1949—2007年新疆绿洲经济分布格局演变及其机制研究

以新疆绿洲经济空间分布为研究对象,以1949—2007年87个县市人均GDP数据为资料,运用空间概率模型和ArcGIS技术,分析了1949—1978年、1978—1990年、1990—2007年3个阶段新疆绿洲经济分布格局时空演变规律。首先根据人均GDP,把全疆县市分为高水平、中高水平、中低水平和低水平4类经济发展类型,运用马尔科夫链转移矩阵求出新疆各县市在3个阶段转移概率,用ArcGIS把3个阶段空间转移格局可视化。其次构建空间马尔科夫链,分析不同背景区域对4类经济发展类型空间转移的作用,探讨其作用机理。研究发现:①1949—2007年间,以县市为单位的新疆绿洲经济格局空间分布发生了"俱乐部趋同"现象,其中高水平和低水平经济发展类型非常明显,主要动力是新疆绿洲主导经济由原来的农牧业转变成以资源加工为主的第二产业和以行政、交通为主的第三产业。②4类经济发展类型在3个阶段转移方向不同,计划经济期间表现出中低水平经济发展类型向上转移,区域均衡发展政策起到强大作用。在市场经济阶段,经济发展水平相似区域倾向于"俱乐部趋同",市场"极化"作用明显。区域转移强度不同,相邻层次水平区域转移明显,"跨层次"转移较弱。③绿洲背景区域作用具有选择性和时效性,在计划经济时期,区域背景对高水平、中高水平、中低水平和低水平区域保持原状态起到阻碍作用,而在市场经济时期,对高水平、低水平区域保持原水平起到推动作用,其他规律性不明显。④绿洲经济低水平经济发展类型转移较小,稳定性强,"负马太效应"显著;高水平经济发展类型稳定性差,在不同阶段均发生15%左右的向下转移,表现出经济的脆弱性和低级性。

Spatio-temporal Pattern Change of Oasis Economy in Xinjiang during 1949-2007 and Its Driving Mechanism

Based on per capita GDP data of 87 cities and counties of Xinjiang in 1949—2007, this paper analyzes the spatio-temporal evolution of economical pattern by means of spatial probability model and ArcGIS software platform. According to per capita GDP data and the economic development level Xinjiang is divided into 4 classes of developmental types: upper level, middle-upper level, middle-lower and lower level. The temporal transfer trends and the spatial transfer pattern were analyzed with Markov Chain Transition Matrix and ArcGIS, respectively. The dynamic mechanism of the spatio-temporal evolution of economics development level was also analyzed based on spatial Markov chain. The results are as follows. (1) The "convergence club" phenomenon of economic development level commonly happened in Xinjiang in 1949—2007, especially for the upper level and the lower level of economic development. The main driving force was the transformation of economic structure from Primary Industry to Secondary Industry and Tertiary Industry. (2) The transfer of economic development types showed different directions in various stages and different density between varied regions; obvious transfer in regions between adjacent levels and unobvious transfer astride levels. (3) During the Planned Economy Period, economic development background promoted the transformation of economic levels, but played a promoting role in maintaining economic levels during the Market Economy Period. (4) For regions of lower economic development level, the transfer probability between economic levels was small and the negative "Matthew Effect" was significant. Whereas, for regions of upper economic development level, the transfer probability was relatively large and the fragility and inferiority of economic development was significant.