1200189      URL     [本文引用: 1]

杨桂山, 朱春全, 蒋志刚. 长江保护与发展报告2011[M]. 武汉: 长江出版社, 2012.

[本文引用: 1]

[Yang Guishan, Zhu Chunquan, Jiang Zhigang. Yangtze conservation and development report 2011. Wuhan, China: Changjiang Press, 2012.]

[本文引用: 1]

曾刚, 王丰龙, 滕堂伟, . 长江经济带城市协同发展能力指数研究报告[M]. 北京: 中国社会科学出版社, 2021.

[本文引用: 1]

[Zeng Gang, Wang Fenglong, Teng Tangwei, et al. Report on index of urban coordinated development capability in the Yangtze River Economic Belt (2020). Beijing, China: China Social Sciences Press, 2021.]

[本文引用: 1]

Boschma R.

Towards an evolutionary perspective on regional resilience

[J]. Regional Studies, 2015, 49(5): 733-751.

DOI:10.1080/00343404.2014.959481      URL     [本文引用: 3]

Doran J, Fingleton B.

US metropolitan area resilience: Insights from dynamic spatial panel estimation

[J]. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 2018, 50(1): 111-132.

DOI:10.1177/0308518X17736067      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Cappelli R, Montobbio F, Morrison A.

Unemployment resistance across EU regions: The role of technological and human capital

[J]. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 2021, 31(1): 147-178.

DOI:10.1007/s00191-020-00693-5      URL     [本文引用: 2]

Sutton J, Arku G.

Regional economic resilience: Towards a system approach

[J]. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 2022, 9(1): 497-512.

DOI:10.1080/21681376.2022.2092418      URL     [本文引用: 3]

Whittle A, Kogler D F.

Related to what? Reviewing the literature on technological relatedness

[J]. Papers in Regional Science, 2020, 99(1): 97-113.

DOI:10.1111/pirs.12481      [本文引用: 1]

The objective of this paper is to critically review contemporary insights derived from studies that focus on relatedness. A well-established body of literature has identified three approaches for measuring relatedness, those based on co-occurrence matrices, industrial hierarchy and resource similarity. From these measures, several authors have begun developing relational networks to capture the branching capabilities of products, industries, technologies and skills. Thereafter the present contribution then shifts from analysing 'what is' and begins considering what 'could be'? It argues that the concept of relatedness lies at the heart of deconstructing issues of unrelated diversification and smart specialisation.

Frenken K, Van Oort F, Verburg T.

Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth

[J]. Regional Studies, 2007, 41(5): 685-697.

DOI:10.1080/00343400601120296      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Eriksson R H, Hane-Weijman E, Henning M.

Sectoral and geographical mobility of workers after large establishment cutbacks or closures

[J]. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 2018, 50(5): 1071-1091.

DOI:10.1177/0308518X18772581      URL     [本文引用: 2]

Xiao J, Boschma R, Andersson M.

Resilience in the European Union: The effect of the 2008 crisis on the ability of regions in Europe to develop new industrial specializations

[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2018, 27(1): 15-47.

DOI:10.1093/icc/dtx023      URL     [本文引用: 3]

Neffke F, Henning M, Boschma R.

How do regions diversify over time: Industry relatedness and the development of new growth paths in regions

[J]. Economic Geography, 2011, 87(3): 237-265.

DOI:10.1111/j.1944-8287.2011.01121.x      URL     [本文引用: 2]

Levy D T, Reitzes J D.

Anticompetitive effects of mergers in markets with localized competition

[J]. Journal of Law Economics & Organization, 1992, 8(2): 427-440.

[本文引用: 1]

Christopherson S, Michie J, Tyler P.

Regional resilience: Theoretical and empirical perspectives

[J]. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2010, 3(1): 3-10.

DOI:10.1093/cjres/rsq004      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Psycharis Y, Tsiapa M, Tselios V. Exports and regional resilience: Evidence from Greece[M]// Bristow G, Healy A. Handbook on regional economic resilience. Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020: 226-241.

[本文引用: 1]

Cavallo E A, Frankel J A.

Does openness to trade make countries more vulnerable to sudden stops, or less? Using gravity to establish causality

[J]. Journal of International Money and Finance, 2008, 27(8): 1430-1452.

DOI:10.1016/j.jimonfin.2007.10.004      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Frankel J A, Romer D.

Does trade cause growth?

[J]. American Economic Review, 1999, 89(3): 379-399.

DOI:10.1257/aer.89.3.379      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Chapple K, Lester T W.

The resilient regional labour market? The US case

[J]. Cambridge Journal of Regions Economy and Society, 2010, 3(1): 85-104.

DOI:10.1093/cjres/rsp031      URL     [本文引用: 2]

Swanstrom T.

Regional resilience: A critical examination of the ecological framework

[R]. Baltimore, USA: University of California, 2008.

[本文引用: 2]

Boschma R, Lambooy J.

The prospects of an adjustment policy based on collective learning in old industrial regions

[J]. GeoJournal, 1999, 49(4): 391-399.

DOI:10.1023/A:1007144414006      URL     [本文引用: 2]

刘逸, 纪捷韩, 张一帆, .

粤港澳大湾区经济韧性的特征与空间差异研究

[J]. 地理研究, 2020, 39(9): 2029-2043.

DOI:10.11821/dlyj020200418      [本文引用: 2]

当前区域经济韧性的测度研究的测度维度较为单一地聚焦在GDP之上,缺乏揭示韧性在其它经济指标上的表现;同时过于注重区域内因素,忽略了外向联系的影响。因此,本研究以粤港澳大湾区为例,选择5个经济指标对大湾区的经济韧性进行多维度测算,并借助关系经济地理学理论视角,对区域内部差异的形成原因给予解释。主要得到三个结论:第一,区域的经济韧性难以从单一维度来判定,多维度指标所揭示的经济韧性存在显著差异,其中GDP所表现出来的区域经济韧性较为保守,而就业指标所表现出来的经济韧性变动较大。第二,大湾区内部各城市的经济韧性存在显著差异,这些差异与区位和GDP规模无显著关系,而与其产业经济结构和嵌入全球生产网络方式有显著关系。第三,湾区城市在经济韧性表现的差异可以用战略耦合来进行初步解释,深圳因自主耦合而经济韧性表现最佳,佛山和广州次之,香港和澳门因以依附耦合的方式嵌入全球金融和酒店网络,因而经济韧性相对较差。本文为经济韧性研究提供了大湾区案例和新的分析视角,推动了关系经济地理学在经济韧性研究中的应用。本文建议未来要重视基于定性方法的经济韧性研究。

[Liu Yi, Ji Jiehan, Zhang Yifan, et al.

Economic resilience and spatial divergence in the Guangdong- Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area in China

Geographical Research, 2020, 39(9): 2029-2043.]

[本文引用: 2]

Fusillo F, Consoli D, Quatraro F.

Resilience, skill endowment, and diversity: Evidence from US metropolitan areas

[J]. Economic Geography, 2022, 98(2): 170-196.

DOI:10.1080/00130095.2021.2008797      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Frenken K, Boschma R A.

A theoretical framework for evolutionary economic geography: Industrial dynamics and urban growth as a branching process

[J]. Journal of Economic Geography, 2007, 7(5): 635-649.

DOI:10.1093/jeg/lbm018      URL     [本文引用: 1]

谭俊涛, 赵宏波, 刘文新, .

中国区域经济韧性特征与影响因素分析

[J]. 地理科学, 2020, 40(2): 173-181.

DOI:10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2020.02.002      [本文引用: 1]

从经济维持性和恢复性2个方面定量化分析中国31省(市)(未包含港澳台数据)应对1997年亚洲金融危机和2008年全球金融危机的经济韧性特征,并对其主要影响因素进行了研究。结果发现:① 在亚洲金融危机中,西部地区的经济维持性较高,中部地区的经济维持性普遍较低;经济恢复性较高的省市主要集中在中部地区,而东部和西部地区经济恢复性较低,经济维持性和经济恢复性呈现一定的负相关。② 各省(市)应对全球金融危机的经济维持性普遍较高,经济维持性较低的区域主要分在东部沿海区域和沿长江经济带地区,而经济维持性较高的区域主要集中在西部地区。③ 在亚洲金融危机中,第二产业表现出了较强的经济韧性,而在全球金融危机中第三产业经济韧性较好。④ 影响2次经济危机中韧性能力的主要因素是不同的,区位条件、人均固定资产投资额和人均GDP的解释力较强,但在2次经济周期中的作用方向不同。

[Tan Juntao, Zhao Hongbo, Liu Wenxin, et al.

Regional economic resilience and influential mechanism during economic crises in China

Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2020, 40(2): 173-181.]

DOI:10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2020.02.002      [本文引用: 1]

This article quantitatively analyzes the economic resilience of 31 provinces of China in terms of resistance and recoverability during two economic crises: the Asian financial crisis in 1997 and the global financial crisis in 2008. Moreover, it analyzes the main factors that affected regional resilience. There are three main findings. Firstly, in the first economic cycle, the economic resistance in western region was relatively high, and the central region was low; the provinces with high economic recoverability were mainly concentrated in the central region, while those in the eastern and western regions were lower, with economic resistance and recoverability showing a certain negative correlation. All regions in second economic cycle demonstrated well resistance; those with low economic resistance were mainly located in the eastern coastal areas and along the Yangtze River Economic Belt. Thirdly, the secondary industry was stronger than the tertiary industry in terms of economic resilience during the first economic cycle, while the situation was different in the second economic cycle. Finally, the influential factors affecting economic resilience varied across the two economic cycles; location advantage, per capita fixed asset investment and per capita GDP had strong explanatory power on economic resilience, but the direction of action in the two economic cycles was different.

徐媛媛, 王琛.

金融危机背景下区域经济弹性的影响因素: 以浙江省和江苏省为例

[J]. 地理科学进展, 2017, 36(8): 986-994.

DOI:10.18306/dlkxjz.2017.08.007      [本文引用: 1]

2008年由美国次贷危机引发的金融危机席卷全球,不同区域在本轮危机中表现出不同程度的适应能力,即各地区域经济弹性大小不一。但学术界对到底什么因素影响区域经济弹性没有定论。本文以浙江省和江苏省为案例,采用统计年鉴、国家知识产权局和课题组调研数据,通过建立二元logistic回归模型对区域经济弹性的影响因素进行定量分析与定性解释。研究发现:①创新水平越高、非相关多样性越强及中小企业占比越大的区域越容易最小化甚至消除危机带来的损失;②财政支出较大、外贸依存度较高的区域抵御经济风险的能力较弱,更易受危机干扰;③相关多样性与区域经济弹性无显著关系。研究表明,财政支出对经济弹性与区域发展的影响不能一概而论,应充分考虑其支出结构特点;要正确认识中小企业占比对区域经济弹性的显著正向影响。为此,政府应鼓励创新,增加对科技研发的投入;注重产业多样化发展,促进产业转型升级;加大对中小企业的扶持,使中小企业自身的优势得以发挥;同时,优化财政支出结构,并健全鼓励消费机制以扩大内需。

[Xu Yuanyuan, Wang Chen.

Influencing factors of regional economic resilience in the 2008 financial crisis: A case study of Zhejiang and Jiangsu provinces

Progress in Geography, 2017, 36(8): 986-994.]

DOI:10.18306/dlkxjz.2017.08.007      [本文引用: 1]

Regions show different economic resilience after the 2008 financial crisis. However, there is no agreement on what factors impact regional economic resilience. In this study, we took Zhejiang and Jiangsu Provinces as an example and established a binary logistic regression model to analyze the influencing factors of regional economic resilience. Based on quantitative and qualitative analyses, we found that: (1) Regions with a higher level of innovation and a higher extent of unrelated variety and a larger proportion of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) tended to have better resilience in the economic crisis. (2) Regions with a large amount of financial expenditure and a stronger dependence on international trade showed a relatively weak ability to resist crisis. (3) Related variety had limited influences on regional economic resilience. This study points out that the impact of fiscal expenditure on economic resilience and regional development cannot be generalized. We should give full considerations to the structure of fiscal expenditure. Moreover, it is necessary to pay more attention to regional environment and institutions to fully understand the positive influence of the proportion of SMEs on regional economic resilience. Local governments should encourage innovation and increase investment in research and development, develop a diversified industrial structure, provide more support to SMEs, and optimize fiscal expenditure structure.

Laranja M.

Translating smart specialisation and entrepreneurial discovery into a process-oriented policy

[J]. Regional Studies, 2022, 56(5): 853-865.

DOI:10.1080/00343404.2021.1959028      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Pylak K. Kogler D F.

Successful economic diversification in less developed regions: Long-term trends in turbulent times

[J]. Regional Studies, 2021, 55(3): 465-478.

DOI:10.1080/00343404.2020.1862782      URL     [本文引用: 1]

吴頔, 丁婧, 袁丰.

政府能动性对外部冲击型战略耦合断裂的暂时性调节研究: 以江苏省昆山市为例

[J]. 地理研究, 2021, 40(12): 3470-3482.

DOI:10.11821/dlyj020210168      [本文引用: 1]

突如其来的新冠肺炎疫情在全球蔓延肆虐,国家间和区域间的人员、货物流动阻滞,对全球生产网络带来了巨大冲击。受此影响,涉外企业纷纷出现了与国际市场、供应链、劳动力、金融资本之间的短暂割裂。在此外部冲击面前,基于全球经济深度链接的战略耦合理论,无法有效解释全球生产网络出现的被动性、暂时性、突发性的耦合断裂。以江苏省昆山市为例,通过深入访谈和调研,重点研究地方政府能动性在维系战略耦合联系中的作用机制。研究发现,昆山政府以本地产业链供应链信息的系统掌握为基础,综合运用协调整合、政策支撑、资源调配等能力,修复导致耦合断裂的环节或重建新耦合。本文提出外部冲击型耦合断裂这一概念,丰富拓展了对战略耦合动态性的认识。其次,本文深化了对政府-全球生产网络互动联结的理解,讨论了地方政府在维系战略耦合联系中的能动性作用和局限性。

[Wu Di, Ding Jing, Yuan Feng.

The role of government departments in mediating shock-driven coupling ruptures: A case study of Kunshan, China

Geographical Research, 2021, 40(12): 3470-3482.]

DOI:10.11821/dlyj020210168      [本文引用: 1]

Since 2020, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has caused huge impacts on people's health and daily life, as well as economic development and employment worldwide. People were quarantined, transportation was blocked, and borders were closed. As a result of the pandemic, global production networks (GPNs), which organize production in a highly decentralized form and in a global scale, have been negatively affected to the greatest extent. This phenomenon demonstrates the temporary, shock-driven discontinuities and ruptures of strategic couplings in GPNs, which tend to be relatively overlooked in the existing GPN literature. In China, when the COVID-19 pandemic broke out earliest, a large number of firms and factories were shut down and its economy once came to a standstill. However, China's economy soon recovered. This article argues that the rapid recovery has largely been driven by the strong, active and effective interventions of Chinese government actors at various levels, including the Chinese central as well as local and regional governments. This article uses the case of Kunshan in Jiangsu province as a case study to illustrate how the local government in particular played key roles in enabling and facilitating the restoration of coupling ruptures. Kunshan is highly plugged into GPNs, with a high level of foreign direct investments and exports. As such, it was heavily affected by the global pandemic initially. Specifically, this article illustrates four inter-connected problems that globally-plugged firms tended to face under the economic shock caused by the pandemic, that is, in terms of their access to the market, suppliers, labour, and finance. This article then shows how the local government of Kunshan utilized and mobilized the unique power and resources, namely, local industrial information, coordinating capacity, policy tools, and resource allocation capacity, to help firms overcome such challenges and in turn enabled and facilitated Kunshan's recovery from coupling ruptures. However, this article demonstrates the limitations of the local government alone in mediating crisis-driven coupling ruptures.

Hu X H, Li L G, Dong K.

What matters for regional economic resilience amid COVID-19? Evidence from cities in Northeast China

[J]. Cities, 2022, 120: 103440. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2021.103440.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

/