您好,欢迎来到皮书数据库!
热点推荐: 双循环
更多>> 课题组动态
更多>> 皮书作者
谢伏瞻
    中国社会科学院学部委员,学部主席团主席,研究员,博士生导师。历任中国社会科学院院长、党组书记,国务院发展中心副主... 详情>>
蔡 昉
    中国社会科学院国家高端智库首席专家,学部委员,学部主席团秘书长,研究员,博士生导师。先后毕业于中国人民大学、中国... 详情>>
李培林
    男,汉族,出生于1955年5月,山东济南人,博士,研究员,全国人民代表大会社会建设委员会副主任委员,中国社会科学... 详情>>
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

2017年中美典型城市新经济发展比较

摘要

大型城市对于新经济的发展提供更有力的支撑作用和重要的空间依托。选取中美20个典型城市,对比分析了2017年新经济指数。结果显示,中国典型城市平均新经济发展水平落后于美国。排名前十的中国城市有北京(4)、深圳(6)、上海(8)、杭州(9),美国城市有旧金山(1)、纽约(2)、波士顿(3)、西雅图(5)、洛杉矶(7)和休斯敦(10)。旧金山以70。93的总指数居典型城市首位,并在几乎所有指标上具有绝对优势,尤其是创新能力、数字化和智能化方面。纽约的相对优势在绿色化、数字化和网络化。波士顿在创新能力和绿色化上的优势较为明显。各指标横向比较中,北京在创新能力和数字化水平上具有相对优势。西雅图在绿色化和网络化两项指标上有相对优势。深圳的全球化和智能化优势明显。洛杉矶各项指标分布比较平均。上海全球化水平最高,但其他指标水平均未进入前五,其中绿色化水平相对较低。杭州和休斯敦的智能化水平相对较高。华盛顿特区的网络化和芝加哥的数字化是两城市相对排名靠前的指标。广州的智能化和全球化水平比较突出,之所以排位靠后,是受到其他指标,特别是创新能力的影响。武汉、天津、重庆、西安的指数则与其他城市差距较大。最后,借鉴旧金山、纽约与波士顿的新经济发展做法,从培育创新创业环境,打造“智核”与加快发展高等教育及科研机构,加快创新要素的聚集吸引和全球联系,提升空间集聚收益和拓展产业发展空间,对应新经济产业特点与自身资源禀赋优势结合等方面提出我国城市新经济发展的启示。

<<
>>

Abstract

Large cities provide powerful and important spatial support for the development of new economy. This chapter made a comparative analysis of the New Economy Index of 20 typical large cities both in China and the United States in 2017. The results show that the average level of new economy of typical cities in China lags behind that of the United States. Chinese cities such as Beijing(ranked 4th),Shenzhen(6th),Shanghai(8th),Hangzhou(9th)and American cities such as San Francisco(1st),New York(2nc),Boston(3rd),Seattle(5th),Los Angeles(7th)and Houston(10th)are in top ten. San Francisco ranks first in 20 cities with a total index of 70.93,and shows advantages in almost all indicators,especially in innovation,digitization and intelligence. New York’s comparative advantages lie in greening,digitization and networking. Boston shows advantages in innovation and greening. From the perspective of indicators comparison,it is found that Beijing shows comparative advantages in innovation capacity and digitization,Seattle in greening and networking and Shenzhen in globalization and intelligence. Los Angeles shows a balanced distribution of all indicators. Shanghai has the highest globalization level while none of other indicators are in the top five,among which the greening is relatively low. Hangzhou and Houston show relatively high score of intelligence. Networking in Washington D.C. and digitization in Chicago are relative high-ranking indicators in two cities respectively. Intelligence and globalization score in Guangzhou is prominent. The reason for its low ranking among 20 cities is that it is influenced by other indicators,especially innovation capacity. The New Economy Index of Wuhan,Tianjin,Chongqing and Xi’an are far behind those of other cities. Finally,some suggestions were made for the development of China new economy from the practices of San Francisco,New York and Boston. Such as fostering innovative and entrepreneurial environment,building “intellectual core” and accelerating the development of higher education and scientific research institutions,promoting the attraction and global connection of innovative factors,enhancing the spatial agglomeration benefits and expanding the space for industrial development,and combining the characteristics of new economic industry and the corresponding resource endowment advantages of the cities.

<<
>>
作者简介
徐娟:徐娟,经济学博士,西北大学公共管理学院,副教授,研究方向为公共政策与产业竞争力。
相关报告