城市内部研发密集型制造业的空间分布与区位选择模式——以北京、上海为例

基于微观企业数据对北京和上海研发密集型制造业空间分布的特征和影响因素进行分析,进而揭示其区位选择模式差异。研究发现,北京企业集中分布特征明显,热点区主要位于核心城区及近郊的少数地区,并形成以中关村-上地为中心的集聚格局;上海企业表现为集中与扩散并存,热点区在郊环线以里区域零散布局,并形成以漕河泾和张江为双核的联动共生集聚格局;北京和上海企业均存在开发区和交通指向性以及路径依赖,与此同时,上海企业还具有学研机构和老工业区指向性以及郊区化现象,北京企业则出现逆郊区化。研发密集型制造业在北京和上海分别形成以开发区为空间载体的“紧凑型-中心性”模式和以开发区、学研机构和老工业区为多元空间载体的“离散型-郊区化”模式。不同行业企业基本符合总体特征,但又呈现一定的特殊性。

The Intra-metropolitan Location of R&D-Intensive Manufacturing in Beijing and Shanghai

Beijing and Shanghai are major sci-tech innovation hub cities in China. Based on urban ZIP code spatial database and R&D-intensive manufacturing firm data, this article explores the spatial distribution and influence factors of R&D-intensive manufacturing industry by using ArcGIS and Stata, and then reveals the difference of the location distribution model of R&D-intensive manufacturing industry between Beijing and Shanghai. The results show that Beijing R&D-intensive manufacturing industry tended to distribute mainly in the northwest inside the Sixth Ring and displayed the centralized pattern of Zhongguancun-Changping, Fengtai, Yizhuang and Wangjing-Jiuxianqiao as spatial aggregated hot zones, while Shanghai R&D-intensive manufacturing industry was characterized by the coexistence of concentration and diffusion, distributing in each direction inside the suburban loop line and taking Caohejing, Zhangjiang, Jinqiao, Meilong and Wujiaochang as spatial aggregated hot zones. Meanwhile, both Beijing and Shanghai R&D-intensive manufacturing industry had significant agglomeration effects, the difference is that Beijing took Zhongguancun-Shangdi as the single agglomerate center, while Shanghai took Caohejing and Zhangjiang as the twin symbiotic agglomeration pattern. The spatial distribution of different industrial types was unanimous with the general characteristics, but showing a certain specific. The high-technology firms were mostly located in the main urban areas, and their hotspots distribution shrunk back to the main urban areas and suburbs. Conversely, the other traditional manufacturing firms which also belong to R&D-intensive manufacturing industry were scattered in the outskirts, with the hotspots stretched out to the remote suburbs. Development zone, transportation accessibility and path dependence all had an important impact on the choice of location of firms in Beijing and Shanghai, and in addition the location of Shanghai firms was also affected by the positive impact of suburbanization and the location of research institutions and the old industrial areas, while suburbanization have negative impacts on the location of Beijing firms. As a result, the R&D-intensive manufacturing industry distribution in Beijing was a compact-central model with the development zone as the single industrial spatial carrier, while in Shanghai was a discrete-suburbanize model with development zones, research institutes and old industrial areas as multiple industrial space carriers. This study just used cross-sectional data without a time-series, so it could not analyze the evolution trend of the R&D-intensive manufacturing industry distribution and its formation mechanism. Also, the data possibly had survivorship bias. More importantly, the difference of economic and social benefits between different R&D-intensive manufacturing industry spatial distribution patterns needs to be discussed further.