|
|
|
| The Measurement and Spatial Pattern of Digital Economy Development:A Case of 19 National-level Urban Agglomerations |
| Lian Ganghui,Xu Aiting,Wang Wenpu |
| (College of Statistics and Mathematics, Collaborative Innovation Center of Statistical Data Engineering Technology & Application, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 310018, China) |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The Outline of the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025) for National Economic and Social Development and Vision 2035 of the People's Republic of China has clearly planned and laid out 19 national-level urban agglomerations, striving to form a strategic urbanization pattern of "two horizontal and three vertical". As a dynamic core in the regional economic development pattern, urban agglomeration can optimize resource allocation, attract agglomeration, and diffuse radiation in a larger area, and it has become a strategic support for the coordinated development of regional economy in China. At the same time, the digital economy, as the most promising field in China's current economic development, continues to extend the depth and breadth of integration with various fields of economic and social development. According to the Blue Book of China's Urban Digital Economy Index (2021), the top ten cities in the digital economy index in 2021 are mainly located in the more developed Yangtze River Delta and Pearl River Delta Bay urban agglomerations. The unbalanced development of the digital economy in urban agglomerations has become an important incentive to widen the economic development gap between regions. In order to explore the determinants of accelerating the bridging of the digital economy divide in urban agglomerations, shaping China's regional economic growth poles and promoting coordinated regional development, this paper examines the digital economy development trends, regional differences and spatial patterns of urban agglomerations by measuring the digital economy development levels of 19 national urban agglomerations laid out in the 14th Five-Year Plan.#br#A series of achievements have emerged in the measurement of the digital economy scale. In terms of measurement methods, the existing research can be roughly classified into three categories: value-added method, index method and satellite account method. Comparatively speaking, since the digital economy is a kind of convergence economy, the efficiency improvement of traditional industries caused by the penetration and synergy of digital technology cannot be directly measured by the industry GDP accounting method. Simultaneously, the compilation of digital economy satellite accounts is still in the theoretical stage, with several problems in industry definition, data collection and adjustment of supply. Therefore, most studies measure the scale of the digital economy by compiling the digital economy development index. But there are still some problems. First, the types of indicators are jumbled and there is too much duplication of information among indicators. Second, most of the basic data are socio-economic data based on administrative divisions at the grassroots level, without taking into account the influence of administrative boundary changes and physical-geographical interactions. Third, the research objects are mostly limited to the entire country or a certain key region, and there is still a lack of dynamic consideration of the development of the digital economy at the urban agglomeration level and its spatial pattern. #br#Given that, the paper takes the 19 national-level urban agglomerations laid out in the "14th Five-Year Plan" as the research object, construct a digital economy development evaluation system by using fuzzy sets, and establishes a grid data set with the aid of remote sensing data and geographic information system. Moreover, projection pursuit model, Dagum Gini coefficient and decomposition method, exploratory spatial autocorrelation analysis method and modified gravity model are applied to measure the digital economy development level of national urban agglomeration from 2013 to 2019, and further explore the overall situation, regional differences and spatial pattern of digital economy development in national urban agglomeration.#br#The research shows that firstly the development trend of digital economy in 19 national-level agglomerations is in a good state, with evident evolution dominated by successive transfer and supplemented by cross-level transfer. Secondly, the synergy of digital economy development in national urban agglomerations is not strong, and the characteristics of “inter-group heterogeneity and intra-group homogeneity” are gradually emerging. Thirdly, the development of digital economy in national urban agglomerations presents a positive spatial agglomeration from weak to strong, and its development model is dominated by low-low agglomeration, followed by high-high agglomeration. As a whole, the spatial pattern of the digital economy development of national-level urban agglomerations presents the “highland interlocking region” centered on Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei-Yangtze River Delta-Pearl River Delta and two “low valley regions” in the northeast and northwest, and the spatial distribution is characterized by “sparse in the east and dense in the west”, which is divided by "Hu Line".#br#Finally, this paper puts forward policy recommendations to promote the development of digital economy in urban agglomerations and to narrow the regional differencesin development of digital economy. The first is to make overall plans and strive to create new advantages for the development of the digital economy. The second is promote the synergy of inter-cluster digital economy development through diversified interaction, co-creation and sharing. The third is to accelerate the integration of the digital economy within urban agglomerations by unblocking obstacles and breaking down barriers.#br#
|
|
Received: 27 December 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [1] 中国信息通信研究院. 中国数字经济发展白皮书2021[EB/OL]. (2021-4)[2021-08-12]. http://www.caict.ac.cn/kxyj/qwfb/bps/202104/t20210423_374626.htm.[2] ABS. Measuring digital activities in the Australian economy [EB/OL].(2019-02-27)[2021-08-15].https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/research/measuring-digital-activities-australian-economy.[3] BAREFOOT K, CURTIS D, JOLLIFF W, et al. Defining and measuring the digital economy[J].US Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis, Washington, DC, 2018, 15.[4] 关会娟, 许宪春, 张美慧,等. 中国数字经济产业统计分类问题研究[J].统计研究, 2020, 37(12): 3-16.[5] OECD. Measuring the digital economy-A new perspective[M].OECD Publishing, 2014.[6] 阿里研究院. 数字经济2.0报告[EB/OL].(2017)[2021-08-15].http://www.aliresearch.com/ch/information/informationdetails?articleCode=21213&type=%E6%8A%A5%E5%91%8A.[7] 范合君, 吴婷. 中国数字化程度测度与指标体系构建[J].首都经济贸易大学学报, 2020, 22(4): 3-12.[8] OECD. OECD digital economy outlook 2017[M/OL].(2017)[2021-08-15].https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/publication/9789264276284-en.[9] 罗良清, 平卫英, 张雨露. 基于融合视角的中国数字经济卫星账户编制研究[J].统计研究, 2021, 38(1): 27-37.[10] 杨仲山, 张美慧. 数字经济卫星账户:国际经验及中国编制方案的设计[J].统计研究, 2019, 36(5): 16-30.[11] 蔡跃洲. 数字经济的增加值及贡献度测算:历史沿革、理论基础与方法框架[J].求是学刊, 2018, 45(5): 65-71.[12] 唐杰英. 数字化变革下的中国数字经济——基于数字经济边界及测度的视角[J].对外经贸, 2018，32(9): 49-55.[13] 廖信林, 杨正源. 数字经济赋能长三角地区制造业转型升级的效应测度与实现路径[J].华东经济管理, 2021, 35(6): 22-30.[14] 温珺, 阎志军, 程愚. 数字经济与区域创新能力的提升[J].经济问题探索, 2019，40(11): 112-124.[15] 张永恒, 王家庭. 数字经济发展是否降低了中国要素错配水平[J].统计与信息论坛, 2020, 35(9): 62-71.[16] 杜雪锋.数字经济发展的国际比较及借鉴[J].经济体制改革,2020，38(5):164-170.[17] 王璐瑶，万淑贞，葛顺奇.全球数字经济治理挑战及中国的参与路径[J].国际贸易,2020，39(5):21-27.[18] 王军, 朱杰, 罗茜. 中国数字经济发展水平及演变测度[J].数量经济技术经济研究, 2021, 38(7): 26-42.[19] 许宪春, 张美慧. 中国数字经济规模测算研究——基于国际比较的视角[J].中国工业经济, 2020，37(5): 23-41.[20] 薛洁, 胡苏婷. 中国数字经济内部耦合协调机制及其水平研究[J].调研世界, 2020，33(9): 11-18.[21] 许恒，张一林，曹雨佳.数字经济、技术溢出与动态竞合政策[J].管理世界,2020,36(11):63-84.[22] NAGARAJ A. Does copyright affect reuse? evidence from google books and wikipedia[J].Management Science, 2018, 64(7): 3091-3107.[23] ACQUISTI A, TAYLOR C, WAGMAN L. The economics of privacy[J].Journal of economic Literature, 2016, 54(2): 442-92.[24] BRAND K, GAYNOR M, MCALVANAH P, et al. Economics at the FTC:office supply retailers redux, healthcare quality efficiencies analysis, and litigation of an alleged get-rich-quick scheme[J].Review of Industrial Organization, 2014, 45(4): 325-344.[25] 刘淑春.数字政府战略意蕴、技术构架与路径设计——基于浙江改革的实践与探索[J].中国行政管理,2018,34(9):37-45.[26] 颜佳华，王张华.数字治理、数据治理、智能治理与智慧治理概念及其关系辨析[J].湘潭大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2019,43(5):25-30，88.[27] 黄建伟，陈玲玲.国内数字治理研究进展与未来展望[J].理论与改革,2019,32(1):86-95.[28] 黄璜.对“数据流动”的治理——论政府数据治理的理论嬗变与框架[J].南京社会科学,2018,29(2):53-62.[29] 吕荣杰，郝力晓.中国人工智能发展水平、区域差异及分布动态演进[J].科技进步与对策,2021,38(24):76-84.[30] 钞小静，薛志欣，王宸威.中国新经济的逻辑、综合测度及区域差异研究[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2021,38(10):3-23.[31] 唐承财，孙孟瑶，万紫微.京津冀城市群高等级景区分布特征及影响因素[J].经济地理,2019,39(10):204-213.[32] DE BONO A, MORA M G. A global exposure model for disaster risk assessment[J].International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2014, 10: 442-451.[33] 王俊岭. 区域社会经济格网数据集指标体系构建及典型指标空间化研究[D].太原：陕西师范大学, 2014.[34] 吴吉东, 王旭, 王菜林，等. 社会经济数据空间化现状与发展趋势[J].地球信息科学学报, 2018, 20(9): 1252-1262.[35] 陈文峰. 基于投影寻踪模型的河南城市化水平综合评价[J].经济地理, 2012, 32(9): 61-66.[36] 孙康, 周晓静, 苏子晓，等. 中国海洋渔业资源可持续利用的动态评价与空间分异[J].地理科学, 2016, 36(8): 1172-1179.[37] 李欠男，李谷成，尹朝静.中国农业绿色发展水平的地区差异及收敛性——基于地级市面板数据的实证[J].中国农业，2022,27(2):230-242.[38] 肖德，于凡.中国城市群经济高质量发展测算及差异比较分析[J].宏观质量研究,2021,9(3):86-98.[39] 张文彬，王赟.可行能力视角下中国福利水平区域差异、动态演进与结构分解[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2021,38(12):45-66. |
|
|
|
