Summary:
In recent years, a growing number of Chinese provinces have adopted the “Strong Provincial Capital” (SPC) strategy, aiming to leverage the leading and radiating role of provincial capitals to propel regional economic development. However, academia and policymakers warn that severe resource concentration in capital cities may generate a “siphoning effect”, exacerbating intra-provincial development disparities and hindering regional coordination. The emergence of SPC patterns varies across provinces: some evolved through market forces and historical accumulation, whereas others stem from government-led, policy-driven initiatives. The “invisible hand” of the market and the “visible hand” of the government jointly attract to provincial capitals the agglomeration of innovation elements, such as capital, talent, and technology. Unlike conventional investment activities, innovation inherently exhibits spatial externalities, implying that resource concentration in provincial capitals may exert profound economic impacts on neighboring cities. Our study empirically examines the effects of the “Strong Provincial Capital” strategy on corporate innovation in non-capital cities within the same province, using data from Chinese A-share listed companies from 2007 to 2023. We find that the “Strong Provincial Capital” strategy significantly enhances the innovation level of firms in non-capital cities, demonstrating positive innovation externalities. These results remain robust when we instrument SPC adoption with the cumulative years a city served as an ancient dynastic capital and when we perform extensive robustness checks. Mechanism analysis shows two channels of innovation spillover effect: (1) knowledge-exchange effects, reflected in heightened cross-city learning and patent citations, and (2) industrial-division effects, whereby SPCs deepen the province-wide division of labor among firms. Heterogeneity analysis further shows that the innovation spillovers are stronger for privately owned enterprises, high-tech sectors, provinces with lower market segmentation, and areas whose industrial structures align closely with that of the capital. These findings yield three policy implications. First, the “Strong Provincial Capital” strategy generates positive innovation externalities that can stimulate development in non-capital cities. Accordingly, national and local governments should strengthen the “leading role” of provincial capitals when pursuing balanced regional development. Crucially, policymakers should avoid relying exclusively on administrative policies to concentrate resources; instead, they should harness the market's “invisible hand” to channel innovative factors while strengthening the radiating and spillover functions of provincial capitals. Second, the innovative spillover effects of “Strong Provincial Capitals” can operate through knowledge exchange and are stronger in samples with lower market segmentation levels. Local governments should therefore advance regional integration, dismantle inter-city market barriers, and narrow development gaps to maximize SPC-led growth. Third, because the industrial division of labor serves as another crucial channel for realizing the spillover effects, policymakers should encourage non-capital cities to develop complementary industries and extend industrial chains around the dominant industries of provincial capitals, adopting collaborative models such as “provincial capital R&D+peripheral manufacturing” and “provincial capital headquarters+peripheral production bases”, which foster complementary, synergistic industrial structures between capital and non-capital cities. Compared to existing research, this study makes three principal contributions. First, it extends the SPC literature by focusing on micro-level corporate behavior rather than the aggregate growth that most existing studies examine. Because macro-level outcomes ultimately emerge from firm-level decisions, our micro perspective offers richer theoretical and practical insights. Second, we add to the literature on the determinants of corporate innovation. By juxtaposing siphon and spillover perspectives, we shed new light on how regional development policies shape firm-level innovation. Third, we identify and empirically validate the mechanisms—knowledge exchange and industrial division—through which SPC spillovers operate, an area previously under-explored. Our evidence that SPC spillovers flow through enhanced knowledge sharing and a finer division of labor offers novel perspectives on coordinated regional development and resource allocation.
蔡庆丰, 陈熠辉, 严佳佳. “强省会”的创新外部性——基于省域知识交流与产业分工的研究视角[J]. 金融研究, 2025, 536(2): 132-149.
CAI Qingfeng, CHEN Yihui, YAN Jiajia. The Innovation Externalities of the “Strong Provincial Capital”: From the Perspectives of Intra-provincial Knowledge Exchange and Industrial Division. Journal of Financial Research, 2025, 536(2): 132-149.
[1]蔡庆丰、陈熠辉和林海涵,2021,《开发区层级与域内企业创新:激励效应还是挤出效应？——基于国家级和省级开发区的对比研究》,《金融研究》第5期,第153～170页。 [2]蔡庆丰、陈熠辉和林焜,2020,《信贷资源可得性与企业创新:激励还是抑制？——基于银行网点数据和金融地理结构的微观证据》,《经济研究》第10期,第124～140页。 [3]陈爱贞、陈凤兰和何诚颖,2021,《产业关联与企业创新》,《中国工业经济》第9期,第80～98页。 [4]陈熠辉、蔡庆丰和林海涵,2022,《政府推动型城市化会提升域内企业的创新活动吗？——基于“撤县设区”的实证发现与政策思考》,《经济学(季刊)》第2期,第465～484页。 [5]丁任重和张航,2020,《城市首位度与区域经济增长的互动——基于空间多重形式分析》,《当代经济科学》第5期,第16～27页。 [6]段巍、王明和吴福象,2020,《中国式城镇化的福利效应评价(2000—2017)——基于量化空间模型的结构估计》,《经济研究》第5期,第166～182页。 [7]段巍、吴福象和王明,2020,《政策偏向、省会首位度与城市规模分布》,《中国工业经济》第4期,第42～60页。 [8]樊福卓,2013,《一种改进的产业结构相似度测度方法》,《数量经济技术研究》第7期,第98～115页。 [9]江艇、孙鲲鹏和聂辉华,2018,《城市级别、全要素生产率和资源错配》,《管理世界》第3期,第38～50页。 [10]毛其淋和盛斌,2012,《对外经济开放、区域市场整合与全要素生产率配》,《经济学(季刊)》第1期,第181～210页。 [11]陶锋、胡军、李诗田和韦景祥,2017,《金融地理结构如何影响企业生产率？——兼论金融供给侧结构性改革》,《经济研究》第9期,第55～71页。 [12]王家庭,2012,《城市首位度与区域经济增长——基于24个省区面板数据的实证研究》,《经济问题探索》第5期,第35～40页。 [13]吴贾和张俊森,2020,《随迁子女入学限制、儿童留守与城市劳动力供给》,《经济研究》第11期,第138～155页。 [14]杨博旭、柳卸林和常馨之,2023,《强省会”战略的创新效应研究》,《数量经济技术经济研究》第3期,第168～188页。 [15]张航和丁任重,2020,《实施“强省会”战略的现实基础及其可能取向》,《改革》第8期,第147～158页。 [16]章元、程郁和佘国满,2018,《政府补贴能否促进高新技术企业的自主创新？——来自中关村的证据》,《金融研究》第10期,第123～140页。 [17]赵红军和胡玉梅,2019,《谁影响了中国历代都城地理位置的兴衰变迁？——一个基于量化经济史的实证分析》,《经济学(季刊)》第1期,第281～310页。 [18]赵奎、后青松和李巍,2021,《省会城市经济发展的溢出效应——基于工业企业数据的分析》,《经济研究》第3期,第150～166页。 [19]郑江淮和师磊,2023,《本地化创新能力、区域创新高地与产业地理梯度演化路径》,《中国工业经济》第5期,第43～60页。 [20]Adrien, M., 2021, “The Local Innovation Spillovers of Listed Firms”, Journal of Financial Economics, 141(02), pp.395～412. [21]Baldwin, R. E. and R. Forslid, 2000, “The Core-Periphery Model and Endogenous Growth: Stabilizing and Destabilizing Integration”, Economica, 67(267), pp.307～324. [22]Bottazzia, L. and P. Giovanni, 2003, “Innovation and Spillovers in Regions: Evidence from European Patent Data”, European Economic Review, 47(4), pp.687～710. [23]Cuberes, D., K. Desmet and J. Rappaport, 2021, “Urban Growth Shadows”, Journal of Urban Economics, 123(3), pp.1～17. [24]Duranton, G. and D. Puga, 2004, “Micro-Foundations of Urban Agglomeration Economies”, Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, (4), pp.2063～2117. [25]Duranton, G. and D. Puga, 2005, “From Sectoral to Functional Urban Specialization”, Journal of Urban Economics, 57(2), pp.343～370. [26]Guiso, L., L. Pistaferri and F. Schivardi, 2021, “Learning Entrepreneurship from Other Entrepreneurs？” Journal of Labor Economics, 39(1), pp.135～191. [27]Head, K., Y. A. Li and A. Minondo, 2019, “Geography, Ties and Knowledge Flows: Evidence from Citations in Mathematics”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 101(4), pp.713～727. [28]Howell, S. T., 2017, “Financing Innovation: Evidence from R＆D Grants”, American Economic Review, 107(4), pp.1136～1164. [29]Jacobs, J., 1969, “The Economy of Cities”, Vintage New York. [30]Krugman, P. R., 1991, “Geography and Trade”, MIT press. [31]Krugman, P., 2011, “The New Economic Geography, Now Middle-Aged”, Regional Studies, 45(1), pp.1～7. [32]Liang, J. and S. J. Goetz, 2018, “Technology Intensity and Agglomeration Economies”, Research Policy, 47(10), pp.1990～1995. [33]Manso, G., 2011, “Motivating Innovation”, Journal of Finance, 66(5), pp.1823～1860. [34]Marshall, A., 1890, “Principles of Political Economy”, Macmillan New York. [35]Moomaw R. L. and A. M. Shatter, 1993, “Urbanization as Factors of Economic Growth: an Empirical Study”, Journal of Economics, 19(2), pp.1～6.
