IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i19p12095-d924249.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Heterogeneous Spatial Structure on Regional Innovation—From the Perspectives of Efficiency and Gap

Author

Listed:
  • Zi Ye

    (School of Business, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China)

  • Chen Zou

    (School of Business, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China)

  • Yongchun Huang

    (School of Business, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China
    Collaborative Innovation Center between World Water Valley and Water Ecological Civilization, Nanjing 211100, China)

Abstract

Reasonable spatial system distribution is the prerequisite for the optimization of resource and spatial allocation and the coordinated development of the regional economy. Therefore, correctly identifying the impact of different types of spatial structures on scientific and technological innovation is an important way to promote the rational layout of regional spatial structures and enhance the strength of regional scientific and technological innovation. Based on the theory of regional spatial structure and panel data of 26 provinces and autonomous regions in China from 2005 to 2019, this paper tested the impact of regional spatial structure on innovation efficiency and gap by constructing the regional spatial structure index, the innovation efficiency index, and the innovation gap index. The research results show that: First, the agglomeration effect produced by a single-center spatial structure is conducive to improving the efficiency of scientific and technological innovation, whereas the spillover effect generated by a multi-center spatial structure is more favorable for narrowing the gap in scientific and technological innovation. Second, the single-center spatial structure is more suitable for provinces and cities in the western region with relatively low levels of economic development, whereas the multi-center spatial structure is more beneficial to the achievement of innovative and high-quality development in the eastern region. Third, the moderating effect analysis shows that with an increase in cultural diversity and inter-city distance, the partial effects of the single-center spatial structure on innovation efficiency present an “N” shape and an “inverted-U” shape, respectively, whereas the partial effects of the multi-center spatial structure on the innovation gap exhibit “inverted-U” shapes. This research not only provides theoretical support for the impact of regional spatial structure on innovation efficiency and gap but also offers empirical evidence for future regional development path choices.

Suggested Citation

  • Zi Ye & Chen Zou & Yongchun Huang, 2022. "Impact of Heterogeneous Spatial Structure on Regional Innovation—From the Perspectives of Efficiency and Gap," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-22, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:19:p:12095-:d:924249
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12095/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12095/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhu, Junbing & Grigoriadis, Theocharis N., 2022. "Chinese dialects, culture & economic performance," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    2. Megha Mukim, 2015. "Coagglomeration of formal and informal industry: evidence from India," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 329-351.
    3. Nicholas Bloom & Mark Schankerman & John Van Reenen, 2013. "Identifying Technology Spillovers and Product Market Rivalry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(4), pages 1347-1393, July.
    4. Monica Brezzi & Paolo Veneri, 2015. "Assessing Polycentric Urban Systems in the OECD: Country, Regional and Metropolitan Perspectives," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(6), pages 1128-1145, June.
    5. Garcia-López, Miquel-Àngel & Moreno-Monroy, Ana I., 2018. "Income segregation in monocentric and polycentric cities: Does urban form really matter?," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 62-79.
    6. Kati Volgmann & Karsten Rusche, 2020. "The Geography of Borrowing Size: Exploring Spatial Distributions for German Urban Regions," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 111(1), pages 60-79, February.
    7. Chun-Chung Au & J. Vernon Henderson, 2006. "Are Chinese Cities Too Small?," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 73(3), pages 549-576.
    8. Guocheng Xiang & Yunjun Xiong & Jingjing Liu & Shihu Zhong & Xin Jiang, 2020. "How Far Is the Optimal Intercity Distance? Evidence from China," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 43(4), pages 344-369, July.
    9. Wang, Qian & Ren, Shuming, 2022. "Evaluation of green technology innovation efficiency in a regional context: A dynamic network slacks-based measuring approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    10. Gianmarco I.P. Ottaviano & Giovanni Peri, 2021. "The economic value of cultural diversity: evidence from US cities," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Firms and Workers in a Globalized World Larger Markets, Tougher Competition, chapter 7, pages 187-222, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. Evert Meijers & Martijn Burger & Roberto Camagni & Roberta Capello & Andrea Caragliu, 2016. "Static vs. dynamic agglomeration economies. Spatial context and structural evolution behind urban growth," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 95(1), pages 133-158, March.
    12. Chang-Tai Hsieh & Peter J. Klenow, 2009. "Misallocation and Manufacturing TFP in China and India," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 124(4), pages 1403-1448.
    13. Wolfgang Keller, 2002. "Geographic Localization of International Technology Diffusion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(1), pages 120-142, March.
    14. Anthony Shorrocks & Guanghua Wan, 2005. "Spatial decomposition of inequality," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 59-81, January.
    15. Song, Wenfei & Han, Xianfeng, 2022. "The bilateral effects of foreign direct investment on green innovation efficiency: Evidence from 30 Chinese provinces," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 261(PB).
    16. Adriana Burlea-Schiopoiu & Laurentiu Stelian Mihai, 2019. "An Integrated Framework on the Sustainability of SMEs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-22, October.
    17. Martijn J. Burger & Evert J. Meijers & Frank G. Van Oort, 2014. "Regional Spatial Structure and Retail Amenities in the Netherlands," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(12), pages 1972-1992, December.
    18. Fassio, Claudio & Montobbio, Fabio & Venturini, Alessandra, 2019. "Skilled migration and innovation in European industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 706-718.
    19. Wolfgang Keller, 2004. "International Technology Diffusion," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(3), pages 752-782, September.
    20. Qi Guo & Canfei He & Deyu Li, 2016. "Entrepreneurship in China: The role of localisation and urbanisation economies," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(12), pages 2584-2606, September.
    21. Daniel Rauhut, 2017. "Polycentricity – one concept or many?," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 332-348, February.
    22. Gilles Duranton, 2015. "Delineating Metropolitan Areas: Measuring Spatial Labour Market Networks Through Commuting Patterns," Advances in Japanese Business and Economics, in: Tsutomu Watanabe & Iichiro Uesugi & Arito Ono (ed.), The Economics of Interfirm Networks, edition 127, chapter 6, pages 107-133, Springer.
    23. Sen, Amartya, 1997. "On Economic Inequality," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198292975.
    24. Junhong Bai & Jiayu Lu & Sijia Li, 2019. "Fiscal Pressure, Tax Competition and Environmental Pollution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(2), pages 431-447, June.
    25. Cao, Kang Hua & Birchenall, Javier A., 2013. "Agricultural productivity, structural change, and economic growth in post-reform China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 165-180.
    26. Gao, Kang & Yuan, Yijun, 2022. "Spatiotemporal pattern assessment of China’s industrial green productivity and its spatial drivers: Evidence from city-level data over 2000–2017," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    27. Bottazzi, Laura & Peri, Giovanni, 2003. "Innovation and spillovers in regions: Evidence from European patent data," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 687-710, August.
    28. Kong, Dejing & Zhou, Yuan & Liu, Yufei & Xue, Lan, 2017. "Using the data mining method to assess the innovation gap: A case of industrial robotics in a catching-up country," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 80-97.
    29. Spyra, Marcin & Kleemann, Janina & Calò, Nica Claudia & Schürmann, Alina & Fürst, Christine, 2021. "Protection of peri-urban open spaces at the level of regional policy-making: Examples from six European regions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    30. Ahmed A. Khalifa & Abdul-Jalil Ibrahim & Abdulkarem I. Amhamed & Muftah H. El-Naas, 2022. "Accelerating the Transition to a Circular Economy for Net-Zero Emissions by 2050: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-20, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Costantini, Valeria & Liberati, Paolo, 2014. "Technology transfer, institutions and development," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 26-48.
    2. Roberta Piermartini & Stela Rubínová, 2021. "How much do global value chains boost innovation?," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 892-922, May.
    3. Wan, Guanghua & Luo, Zhi & Zhang, Xun, 2017. "Urbanizing with Equity Consideration," ADBI Working Papers 642, Asian Development Bank Institute.
    4. Piermartini, Roberta & Rubínová, Stela, 2014. "Knowledge spillovers through international supply chains," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2014-11, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    5. Goñi, Edwin & Maloney, William F., 2017. "Why don’t poor countries do R&D? Varying rates of factor returns across the development process," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 126-147.
    6. Dietmar Harhoff & Elisabeth Mueller & John Van Reenen, 2014. "What are the Channels for Technology Sourcing? Panel Data Evidence from German Companies," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 204-224, March.
    7. Pedro de Faria & Francisco Lima, 2012. "Interdependence and spillovers: is firm performance affected by others’ innovation activities?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(36), pages 4765-4775, December.
    8. Sergey Lychagin & Joris Pinkse & Margaret E. Slade & John Van Reenen, 2016. "Spillovers in Space: Does Geography Matter?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 295-335, June.
    9. John Van Reenen, 2022. "Innovation and Human Capital Policy," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation and Public Policy, pages 61-83, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Bahar, Dany & Hausmann, Ricardo & Hidalgo, Cesar A., 2014. "Neighbors and the evolution of the comparative advantage of nations: Evidence of international knowledge diffusion?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 111-123.
    11. Jan Fagerberg & Maryann Feldman & Martin Srholec, 2011. "Technological Dynamics and Social Capability: Comparing U.S. States and European Nations," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20111114, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    12. Aldieri, Luigi & Bruno, Bruna & Makkonen, Teemu & Vinci, Concetto Paolo, 2023. "Environmental innovations, geographically mediated knowledge spillovers, economic and environmental performance," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    13. Dany Bahar & Hillel Rapoport, 2018. "Migration, Knowledge Diffusion and the Comparative Advantage of Nations," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(612), pages 273-305, July.
    14. Nuno Crespo & Maria Paula Fontoura & Isabel Proença, 2009. "FDI spillovers at regional level: Evidence from Portugal," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 88(3), pages 591-607, August.
    15. Gehringer, Agnieszka, 2016. "Knowledge externalities and sectoral interdependences: Evidence from an open economy perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 240-249.
    16. Christian Fons-Rosen & Sebnem Kalemli- Özcan & Bent E. Sørensen & Carolina Villegas-Sanchez & Vadym Volosovych, 2017. "Foreign Investment and Domestic Productivity: Identifying knowledge spillovers and competition effects," Economics Working Papers 1580, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    17. Montobbio, Fabio & Sterzi, Valerio, 2013. "The Globalization of Technology in Emerging Markets: A Gravity Model on the Determinants of International Patent Collaborations," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 281-299.
    18. Nune Hovhannisyan & Wolfgang Keller, 2015. "International business travel: an engine of innovation?," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 75-104, March.
    19. Robin Kaiji Gong, 2019. "The Local Technology Spillovers of Multinational Firms," HKUST CEP Working Papers Series 201902, HKUST Center for Economic Policy.
    20. Joern Block & Roy Thurik & Haibo Zhou, 2013. "What turns knowledge into innovative products? The role of entrepreneurship and knowledge spillovers," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 693-718, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:19:p:12095-:d:924249. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.