城市创新生态指标体系构建及广州-深圳比较研究

城市创新生态是指城市中政府、企业、机构及人等行为主体的创新过程中所依赖的城市基本"生态"状况。城市创新生态对于城市创新因素积聚,促进城市内部创新行为主体创新行为有重要作用。各城市创新生态具有不同的特色,创新生态水平也不同。以广州和深圳为例,基于问卷、访谈及数据统计资料,通过建立测度城市创新生态水平的指标体系,运用层次分析法及特尔菲法相结合的综合评价方法,对广州与深圳城市创新生态水平进行评价。研究表明:广州与深圳城市综合创新生态水平基本处于相当地位,广州略优于深圳。在城市创新生态的各个具体方面上,广州与深圳则各有优劣。     

基于GIS与AHP法的河南省经济格局时空分异研究

［目的］研究区域经济格局对揭示经济发展空间演变机制和实现区域可持续发展具有重要的意义。文章以粮食生产核心区——河南省为例,通过定量刻画其济格局时空分异特征,明确河南省经济格局的发展态势和演化特征,为河南省经济发展提供参考。［方法］文章采用GIS空间分析和AHP方法,通过建立经济评价指标体系,基于2010—2015年河南省的统计年鉴数据评价其经济格局分异特征。［结果］（1）总体上,河南省国民生产总值持续增长,经济发展持续向好,但经济增速逐年放缓。（2）河南省经济空间格局先后经历了“八”字形、“一”字形演变特征,并逐步形成以郑州为中心的“十”字形经济空间格局。（3）全省中高经济发展水平城市数量增多,各地市经济发展的差异逐步缩小。［结论］河南省经济内部差异呈下降趋势,全域经济带动效益开始显现,应强化城市辐射效应,并加强对更小尺度经济格局演变的研究。     

Political Competition in Weak States

In the developing areas, politics is often undemocratic, states lack a monopoly over violence, and politicians play upon cultural identities. To analyze politics in such settings, we develop a model in which politicians compete to build a revenue yielding constituency. Citizens occupy fixed locations and politicians seek to maximize rents. To secure revenues, politicians must incur the costs of providing local public goods and mobilizing security services. Citizens must participate, i.e. pay taxes; but can choose which leader to support. The model enables us to explore the impact of cultural identities and varying notions of military power.     

Intellectual Property Rights in the Asian-Pacific Region: problems, patterns, and policy

This paper explores recent theory and evidence regarding increased protection of intellectual property rights (ZPRs) in Asia. Knowledge has significant public good aspects making optimal provision a problem of trading off universal access against adequate incentives for R&D. Given the ease of evasion of IPR relative to tariffs, attempts to push low and middleincome countries to higher levels of protection may be against their national interests. The Uruguay Round may encounter less than enthusiastic enforcement. Further efforts to refine IPR protection might usefully be focused on flexibility instead of harmonisation.     

Issues in Assessing the Effect of Interindustry R&D Spillovers

This paper aims to clarify three issues concerning the weighting methodol ogy generally used to evaluate interindustry R&D spillovers. These issues concern the likely nature of the spillovers estimated through different types of supporting matrices; the similarity between input–output (IO), technology flows and technological proximity matrices; and the relevance of the assumption that a single matrix can be used for different countries. Data analyses of weighting components show that technology flows matrices are in an intermediate position between IO matrices and technological proximity matrices, but closer to the former. The various IO matrices, as well as the three technological proximity matrices, are very similar to each other. The panel data estimates of the effect of different types of interindustry R&D spillovers on industrial productivity growth in the G7 countries reject the hypotheses that a technology flows matrix can be approximated by an IO matrix and that a single IO matrix can be usedfor different countries. By transitivity, the procedure that comprises using a single technology flow for several countries is not reliable. The international comparison shows that each country benefits from different types of R&D externality. In Japan and, to a lesser extent, in the US, the rate of return to direct R&D is very high and is likely to compensate for relatively weak interindustry R&D spillover effects. In the five other industrialized countries, the reverse observation is true: strong social rates of return to R&D counterbal ance the poor performances of direct R&D.