基础设施、区域经济增长和区域差距的关系研究
|
摘要
1978-2007年的30年间中国GDP年均增长率达到了9.8%,大大高于同期世界经济年均3.0%的增长速度；同时,中国的基础设施不论在实物形态还是在存量水平上均得到了极大发展。但与此同时,中国经济活动的空间非均衡分布、区域发展差距不断扩大等一系列问题也越来越引起人们的关注。
本研究试图在新经济地理学框架下,通过对传统自由资本模型的不断扩展来探索基础设施与经济活动空间分布、产业转移、区域经济增长、区域差距收敛间的逻辑机理,并以跟踪转移支付资金最终流向方式讨论不同补贴政策的效果。本研究第三章讨论在不同异质性条件、农业运输成本和增长情形下基础设施对区域经济增长和区域差距的影响；第四章讨论内生化交易成本后,在多地区情形下交通运输网络的优化选择；第五章对比了补贴企业与补贴劳动者的转移支付政策效果；第六章以1998-2011年省级面板数据和1999-2010年216个地级以上城市的面板数据,运用空间计量模型进行了实证检验。
在理论研究方面本研究得到的主要结论有：(1)区内公共基础设施的改善有利于本地经济发展,区际公共基础设施的改善有利于发达地区,并使区域差距趋于扩大；相对于落后地区,发达地区对于公共基础设施的改善更具有主动性,而落后地区对于基础设施的改善具有被动性；只有当落后地区的基础设施水平远高于发达地区时才可能实现对发达地区的超越,但这种可能性是相当小的。(2)迁移成本、消费者偏好异质性、企业异质性的存在只是改变了产业空间布局对基础设施变化的敏感性,而不改变原有的空间分布格局。(3)发达地区的区内农业基础设施的改善将降低其产业份额,但能提高劳动者的收入和实际GDP水平,导致发达地区政府面临着发展产业和提高居民收入的两难政策选择；落后地区的区内农业基础设施的改善对吸引投资、增加产业份额不会产生有利影响,但能够提高本地实际收入、缩小区际收入差距,所以选择改善区内农业基础设施是其占优策略。(4)公共知识基础设施具有很强的空间溢出效应,能够提高全社会的经济增长率与福利水平,但不会改变经济活动的空间布局与区域差距。(5)三地区在地理空间上呈等边或等腰三角形分布时,基于全社会总福利最大化选择的交通运输网络往往有利于发达地区。从人均实际收入来看,不同地区对交通运输网络的选择上存在零-和博弈：对某地区人均实际收入最大的运输网络对其他地区则可能造成损失；即使对同一地区,在不同的基础设施条件下,对不同交通运输网络的偏好也不同,很难达成利益一致的占优策略选择。(6)在各类补贴政策中,补贴企业的政策会导致吸引投资与缩小区域差距两大目标分离,补贴劳动者相对有利于缩小区域差距、对差异化税率的要求较低、财政上的可行性更强。
在实证检验方面本研究得到的主要结论有：(1)我国东部地区的基础设施不论在实物形态上,还是在存量水平均优于中西部地区,并存在相对差距收敛而绝对差距扩大的特征。(2)基础设施投资总体上有利于经济增长,但各地区各类基础设施的产出弹性不同。从空间溢出效应来看,相对于形成实物的交通邮电基础设施,能够形成软实力的教育基础设施具有更强的空间溢出效应。(3)1998年以来我国各省市区的全要素生产率(TFP)总体上呈上升趋势,并呈东高西低的空间聚类分布特征。制度环境基础设施对TFP具有显著的影响,而物质基础设施对TFP的影响不显著。从空间效应来看,TFP具有显著的空间溢出效应,周边地区TFP水平的提升有助于本地区TFP的提升。(4)我国经济呈东、中、西部俱乐部型收敛特征,且东部城市间的差距最大、西部次之、中部最小。从收敛速度来看,1999～2010年东部地区为0.31%～0.34%,西部地区为0.35%～0.38%,中部地区为0.17%～0.25%；从半生命周期来看,东部地区为203～221年,西部地区为183～200年,中部地区为278～397年。在不同地区不同类型公共基础设施对经济收敛的影响效应不同,但制度、教育等软环境基础设施的差距收敛效应大于城市道路等物质基础设施。
根据本文的研究结论,并结合我国的现实实践,我们得到以下4方面的政策启示：(1)东部发达地区应当在区际公共基础设施建设方面做更大贡献,中西部地区应当更重视本地的区内基础设施和农业基础设施建设。(2)应当坚持效率优先原则,在全国构建以东部地区为核心的交通运输网络体系,并由东部对中西部地区的收益损失给予补贴。(3)在东中西部地区建立差异化的税率体系,并主要以补贴劳动者的形式加大东部对西部的补贴力度。(4)中西部等落后地区应当进一步加强基础设施投资,特别是培育更加良好的制度、教育等软实力建设。
The average annual growth rate of China's GDP reached9.8%between1978to2007, significantly higher than the world's economy average annual growth rate of3%. Meanwhile, China's infrastructure has got a great development in physical form and stock levels. But at the same time, a series of problem, such as the unbalanced space distribution of Chinese economic activity and the gap of regional development is expanding, have got more and more serious.
Based on the block the world of new economic geography, through extend the footloose capital model, this study attempts to research the logic mechanism between infrastructure and space distribution of economic activity, transfer of industry, regional economic growth, the convergence of regional disparities; and discuss the effect of different subsidypolicies by track the flow of transfer payments. The third chapter discusses the influence of infrastructure on regional economic growth and the convergence of regional disparities under the different heterogeneous condition, agricultural transportation cost and the growth condition. The fourth chapter discusses the optimal choice of transportation network after endogenesis transport cost under several regional model. The fifth chapter compares the policy effect between the transfer subsidies to enterprises and workers. In the sixth chapter, using spatial econometric model we give empirical test under the panel data of31provinces in1998-2011years and1999-2010years of216prefecture-level city.
In the theoretical research, we obtained the following main conclusions:(1) the improvements of internal infrastructure are conducive to local economic development; the improvements of regional infrastructure are good to the developed areas, and will expend the gap of regional development. Relative to the backward areas, developed areas have more initiative to improve the infrastructure, opposite the backward areas always are passive in infrastructure improvements. Only under the badly conditions infrastructure in developed regions, the backward regions can realize the idea of beyond developed regions, but this probability is very small.(2) The exists of migration cost, heterogeneity of consumer preference and firm productivity only change the sensitivity between industrial space distribution and infrastructure, but cannot change the situation of space distribution.(3) The agricultural infrastructure improvements in developed regions will reduce the industry share, but will raise the income level of workers and the real level of GDP, so in developed regions government have to face a dilemmatic policy choice between industrial development and increase the income of residents. In backward regions agricultural infrastructure improvements have not favorable effect to attract investment and increase industrial share, but is good to increase real income and reduce regional development gap, so the choice of agricultural infrastructure improvements is the dominant strategy.(4) Public knowledge infrastructure has strong spatial spillover effects, it can increase the social economic growth and welfare but cannot change the economic activity spatial distribution and regional gap.(5) When the distribution of three regions are equilateral or isosceles triangle, the choice of transportation networks tend to favor the developed areas under the maximization of social welfare. Base on the average per real income, always exist the zero-sumgame:the choice of transportation network can increase average per real income in one regional but may cause losses to other regions. Even for the same region under different conditions, the preferences for different transportation networks are also different, it is difficult to reach a dominant strategy choice.(6) In all kinds of subsidy policies, the policy of subsidies to enterprises will lead to the separation of attracting investment and narrowing the regional gap. The policy of subsidies to workers will lead to narrow the regional gap, and has a low requirements on the differential tax rate and stronger financial feasibility.
In the empirical test, we obtained the following main conclusions:(1) In China's eastern region the infrastructure is better than central and Western regions no matter in physical form or stock level, and exists the characteristics of relative disparity convergence and absolute gap expend.(2) Public infrastructure investment is conducive to the overall economic growth, and in different regions the different infrastructure have the different output elasticity and spatial spillover effect. From the spatial spillover effect relative to the formation of physical infrastructure, the soft power of the educational infrastructure has stronger spatial spillover effects.(3) Since1998the TFP of China's provinces show the overall upward trend and the spatial clustering distribution of East high and West low. The infrastructure of institution and environment has a significant impact on TFP, but the influence of physical infrastructure on TFP is not significant. From the spatial effect, the spillover effect of TFP is significant, the TFP increase of surrounding regions are good to TFP increase of local region.(4) China's economy has a characterize of club convergence in the East, centre and West, and the gap between the cities is maximize in the East, middle in the West and minimum in the West. From the convergence speed, during1999～2010the East is0.31%～0.34%, the West is0.35%Y0.38%, the centre is0.17%～0.25%. From the half-life-cycle perspective the East is203～221years, the West is183～200years, the centre is278～397years. In different regions and different types of infrastructure has different effects on economic convergence. But soft environment has greater effects than physical infrastructure on the gap between the convergence.
According to the conclusion of this article, combined with the practice in china, we get the following policy implications in4aspects:(1) The eastern region should make greater contribution in regionalinfrastructure construction, the central and western regions should pay more attention to the local infrastructure andagricultural infrastructureconstruction.(2) We should adhere to the principle of efficiencypriority,and construct the transportation network system as the core of eastern region. And meanwhile the eastern region should subsidy the western region.(3) Setup the different tax system in the eastern and Western regions, and the mainly workers subsidies form.(4) The central and western backward regions should further strengthen the infrastructure investment, especially to cultivate the education and other soft power system.
本研究试图在新经济地理学框架下,通过对传统自由资本模型的不断扩展来探索基础设施与经济活动空间分布、产业转移、区域经济增长、区域差距收敛间的逻辑机理,并以跟踪转移支付资金最终流向方式讨论不同补贴政策的效果。本研究第三章讨论在不同异质性条件、农业运输成本和增长情形下基础设施对区域经济增长和区域差距的影响；第四章讨论内生化交易成本后,在多地区情形下交通运输网络的优化选择；第五章对比了补贴企业与补贴劳动者的转移支付政策效果；第六章以1998-2011年省级面板数据和1999-2010年216个地级以上城市的面板数据,运用空间计量模型进行了实证检验。
在理论研究方面本研究得到的主要结论有：(1)区内公共基础设施的改善有利于本地经济发展,区际公共基础设施的改善有利于发达地区,并使区域差距趋于扩大；相对于落后地区,发达地区对于公共基础设施的改善更具有主动性,而落后地区对于基础设施的改善具有被动性；只有当落后地区的基础设施水平远高于发达地区时才可能实现对发达地区的超越,但这种可能性是相当小的。(2)迁移成本、消费者偏好异质性、企业异质性的存在只是改变了产业空间布局对基础设施变化的敏感性,而不改变原有的空间分布格局。(3)发达地区的区内农业基础设施的改善将降低其产业份额,但能提高劳动者的收入和实际GDP水平,导致发达地区政府面临着发展产业和提高居民收入的两难政策选择；落后地区的区内农业基础设施的改善对吸引投资、增加产业份额不会产生有利影响,但能够提高本地实际收入、缩小区际收入差距,所以选择改善区内农业基础设施是其占优策略。(4)公共知识基础设施具有很强的空间溢出效应,能够提高全社会的经济增长率与福利水平,但不会改变经济活动的空间布局与区域差距。(5)三地区在地理空间上呈等边或等腰三角形分布时,基于全社会总福利最大化选择的交通运输网络往往有利于发达地区。从人均实际收入来看,不同地区对交通运输网络的选择上存在零-和博弈：对某地区人均实际收入最大的运输网络对其他地区则可能造成损失；即使对同一地区,在不同的基础设施条件下,对不同交通运输网络的偏好也不同,很难达成利益一致的占优策略选择。(6)在各类补贴政策中,补贴企业的政策会导致吸引投资与缩小区域差距两大目标分离,补贴劳动者相对有利于缩小区域差距、对差异化税率的要求较低、财政上的可行性更强。
在实证检验方面本研究得到的主要结论有：(1)我国东部地区的基础设施不论在实物形态上,还是在存量水平均优于中西部地区,并存在相对差距收敛而绝对差距扩大的特征。(2)基础设施投资总体上有利于经济增长,但各地区各类基础设施的产出弹性不同。从空间溢出效应来看,相对于形成实物的交通邮电基础设施,能够形成软实力的教育基础设施具有更强的空间溢出效应。(3)1998年以来我国各省市区的全要素生产率(TFP)总体上呈上升趋势,并呈东高西低的空间聚类分布特征。制度环境基础设施对TFP具有显著的影响,而物质基础设施对TFP的影响不显著。从空间效应来看,TFP具有显著的空间溢出效应,周边地区TFP水平的提升有助于本地区TFP的提升。(4)我国经济呈东、中、西部俱乐部型收敛特征,且东部城市间的差距最大、西部次之、中部最小。从收敛速度来看,1999～2010年东部地区为0.31%～0.34%,西部地区为0.35%～0.38%,中部地区为0.17%～0.25%；从半生命周期来看,东部地区为203～221年,西部地区为183～200年,中部地区为278～397年。在不同地区不同类型公共基础设施对经济收敛的影响效应不同,但制度、教育等软环境基础设施的差距收敛效应大于城市道路等物质基础设施。
根据本文的研究结论,并结合我国的现实实践,我们得到以下4方面的政策启示：(1)东部发达地区应当在区际公共基础设施建设方面做更大贡献,中西部地区应当更重视本地的区内基础设施和农业基础设施建设。(2)应当坚持效率优先原则,在全国构建以东部地区为核心的交通运输网络体系,并由东部对中西部地区的收益损失给予补贴。(3)在东中西部地区建立差异化的税率体系,并主要以补贴劳动者的形式加大东部对西部的补贴力度。(4)中西部等落后地区应当进一步加强基础设施投资,特别是培育更加良好的制度、教育等软实力建设。
The average annual growth rate of China's GDP reached9.8%between1978to2007, significantly higher than the world's economy average annual growth rate of3%. Meanwhile, China's infrastructure has got a great development in physical form and stock levels. But at the same time, a series of problem, such as the unbalanced space distribution of Chinese economic activity and the gap of regional development is expanding, have got more and more serious.
Based on the block the world of new economic geography, through extend the footloose capital model, this study attempts to research the logic mechanism between infrastructure and space distribution of economic activity, transfer of industry, regional economic growth, the convergence of regional disparities; and discuss the effect of different subsidypolicies by track the flow of transfer payments. The third chapter discusses the influence of infrastructure on regional economic growth and the convergence of regional disparities under the different heterogeneous condition, agricultural transportation cost and the growth condition. The fourth chapter discusses the optimal choice of transportation network after endogenesis transport cost under several regional model. The fifth chapter compares the policy effect between the transfer subsidies to enterprises and workers. In the sixth chapter, using spatial econometric model we give empirical test under the panel data of31provinces in1998-2011years and1999-2010years of216prefecture-level city.
In the theoretical research, we obtained the following main conclusions:(1) the improvements of internal infrastructure are conducive to local economic development; the improvements of regional infrastructure are good to the developed areas, and will expend the gap of regional development. Relative to the backward areas, developed areas have more initiative to improve the infrastructure, opposite the backward areas always are passive in infrastructure improvements. Only under the badly conditions infrastructure in developed regions, the backward regions can realize the idea of beyond developed regions, but this probability is very small.(2) The exists of migration cost, heterogeneity of consumer preference and firm productivity only change the sensitivity between industrial space distribution and infrastructure, but cannot change the situation of space distribution.(3) The agricultural infrastructure improvements in developed regions will reduce the industry share, but will raise the income level of workers and the real level of GDP, so in developed regions government have to face a dilemmatic policy choice between industrial development and increase the income of residents. In backward regions agricultural infrastructure improvements have not favorable effect to attract investment and increase industrial share, but is good to increase real income and reduce regional development gap, so the choice of agricultural infrastructure improvements is the dominant strategy.(4) Public knowledge infrastructure has strong spatial spillover effects, it can increase the social economic growth and welfare but cannot change the economic activity spatial distribution and regional gap.(5) When the distribution of three regions are equilateral or isosceles triangle, the choice of transportation networks tend to favor the developed areas under the maximization of social welfare. Base on the average per real income, always exist the zero-sumgame:the choice of transportation network can increase average per real income in one regional but may cause losses to other regions. Even for the same region under different conditions, the preferences for different transportation networks are also different, it is difficult to reach a dominant strategy choice.(6) In all kinds of subsidy policies, the policy of subsidies to enterprises will lead to the separation of attracting investment and narrowing the regional gap. The policy of subsidies to workers will lead to narrow the regional gap, and has a low requirements on the differential tax rate and stronger financial feasibility.
In the empirical test, we obtained the following main conclusions:(1) In China's eastern region the infrastructure is better than central and Western regions no matter in physical form or stock level, and exists the characteristics of relative disparity convergence and absolute gap expend.(2) Public infrastructure investment is conducive to the overall economic growth, and in different regions the different infrastructure have the different output elasticity and spatial spillover effect. From the spatial spillover effect relative to the formation of physical infrastructure, the soft power of the educational infrastructure has stronger spatial spillover effects.(3) Since1998the TFP of China's provinces show the overall upward trend and the spatial clustering distribution of East high and West low. The infrastructure of institution and environment has a significant impact on TFP, but the influence of physical infrastructure on TFP is not significant. From the spatial effect, the spillover effect of TFP is significant, the TFP increase of surrounding regions are good to TFP increase of local region.(4) China's economy has a characterize of club convergence in the East, centre and West, and the gap between the cities is maximize in the East, middle in the West and minimum in the West. From the convergence speed, during1999～2010the East is0.31%～0.34%, the West is0.35%Y0.38%, the centre is0.17%～0.25%. From the half-life-cycle perspective the East is203～221years, the West is183～200years, the centre is278～397years. In different regions and different types of infrastructure has different effects on economic convergence. But soft environment has greater effects than physical infrastructure on the gap between the convergence.
According to the conclusion of this article, combined with the practice in china, we get the following policy implications in4aspects:(1) The eastern region should make greater contribution in regionalinfrastructure construction, the central and western regions should pay more attention to the local infrastructure andagricultural infrastructureconstruction.(2) We should adhere to the principle of efficiencypriority,and construct the transportation network system as the core of eastern region. And meanwhile the eastern region should subsidy the western region.(3) Setup the different tax system in the eastern and Western regions, and the mainly workers subsidies form.(4) The central and western backward regions should further strengthen the infrastructure investment, especially to cultivate the education and other soft power system.
引文
[1]安虎森等.新经济地理学原理(第二版).北京：经济科学出版社,2009.
[2]蔡昉,都阳.中国地区经济增长的趋同与差异——对西部开发战略的启示.经济研究,2000(10)：30-37.
[3]陈仲常,董东冬.我国人口流动与中央财政转移支付相对力度的区域差异分析.财经研究,2011(3)：71-80.
[4]范子英,张军.中国如何在平衡中牺牲了效率：转移支付的视角.世界经济,2010(11)：117-138.
[5]郭克莎,王延中.中国产业结构变动趋势及政策研究,北京：经济管理出版社,1999.
[6]郭庆旺,贾俊雪.中央财政转移支付与地方公共服务提供.世界经济,2008(9)：74-84.
[7]高新才.区域经济与区域发展.北京：人民出版社,2002.
[8]基础设施与制造业发展关系研究课题组.基础设施与制造业发展关系研究,经济研究,2002(2)：37-47.
[9]范九利,白暴力,潘泉.基础设施资本对经济增长贡献的研究进展——生产函数法综述.当代经济科学,2004(2)：87-92.
[10]范前进,孙培源,唐元虎.公共基础设施投资对区域经济影响的一般均衡分析.世界经济.2004(5)：58-62.
[11]贺菊煌.我国资产的估算.数量经济与技术经济研究,1992(8)：24-27.
[12]贺锡萍,王秀清.北京市城郊副食品生产与供应技术经济体系研究,农业技术经济,1991(1)：39-45.
[13]何力武.消费异质性、知识溢出和收入差距.西南民族大学学报(人文社会科学版),2011(2)：123-128.
[14]何雄浪,杨继瑞.企业异质、产业集聚与区域发展差异——新新经济地理学的理论解释与拓展.学术月刊,2012(7)：82-89.
[15]何雄浪,杨继瑞,郑长德.企业异质性、规模报酬与劳动力空间流动——基于新新经济地理学的理论研究,财经研究,2012(5)：114-122.
[16]何一峰：转型经济下的中国经济趋同研究——基于非线性时变因子模型的实证分析.经济研究,2008(7)：39-51.
[17]胡永远,.杨胜刚.经济增长理论的最新进展.经济评论,2003(3)：74-76.87
[18]胡鞍钢,刘生龙.交通运输、经济增长及溢出效应——基于中国省际数据空间经济计量的结果.中国工业经济,2009(5)：5-14.
[19]贾晓俊,岳希明.我国均衡性转移支付资金分配机制研究,经济研究,2012(1)：17-30.
[20]金凤君.基础设施与区域经济发展环境.中国人口资源与环境.2004.Vol.14(4)：70-74.
[21]金祥荣,陶永亮,朱希伟.基础设施、产业集聚与区域协调.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版).2012(2)：148-160.
[22]李小健.经济地理学.北京：高等教育出版社,1999.
[23]李伯溪,刘德顺.中国基础设施水平与经济增长的区域比较分析.管理世界,1995(2)：106-111。
[24]李金滟,宋德勇.专业化、多样化与城市集聚经济——基于中国地级单位面板数据的实证研究.管理世界,2008(2)：25-34.
[25]李琴,李大胜,熊启泉.我国农村基础设施供给的优先序——基于广东英德、鹤山的实证分析.上海经济研究,2009(6)：11-18.
[26]李一花,骆永民.财政分权——地方基础设施建设与经济增长.当代经济科学,2009(5)：66-71.
[27]李治国,唐国兴.中国平均资本成本的估算.统计研究,2002(11)：21-25.
[28]李治国,唐国兴.资本形成路径与资本存量调整模型——基于中国转型时期的分析.经济研究,2003(2)：34-42.
[29]李治国.转型期中国资本存量调整模型的实证研究.南开经济研究,2002(6)：35-38.
[30]李国璋,周彩云,江金荣.区域全要素生产率的估算及其对地区差距的贡献.数量经济技术经济研究,2010(5)：49-61
[31]梁琦.空间经济学：过去,现在与未来——兼评空间经济学：城市、区域与国际贸易.经济学季刊,2005(4)：1067-1086.
[32]林毅夫,蔡昉.李周.中国经济转型时期的地区差距.经济研究,1998(6)：3-10.
[33]林毅夫.中国的财政分权与经济增长.北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2000(4)：5-17.
[34]林毅夫,刘培林.中国的经济发展战略与地区收入差距.经济研究,2003(3)：19-25
[35]刘秉廉,武鹏,刘玉海.交通基础设施与中国全要素生产率增长——基于省域数据的空间面板计量分析[J]中国工业经济.2010.(3)：54-64.
[36]刘国恩,W. H. Dow,傅正泓,J. Akin.中国的健康人力资本与收入增长.经济学季刊,2004.Vol.4(1)：101-118.
[37]刘建党.经济增长理论的一个文献综述.西安文理学院学报(社会科学版).2006(12)：71-74
[38]刘强：中国经济增长的收敛性分析.经济研究,2001(6)：70-77.
[39]刘生龙,胡鞍钢.基础设施的外部性在中国的检验——1988-2007.经济研究,2010(3)：4-15.
[40]刘生龙：健康对农村居民劳动力参与的影响.中国农村经济,2008(8)：25-33.
[41]刘生龙,胡鞍钢.交通基础设施与经济增长：中国区域差距的视角.中国工业经济,2010(4)：14-23.
[42]刘生龙,胡鞍钢.基础设施的外部性在中国的检验：1988-2007.经济研究,2010.(3)：4-15.
[43]刘生龙,胡鞍钢.交通基础设施与中国区域经济一体化.经济研究,2011(3)： 72-82.
[44]刘乃全,贾彦利.中国区域政策的重心演变及整体效应研究.经济体制改革,2005(1)：10-15.
[45]刘乃全,刘学华,赵丽岗.中国区域经济发展与空间结构的演变——基于改革开放30年时序变动的特征分析.财经研究,2008(11)：76-87.
[46]刘志伟.收入分配不公平程度测度方法综述.统计与信息论坛,2003(5)：28-32
[47]马拴友,于红霞.转移支付与地区经济收敛.经济研究,2003(3)：26-33.
[48]毛捷,汪德华,白重恩.民族地区转移支付、公共支出差异与经济发展差距.经济研究增刊,2011(2)：75-87.
[49]潘士远.史晋川.内生经济增长理论：一个文献综述.经济学(季刊),2002.Vol.1(4)：753-786
[50]潘文卿：中国区域经济差异与收敛.中国社会科学,2010(1)：72-84.
[51]乔宝云,范剑勇,彭骥鸣.政府间转移支付与地方财政努力.管理世界,2006(3)：50-56.
[52]单书豪.中国资本存量K的再估算：1952-2006年.数量经济技术经济研究,2008(10)：17-31
[53]孙久文,李爱民.基于新经济地理学的“整体分散.优势集中”区域发展总体格局研究,经济学动态.2012(5)：70-75.
[54]沈坤荣,马俊.中国经济增长的“俱乐部收敛”特征及其成因研究.经济研究,2002(1)：33-39
[55]沈体雁,冯等田,孙铁山.空间计量经济学.北京：北京大学出版社.2010
[56]宋海岩,刘淄楠,蒋萍.改革时期中国总投资决定因素的分析.世界经济文汇,2003(1)：44-56.
[57]覃成林.中国区域经济差异研究,北京：中国经济出版社,1997.
[58]覃成林：中国区域经济增长趋同与分异研究.人文地理,2004(3)：36-40.
[59]覃成林,刘迎霞,李超.空间外溢与区域经济增长趋同——基于长江三角洲的案例分析.中国社会科学.2012(5)：76-94.
[60]王世磊,张军.中国地方官员为什么要改善基础设施——一个关于官员激励机制的模型.经济学季刊,2008(2)：387-398.
[61]王家庭,贾晨蕊.我国城市化与区域经济增长差异的空间计量研究.经济科学,2009(3)：94-102.
[62]王小鲁,樊纲等.中国经济增长的可持续性——跨世纪的回顾与展望.北京：经济科学出版社,2000
[63]汪增洋,豆建民.空间依赖性——非线性与城市经济增长趋同.南开经济研究,2010(4)：139-153.
[64]汪冲.专项转移支付漏损的理论分析与实证检验.财经研究,2007(12)：58-67.
[65]魏后凯.外商直接投资对中国区域经济增长的影.经济研究,2002(4)：19-26
[66]魏后凯.改革开放30年中国区域经济的变迁——从不均衡发展到相对均衡发展.经济学动态,2008(5)：9-16.
[67]魏后凯.现代区域经济学.北京：经济管理出版社,2011.
[68]魏下海.基础设施_空间溢出与区域经济增长.经济评论,2010(4)：82-89.
[69]吴殿廷,宋金平,孙久文,李玉江,覃成林.区域经济学.北京：科学出版社,2003.
[70]吴玉鸣.中国省域经济增长趋同的空间计量经济分析.数量经济技术经济研究,2006(12)：101-108.
[71]吴玉鸣.中国经济增长与收入分配差异的空间计量经济分析.北京：经济科学出版社,2005.
[72]武剑.外国直接投资的区域分布及其经济增长效应.经济研究,2002(4)：27-35.
[73]许和连,亓朋,祝树金.贸易开放度、人力资本与全要素生产率：基于中国省际面板数据的经验分析.世界经济,2006(12)：3-10.
[74]杨伟民.地区间收入差距变动的实证分析.经济研究,1992(1)：70-74.
[75]于光远.经济大辞典.上海：上海辞书出版社,1992.
[76]张可云.区域经济政策：理论基础与欧盟国家实践.北京：中国轻工业出版社,2001.
[77]张可云.区域经济政策.北京：商务印书馆,2005.
[78]张光南,李小瑛,陈广汉.中国基础设施的就业、产出和投资效应——基于1998-2006年省际工业企业面板数据研究.管理世界,2010(4)：5-13.
[79]张军,吴桂英,张吉鹏.中国省际物质资本存量估算：1952-2000.经济研究,2004(10)：35-44.
[80]张军,章元.对中国资本存量K的再估计.经济研究,2003(7)：35-43.
[81]张军,高远,傅勇,张弘.中国为什么拥有了良好的基础设施?.经济研究,2007(3)：4-19.
[82]张先锋,丁亚娟,王红.中国区域全要素生产率的影响因素分析——基于地理溢出效应的视角.经济地理,2010(12)：1955-1960.
[83]张浩然,衣保中.基础设施、空间溢出与区域全要素生产率——基于中国266个城市空间面板杜宾模型的经验.经济学家,2012(2)：61-67.
[84]张学良.中国交通基础设施与经济增长的区域比较分析.财经研究,2007(8)：51-63.
[85]张学良.中国交通基础设施促进了区域经济增长吗——兼论交通基础设施的空间溢出效应.中国社会科学.2012(3)：60-77.
[86]张志,周浩.交通基础设施的溢出效应及其产业差异——基于空间计量的比较分析.财经研究,2012(3)：124-134.
[87]张恒龙,陈宪.政府间转移支付对地方财政努力与财政均等的影响.经济科学,2007(1)：15-23.
[88]张恒龙,秦鹏亮.政府间转移支付与省际经济收敛.上海经济研究,2011(8)：90-98.
[89]钟正生,宋旺.我国总量转移支付的影响因素及其均等化效应.经济科学,2008(4)：5-16.
[90]赵人伟,李实.中国居民收入分配再研究.经济研究,1999(4)：3-17
[91]周浩,郑筱婷.交通基础设施质量与经济增长：来自中国铁路提速的证据.世界经济,2012(1)：78-97.
[92]亚当·斯密.国民财富的性质和原因的研究.北京：商务印书馆,1983.
[93]Chrixtaller W (1933).常正文,王兴中等译.德国南部中心地原理.北京：商务印书馆,1998.
[94]Losch A.王守礼译.经济空间秩序.北京：商务印书馆,1995.
[95]Weber. A工业区位论.李刚剑等译.北京：商务印书馆,1997.
[96][美]H·钱纳里.S·鲁宾逊.M·赛尔奎因.工业化和经济增长的比较研究.吴奇,王松宝.上海：上海三联出版社.上海人民出版社,1995.
[97]Alonso, W. Location and Land Use:Towardsa General Theory of Land Rent.Harvard University Press,Cambridge. Mass,1964
[98]Amiti, M. and C. A. Pissarides. Trade and industrial location with heterogeneous labor. Journal of International Economics,2005(67):392-412
[99]Antras, P. and E. Helpman.Global Sourcing.The Journal of Political Economy, 2004,112(3):552-580.
[100]Armstrong, H. W. and Taylor, J. Regional Economics and Policy, Philip Allan,1985
[101]Arrow, K. andKurz M. Public Investment, the rate of return and optimal fiscal policy. The John Hopkins Press. Baltimore,1970.
[102]Aschauer, D.A. Does public capital crowd out private capital?". Journal ofMonetary Economics.1989(24):178-235.
[103]Aschauer, D. A.Infrastructure and Macroeconomic Performance:Direct and Indirect Effects. In The OECD jobs study:Investment. Productivity and Employment,OECD Paris,1993:85-101.
[104]Balassa, B. A. Trade liberalization among industrial countries, McGraw-Hill. New York,1967
[105]Baldwin, R. E.Agglomerate and Endogenous Capital.European Economic Review, 1999(43):253-280.
[106]Baldwin, R. E., P.Martin and G I. P. Ottaviano. Global income divergence, trade and industrialization:The geography of growth take-off. Journal of Economic Growth, 2001(6):5-37.
[107]Baldwin,R.,R. Forslid.,P. Martin, et al.Economic geography and public policy. Princeton:Princeton University Press,2003.
[108]Baldwin.R. E.and P. Martin., Agglomeration and regional growth., Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics:Cities and Geography edited by Vernon Henderson and Jacques-Francois Thisse,2004.
[109]Baldwin, R.E. and Okubo T., Heterogeneous firms, agglomeration and economic geography:Spatial selection and sorting. Journal of Economic Geography,2006.
[110]Barro, R. J. Government spending in a simple model of endogenous growth. Journal of Political Economy.1990,98(5):103-125.
[111]Barro,R. J.Economic growth in a cross sections of countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics.1991,106 (5)407-433.
[112]Barro, R. J. and X. Sala-I-Martin. Convergence. Journal of Political Economy, 1992(100):223-251.
[113]Baumol, W. Productivity growth. convergence. and welfare:what the long-run data show.American Economic Review.1986,76(5):1072-85.
[114]Bavaud,F. Models for spatial weights:a systematic look. Geographical Analysis, 1998,30(1):153-171.
[115]Bernard, A. B. and J. B. Jensen.Exceptional exporter performance:cause, effect, or both?Journal of International Economics,1999,47(1):1-25.
[116]Berliant, M. and M. Fujita., Dynamics of knowledge creation and transfer:The two person case. MPRA Paper, No.4973,2007.
[117]Behrens, K.,C. Gaigne and J.F. Thisse.Industry location and welfare when transport costs are endogenous.Journal of Urban Economics,2009,65(2):195-208.
[118]Brander, J. and P. Krugman. A'eciprocal dumping' model of international trade.Journal ofInternational Economics,1983,15(3-4):313-321.
[119]Brander, J. A. and B. J. Spencer.Export subsidies and international market share rivalry.Journal of International Economics,1985,18(1-2):83-100.
[120]Adam, B. and K. Michel. Infrastructure and poverty linkages:a literature review.Mimeograph. Washington. D.C. World Bank,2002.
[121]Bronzini, R. and P. Piselli, Determinants of long-run regional productivity with geographical spillovers:The role of R&D, human capital and public infrastructure. Regional Science and Urban Economics,2009,39 (2):187-199.
[122]Brulhart, M., M. Crozet and P. Koenig. Enlargement and the EU periphery:the impact of changing market potential. The World Economy, Wiley Online Library,2004.
[123]Buurman, J. and P. Rietveld. Transport infrastructure investment and Canadian manufacturing productivity. Review of urban and regional development studies. 1999,11(1):45-62.
[124]Cabral, L. M. B. and J. Mata. On the evolution of the firm size distribution:facts and theory. The American Economic Review,2003,93(4):1075-1090.
[125]Canova, F., Testing for convergence clubs in income per-capita:a predictive density approach. HWWA discussion paper,2001,139:7-35.
[126]Cermeo, R. Growth convergence clubs:evidence from markov-switching models using panel data. Paper for the 10th International Conference on Panel Data,Berlin,2002:1-19.
[127]Chamberlin, E. H.The theory of monopolistic competition.Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press,1933.
[128]Chandra, A. and E. Thompson. Does public infrastructure affect economic activity? Evidence from the rural interstate highway system. Regional science and urban economics,2000(30):457-490.
[129]Chenery. H., S. Robinson and M. Syrquin. Industrialization and growth:a comparative study. Oxford University Press,1986.
[130]Chow, G. C.Capital formation and economic growth in China", Q. J. E,1993(8): 809-842.
[131]Cliff, A.D. and J.K.Ord. Spatial Autocorrelation, Pion, London,1973.
[132]Cliff, A.D. and J.K.Ord. Spatial Processes, Pion, London,1981.
[133]Cohen, J. P. and P.Morrison. Public infrastructure investment, interstate spatial spillovers, andmanufacturing costs. Review of Economic and Statistics.2004(86): 551-560.
[134]Cohen,J. P.Economic benefits of investments in transport infrastructure.OECD/ITF JointTransportResearch Centre Discussion Papers.13, OECD. InternationalTransportForum,2007
[135]Combes, P. P.,T. Mayer and J.F. Thisse.Economic Geography:The Integration of Regionsand Nations. Princeton:Princeton University Press,2008.
[136]Demetriades, P.O. and Mamuneas. T. P.Intertemporal output and employment effects of public infrastructure capital:evidence from 12 OECD economies.The Economic Journal.2000.110(465):687-712.
[137]Desdoigts, A. Patterns of economic development and the formation of clubs,Journal of Economic Growth,1999,4(3):305-330.
[138]Dixit, A. K. and J. E. Stiglitz.Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity.The American Economic Review,1977,67(3):297-308.
[139]Duggal. V. G, C.Saltzman. and L. R. Klein. Infrastructure and productivity:a nonlinear approach.Journal of Econometrics,1999.92(1):47-74.
[140]Dupont, V. and P. Martin.Subsidies to poor regions and inequalities:some unpleasant arithmetic.Journal of Economic Geography,2006,6(2):223-240.
[141]Duranton, G and M. Storper.Rising trade costs? Agglomeration and trade with endogenous transaction costs.The Canadian Journal of Economics,2008, 41(1):292-319.
[142]Eaton, J.,S. Kortum and F. Kramarz.Dissecting trade:firms, industries, and export destinations.The American Economic Review,2004,94(2):150-154.
[143]Ethier, W. J.National and international returns to scale in-the modern theory of international trade.The American Economic Review,1982,72(3):389-405.
[144]Everaert, G and F. Heylen. Public capital and productivity growth:Evidence for Belgium.1953-1996.Economic Modeling,2001,18 (1):97-116.
[145]Fan. S., Zhang. L. and Zhang. X.Growth, inequality and poverty in rural China:The role of public investments.Research Report (125), International Food Policy. Research Institute,2002
[146]Fay, M. The contribution of power infrastructure to economic growth. Background Paper forWorld Development Report, World Bank, Washington, D. C.,1993.
[147]Fernald, J. G. Roads to prosperity? Assessing the link between public capital and productivit. American Economic Review.1999.89 (3):619-638.
[148]Fischer, M. M. and C. Stirbock, Pan-European regional income growth and club-convergence insights from a spatial econometric perspective. Annals of regional science,2006,40(4):693-721.
[149]Forslid, R. Agglomeration with human and physical capital:an analytically solvable case. Discussion Paper No.2012, Center for economic policy research,1999.
[150]Forslid, R. and G. I. P.Ottaviano. An analytically solvable core-periphery model. Journal of Economic Geography,2003,3:229-240.
[151]Forslid, R.Tax competition and agglomeration:main effects and empirical implications.Swedish Economic Policy Review,2005,12:113-137.
[152]Forslid, R.and T. Okubo.On the development strategy of countries of intermediate size——An analysis of heterogenous firms in a multiregion framework. Discussion paper series RIEB,2010.
[153]Forslid, R. Regional Policy, intergration and the location of industry. http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/2/2333/papers/forslid.pdf,2004.
[154]Friedman, J. Regional development policy:A case of Venezuela, the MIT Press,1966
[155]Fujita, M. and P.Krugman. When is the economy monocentric? Von Thunen and Chamberlin unified. Regional Science and Urban Economics,1995,25:508-528.
[156]Fujita, M. and T.Mori. The role of ports in the making of major cities: self-agglomeration and hub-effect. Journal of Development Economics, 1996,49:93-120.
[157]Fujita, M. andT. Mori. Structural stability and evolution of urban systems. Regional Science and Urban Economics,1997,27:399-442.
[158]Fujita, M.,P. Krugman. and T. Mori. On the evolution of hierarchical urban systems. European Economic Review 1999,43:209-251.
[159]Fujita, M., P. Krugman. and A. J.Venables. The spatial economy:Cities, regions and international trade. Cambridge and Massachusetts:MIT Press,1999.
[160]Fujita, M. and T. Mori. Frontiers of the new economic geography. Papers in Regional Science,2005,84(3):377-405.
[161]Fujita,M. Towards the new economic geography in the brain power society. Regional Science and Urban Economics,2007,37:482-490
[162]Geary, R.C. The contiguity ratio and statistical mapping. The Incorporated Statistician,1954(5):115-127.
[163]Garcia-Mila, T., T. J.McGuire. and R. H. Porter.The effect of public capital in state level production functions reconsidered. Review ofEconomics and Statistics,1996,78(2):177-180.
[164]Goldsmith, R.W. and M. R. Gainsburgh. A perpetual inventory of national wealth: Studies in income and wealth. Princeton,1951
[165]Gonzalez, R., L. Lanaspa. and F. Pueyo. Trade policies, concentration, growth and welfare. Economic Modelling, Elsevier,2009.
[166]Gruber, S. and L. Marattin.Taxation, infrastructure and endogenous trade costs in NewEconomic Geography. Papers in Regional Science,2010,89(1):203-222.
[167]Heckscher, E.The effect of foreign trade on the distribution of income. Ekonomisk Tidskrift,1919(21):497-512. Reprinted, in Flam, H. and M.Flanders. Heckscher-Ohlin Trade Theory. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1991:43-69.
[168]Helpman, E.International trade in the presence of product differentiation, economies of scale and monopolistic competition:A Chamberlin-Heckscher-Ohlin approach.Jornal ofInternational Economics,1981,11(3):305-340.
[169]Helpman, E.Imperfect competition and international trade:Evidence from fourteen industrial countries.Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 1987,1(1):62-81.
[170]Helpman, E.,M. J. Melitz. and S. R. Yeaple.Export versus FDI with heterogeneousfirms.The American Economic Review,2004,94(1):300-316.
[171]Henderson, J. V.The sizes and types of cities.The American Economic Review.1974, 64(4):640-656.
[172]Hirschman, A. O. The strategy of economic development, New Haven:Yale University Press,1958.
[173]Hopenhayn, H. A.Entry, exit, and firm dynamics in long run equilibrium.Econometrica,1992,60(5):1127-1150.
[174]Hoover, E. M. The location of economic activity. New York:McGraw-Hill,1948.
[175]Hirschman, A. O. The Strategy of Economic Development. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.,1958
[176]Holl, A. Transport infrastructure, agglomeration economicsand firm birth:empirical evidence from Portugal. Journal of regional science,2004,44(4):693-712.
[177]Holtz-Eakin, D. Public sector capital and the productivity puzzle. NBER Working Paper.1993. No.4122.
[178]Holtz-Eakin,D.Public sectorcapital and the productivity puzzle. Review ofEconomics and Statistics.1994,76:12-21.
[179]Holtz-Eakin, D. and A. E. Schwartz.Spatial productivity spillovers from public infrastructure:Evidence from state highways. InternationalTax andPublicFinance, 1995,2:459-468.
[180]Isard, W. Location and space-economy. Cambridge:MIT Press,1956.
[181]Inman,R. P. Federal assistance and local services in the United States:The evolution of a New Federalist Fiscal Order. In Fiscal Federalism. Harvey Rosen. ed. Chicago: U. Chicago Press.1988
[182]Jonasson, O, Agricultural regional of Europe. Economic Geography,1925,1: 277-314
[183]Keynes,J. M. The general theory of employment, interest and money. London: Macmillian&Co,1936中译本.就业,利息和货币通论.商务印书馆.1983年第2版.
[184]Konishi, H. Hub cities:city formation without increasing returns. Journal of Urban Economics,2000,48:1-28.
[185]Krugman, P.Increasing returns, monopolistic competition, and international trade. Journal of International Economics,1979,9(4):469-479.
[186]Krugman, P.Scale economies, product differentiation, and the pattern of trade.TheAmerican Economic Review,1980,70(5):950-959.
[187]Krugman, P. The hub effect:or, threeness in international trade. In:Ethier,W.J., E.Helpman.and J.P. Neary.(Eds.), Trade policy and dynamics in international trade. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,1993:29-37.
[188]Krugman, P. and A. J. Venables. Globalization and the inequality of nations. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1995,60:857-880.
[189]Krugman, P. What's new about the new economic geography?Oxford Review of Economic Policy,1998,14(2):7-17.
[190]Lave, C. A. and K.Train. A disaggregate model of auto-type choice. Transportation Research Part A:General,1979,13(1):1-9.
[191]Lave, C. A. and J. Bradley. Market share of imported cars:a model of geographic and demographic determinants.Transportation Research Part A:General, 1980,14(5-6):379-387.
[192]Lancaster, K.Socially optimal product differentiation. The American Economic Review,1975,65(4):567-585.
[193]Lancaster, K.Intra-industry trade under perfect monopolistic competition.Journal oflntemational Economics,1980,10(2):151-175.
[194]Leontief, W. Domestic production and foreign trade:The American capital position re-examined. Proceedings ofTheAmerican Philosophical Society, 1953,97(4):332-349.
[195]Lesage,J.P. and R.K. Pace. Spatial econometric models. Handbook of Applied Spatial Analysis,2010:355-376.
[196]Lucas, R.E.On the mechanics of economic development. Journal ofMonetary Economics,1988,22(1):3-42.
[197]Mankiw, G.,D. Romer. and D. Weil. A contribution to the empirics of economic growth, Quarterly Journal of Economics.1992,107(2):407-37.
[198]Martin, P. and C. A. Rogers. Industrial Location and Public Infrastructure. Journal of International Economics,1995,39(3.4):335-351.
[199]Martin, P. and G. I.P. Ottaviano.Growing locations:Industry location in a model of endogenous growth. European Economic Review,1999,43 (2):281-302.
[200]Martin, P. and G I.P. Ottaviano. Growth and agglomeration. International Economic Review,2001,42:947-968.
[201]Martinez-Vazquez, J., B. Qiao. and L. Zhang. The role of provincial policies in fiscal equalization outcomes in China. The China Review,2008,8(2):07-05.
[202]Matsuyama, K. and T.Takahashi. Self-defeating regional concentration. Review of Economic Studies,1998,65:211-234.
[203]Melitz.M. The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica,2003,71:335-351.
[204]Melitz, M. J. and G I. P. Ottaviano. Market size, trade, and productivity. The Review of Economic Studies,2008,75(1):295-316.
[205]Monfort,P. and R. Nicolini. Regional convergence and international integration. Journal of Urban Economics,2000,48:286-306.
[206]Moreno, R., E.Lopez-Bazo. AndM. Artis.Public infrastructure and the performance ofmanufacturing industries:Shortand long-run effects. Regional Science and Urban Economics,2002,32(1):97-121.
[207]Michael, R. T. Education in nonmarket production. Journal of Political Economy, 1973,81(2):306-327.
[208]Monfort, P. and R. Nicolini. Regional convergence and international integration. Journal of Urban Economics,2000(48):286-306.
[209]Moran. P. The interpretation of statistical maps. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,1948(5):32-63.
[210]Moran, P. A. P. Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika,1950,37(1): 17-23
[211]Moria, T. and A. Turrinib.Skills,agglomeration and segmentation.European Economic Review,2005,49:201-225.
[212]Mori, T. A modeling of megalopolis formation:the maturing of city systems. Journal of Urban Economics,1997,42:133-157.
[213]Mori, T. and K. Nishikimi. Economies of transport density and industrial agglomeration. Regional Science and Urban Economics,2002,32:167-200.
[214]Morrison, J.L., M. W. Scripter. and R. H. T. Smith. Basic measures of manufacturing in the united states,1958. Economic Geography,1968,34:296-311.
[215]Munnell, A. Why has productivity declined? Productivity and public investment. New England Economic Review.1990. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
[216]Murata, Y.Product diversity, taste heterogeneity, and geographic distribution of economic activities:Market Vs. Non-Market interacrions.Journal of Urban Economics,2003,53(1):126-144.
[217]Murata, Y. and J.F. Thisse.A simple model of economic geography LaHelpman-Tabuchi.Journal of Urban Economics,2005,58(1):137-155.
[218]Murata, Y. Taste heterogeneity and the scale of production:Fragmentation, unification, and segmentation. Journal of Urban Economics,2007 (62):135-160.
[219]Nurkse, R.Problems ofcapital formation in developing countries. Oxford. UK:Basil Blackwel,1953.
[220]Oates, W. E. An essay on fiscal federalism. Journal of Economic Literature.1999, 37(3)1120-1149.
[221]Ohlin, B. G. Interregional and international trade. Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1933.
[222]Okubo, T. Trade liberalisation and agglomeration with firm heterogeneity:Forward and backward linkages. Regional Science and Urban Economics,2009,39:530-541.
[223]Okubo, T., P. M. Picard. and J. F. Thisse. The spatial selection of heterogeneous firms. Journal of International Economics,2010,82:230-237.
[224]Ottaviano, GI.P.,T. Tabuchi. andJ. Thisse. Agglomeration and trade revisited. International Economic Review,2002,43:409-436.
[225]Ottaviano, G. I. P.Monopolistic competition, trade, and endogenous spatial fluctuations.Regional Science and Urban Economics,2001,31(1):51-77.
[226]Palander, T. Beitruge zur Standortstheoris Uppsala:Almqvist and Wiksells.1935.
[227]Paluzie, E. Trade policy and regional inequalities. Regional Science,2001,80:67-85.
[228]Pereira, A. M. and O. Roca-Sagales.Spillovers effects of public capital formation: Evidence from the Spanish Regions.Journal ofUrban Economics,2003,53:28-256.
[229]Perkins, D. Reforming China's Economic System. Journal of Economic Literature, 1988,26(2):601-645.
[230]Pfluger, M.A simple, analytically solvable, Chamberlinian agglomeration model.Regional Science and Urban Economics,2004,34(5):565-573.
[231]Picard, P. M. and D.Z. Zeng.Agricultural Sector and Industrial Agglomeration.Journal ofDevelopment Economics,2005,77(1):75-106.
[232]Puga, D. and A. J. Venables.Preferential trading arrangements and industrial location.Journal of International Economics,1997,43(3-4):347-368.
[233]Quah, D. Twin peaks:Growth and convergence in models of distribution dynamics, Economic Journal,1996,106(437):1045-1055.
[234]Quah, D. T. Empirics for Economic Growth and Convergence. European Economic Review,1996,40(6):1353-75.
[235]Quah, D. Spatial agglomeration dynamics. CEPR DP.3208,2002.
[236]Robinson, J.The economics of imperfect competition.London:Macmillan,1933.
[237]Romer,P.M.Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal ofPolitical Economy,1986,94(5):1002-1052.
[238]Rodan, R. P.N.Problems of industrialization of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe.The Economic Journal.1943,53:202-211.
[239]Rostow,W.W.The stage of economic growth.The Economic History Review. 1959,12(1):1-16.
[240]Russek, S.Differential labour mobility and agglomeration.Papers in Regional Science,2010,89(3):587-606.
[241]Saghir, J.Energy and poverty:Myths,linksand policy issues.Energy Working Paper. No.4. Washington D.C..World Bank,2005.
[242]Samuelson, P. A. The transfer problem and transport costs:the terms of trade when impediments are absent. Economic Journal,1952,62(246):278-304.
[243]Schultz, A. The new economic geography. Journal of Economic Surveys,1961,13(4): 355-379.
[244]Sheard, N. Regional policy in a multiregional setting:when the poorest are hert by subsidies. Review of World Economics,2012,148(2):403-423.
[245]Shirley, C.and C.Wintson. Firm inventory behavior and the returns from highway infrastructure investment. Journal of Urban Economics.2004,55(2):398-415.
[246]Solow, R. M. A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1956,70(2):65-94.
[247]Spence, M.Product differentiation and welfare.The American Economic Review,1976,66(2):407-414.
[248]Spulber, D.F. Global competitive strategy. Cambridge, Cambridge UniversityPress,2007.
[249]Stine,W. F. Is local government revenue response to federal aid symmetrical? Evidence from Pennsylvania County Governments in an era of retrenchment. National Tax Journal,1994,47 (4):799-816.
[250]Tabuchi, T.Urban agglomeration and dispersion:A synthesis of Alonso andKrugman.Journal of Urban Economics,1998,44(3):333-351.
[251]Tabuchi, T. and J.F. Thisse.Taste heterogeneity, labor mobility and economic geography.Journal of Development Economics,2002,69(1):155-177.
[252]Tatom, J. A. Should government spending on capital goods be raised?Federal Reserve Bank of St.Louis Review,1991(3/5):3-15.
[253]Treisman, D. Decentralization, fiscal incentivesand economic performance:A reconsideration. Working Paper.2004.
[254]Tsui,K. Local tax system, intergovernmental transfers and China's local fiscal disparities. Journal of Comparative Economics,2005,33 (1):173-196.
[255]Von Thunen, J. H.Der Isolierte Staat in Beziehung Auf Landtschaft Und Nationalokonomie. Hamburg:1826.
[256]Waltz, U. Transport costs, intermediate goods, and localized growth. Regional Science and Urban Economics,1996,26:671-695.
[257]Wylie, P. J.Infrastrueture and Canada Eeonomic Growth 1946-1991.The Canadian Journal of Eeonomies,1996,29(4):350-355.
[258]Yamamoto, K. Agglomeration and growth with innovation in the intermediate goods sector. Regional Science and Urban Economics,2003,33:335-360.
[259]Young, A. Gold into base metals:Productivity growth in the People's Republic of China during the reform period. Journal of Political Economy, 2003,111(6):1220-1260.
[2]蔡昉,都阳.中国地区经济增长的趋同与差异——对西部开发战略的启示.经济研究,2000(10)：30-37.
[3]陈仲常,董东冬.我国人口流动与中央财政转移支付相对力度的区域差异分析.财经研究,2011(3)：71-80.
[4]范子英,张军.中国如何在平衡中牺牲了效率：转移支付的视角.世界经济,2010(11)：117-138.
[5]郭克莎,王延中.中国产业结构变动趋势及政策研究,北京：经济管理出版社,1999.
[6]郭庆旺,贾俊雪.中央财政转移支付与地方公共服务提供.世界经济,2008(9)：74-84.
[7]高新才.区域经济与区域发展.北京：人民出版社,2002.
[8]基础设施与制造业发展关系研究课题组.基础设施与制造业发展关系研究,经济研究,2002(2)：37-47.
[9]范九利,白暴力,潘泉.基础设施资本对经济增长贡献的研究进展——生产函数法综述.当代经济科学,2004(2)：87-92.
[10]范前进,孙培源,唐元虎.公共基础设施投资对区域经济影响的一般均衡分析.世界经济.2004(5)：58-62.
[11]贺菊煌.我国资产的估算.数量经济与技术经济研究,1992(8)：24-27.
[12]贺锡萍,王秀清.北京市城郊副食品生产与供应技术经济体系研究,农业技术经济,1991(1)：39-45.
[13]何力武.消费异质性、知识溢出和收入差距.西南民族大学学报(人文社会科学版),2011(2)：123-128.
[14]何雄浪,杨继瑞.企业异质、产业集聚与区域发展差异——新新经济地理学的理论解释与拓展.学术月刊,2012(7)：82-89.
[15]何雄浪,杨继瑞,郑长德.企业异质性、规模报酬与劳动力空间流动——基于新新经济地理学的理论研究,财经研究,2012(5)：114-122.
[16]何一峰：转型经济下的中国经济趋同研究——基于非线性时变因子模型的实证分析.经济研究,2008(7)：39-51.
[17]胡永远,.杨胜刚.经济增长理论的最新进展.经济评论,2003(3)：74-76.87
[18]胡鞍钢,刘生龙.交通运输、经济增长及溢出效应——基于中国省际数据空间经济计量的结果.中国工业经济,2009(5)：5-14.
[19]贾晓俊,岳希明.我国均衡性转移支付资金分配机制研究,经济研究,2012(1)：17-30.
[20]金凤君.基础设施与区域经济发展环境.中国人口资源与环境.2004.Vol.14(4)：70-74.
[21]金祥荣,陶永亮,朱希伟.基础设施、产业集聚与区域协调.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版).2012(2)：148-160.
[22]李小健.经济地理学.北京：高等教育出版社,1999.
[23]李伯溪,刘德顺.中国基础设施水平与经济增长的区域比较分析.管理世界,1995(2)：106-111。
[24]李金滟,宋德勇.专业化、多样化与城市集聚经济——基于中国地级单位面板数据的实证研究.管理世界,2008(2)：25-34.
[25]李琴,李大胜,熊启泉.我国农村基础设施供给的优先序——基于广东英德、鹤山的实证分析.上海经济研究,2009(6)：11-18.
[26]李一花,骆永民.财政分权——地方基础设施建设与经济增长.当代经济科学,2009(5)：66-71.
[27]李治国,唐国兴.中国平均资本成本的估算.统计研究,2002(11)：21-25.
[28]李治国,唐国兴.资本形成路径与资本存量调整模型——基于中国转型时期的分析.经济研究,2003(2)：34-42.
[29]李治国.转型期中国资本存量调整模型的实证研究.南开经济研究,2002(6)：35-38.
[30]李国璋,周彩云,江金荣.区域全要素生产率的估算及其对地区差距的贡献.数量经济技术经济研究,2010(5)：49-61
[31]梁琦.空间经济学：过去,现在与未来——兼评空间经济学：城市、区域与国际贸易.经济学季刊,2005(4)：1067-1086.
[32]林毅夫,蔡昉.李周.中国经济转型时期的地区差距.经济研究,1998(6)：3-10.
[33]林毅夫.中国的财政分权与经济增长.北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2000(4)：5-17.
[34]林毅夫,刘培林.中国的经济发展战略与地区收入差距.经济研究,2003(3)：19-25
[35]刘秉廉,武鹏,刘玉海.交通基础设施与中国全要素生产率增长——基于省域数据的空间面板计量分析[J]中国工业经济.2010.(3)：54-64.
[36]刘国恩,W. H. Dow,傅正泓,J. Akin.中国的健康人力资本与收入增长.经济学季刊,2004.Vol.4(1)：101-118.
[37]刘建党.经济增长理论的一个文献综述.西安文理学院学报(社会科学版).2006(12)：71-74
[38]刘强：中国经济增长的收敛性分析.经济研究,2001(6)：70-77.
[39]刘生龙,胡鞍钢.基础设施的外部性在中国的检验——1988-2007.经济研究,2010(3)：4-15.
[40]刘生龙：健康对农村居民劳动力参与的影响.中国农村经济,2008(8)：25-33.
[41]刘生龙,胡鞍钢.交通基础设施与经济增长：中国区域差距的视角.中国工业经济,2010(4)：14-23.
[42]刘生龙,胡鞍钢.基础设施的外部性在中国的检验：1988-2007.经济研究,2010.(3)：4-15.
[43]刘生龙,胡鞍钢.交通基础设施与中国区域经济一体化.经济研究,2011(3)： 72-82.
[44]刘乃全,贾彦利.中国区域政策的重心演变及整体效应研究.经济体制改革,2005(1)：10-15.
[45]刘乃全,刘学华,赵丽岗.中国区域经济发展与空间结构的演变——基于改革开放30年时序变动的特征分析.财经研究,2008(11)：76-87.
[46]刘志伟.收入分配不公平程度测度方法综述.统计与信息论坛,2003(5)：28-32
[47]马拴友,于红霞.转移支付与地区经济收敛.经济研究,2003(3)：26-33.
[48]毛捷,汪德华,白重恩.民族地区转移支付、公共支出差异与经济发展差距.经济研究增刊,2011(2)：75-87.
[49]潘士远.史晋川.内生经济增长理论：一个文献综述.经济学(季刊),2002.Vol.1(4)：753-786
[50]潘文卿：中国区域经济差异与收敛.中国社会科学,2010(1)：72-84.
[51]乔宝云,范剑勇,彭骥鸣.政府间转移支付与地方财政努力.管理世界,2006(3)：50-56.
[52]单书豪.中国资本存量K的再估算：1952-2006年.数量经济技术经济研究,2008(10)：17-31
[53]孙久文,李爱民.基于新经济地理学的“整体分散.优势集中”区域发展总体格局研究,经济学动态.2012(5)：70-75.
[54]沈坤荣,马俊.中国经济增长的“俱乐部收敛”特征及其成因研究.经济研究,2002(1)：33-39
[55]沈体雁,冯等田,孙铁山.空间计量经济学.北京：北京大学出版社.2010
[56]宋海岩,刘淄楠,蒋萍.改革时期中国总投资决定因素的分析.世界经济文汇,2003(1)：44-56.
[57]覃成林.中国区域经济差异研究,北京：中国经济出版社,1997.
[58]覃成林：中国区域经济增长趋同与分异研究.人文地理,2004(3)：36-40.
[59]覃成林,刘迎霞,李超.空间外溢与区域经济增长趋同——基于长江三角洲的案例分析.中国社会科学.2012(5)：76-94.
[60]王世磊,张军.中国地方官员为什么要改善基础设施——一个关于官员激励机制的模型.经济学季刊,2008(2)：387-398.
[61]王家庭,贾晨蕊.我国城市化与区域经济增长差异的空间计量研究.经济科学,2009(3)：94-102.
[62]王小鲁,樊纲等.中国经济增长的可持续性——跨世纪的回顾与展望.北京：经济科学出版社,2000
[63]汪增洋,豆建民.空间依赖性——非线性与城市经济增长趋同.南开经济研究,2010(4)：139-153.
[64]汪冲.专项转移支付漏损的理论分析与实证检验.财经研究,2007(12)：58-67.
[65]魏后凯.外商直接投资对中国区域经济增长的影.经济研究,2002(4)：19-26
[66]魏后凯.改革开放30年中国区域经济的变迁——从不均衡发展到相对均衡发展.经济学动态,2008(5)：9-16.
[67]魏后凯.现代区域经济学.北京：经济管理出版社,2011.
[68]魏下海.基础设施_空间溢出与区域经济增长.经济评论,2010(4)：82-89.
[69]吴殿廷,宋金平,孙久文,李玉江,覃成林.区域经济学.北京：科学出版社,2003.
[70]吴玉鸣.中国省域经济增长趋同的空间计量经济分析.数量经济技术经济研究,2006(12)：101-108.
[71]吴玉鸣.中国经济增长与收入分配差异的空间计量经济分析.北京：经济科学出版社,2005.
[72]武剑.外国直接投资的区域分布及其经济增长效应.经济研究,2002(4)：27-35.
[73]许和连,亓朋,祝树金.贸易开放度、人力资本与全要素生产率：基于中国省际面板数据的经验分析.世界经济,2006(12)：3-10.
[74]杨伟民.地区间收入差距变动的实证分析.经济研究,1992(1)：70-74.
[75]于光远.经济大辞典.上海：上海辞书出版社,1992.
[76]张可云.区域经济政策：理论基础与欧盟国家实践.北京：中国轻工业出版社,2001.
[77]张可云.区域经济政策.北京：商务印书馆,2005.
[78]张光南,李小瑛,陈广汉.中国基础设施的就业、产出和投资效应——基于1998-2006年省际工业企业面板数据研究.管理世界,2010(4)：5-13.
[79]张军,吴桂英,张吉鹏.中国省际物质资本存量估算：1952-2000.经济研究,2004(10)：35-44.
[80]张军,章元.对中国资本存量K的再估计.经济研究,2003(7)：35-43.
[81]张军,高远,傅勇,张弘.中国为什么拥有了良好的基础设施?.经济研究,2007(3)：4-19.
[82]张先锋,丁亚娟,王红.中国区域全要素生产率的影响因素分析——基于地理溢出效应的视角.经济地理,2010(12)：1955-1960.
[83]张浩然,衣保中.基础设施、空间溢出与区域全要素生产率——基于中国266个城市空间面板杜宾模型的经验.经济学家,2012(2)：61-67.
[84]张学良.中国交通基础设施与经济增长的区域比较分析.财经研究,2007(8)：51-63.
[85]张学良.中国交通基础设施促进了区域经济增长吗——兼论交通基础设施的空间溢出效应.中国社会科学.2012(3)：60-77.
[86]张志,周浩.交通基础设施的溢出效应及其产业差异——基于空间计量的比较分析.财经研究,2012(3)：124-134.
[87]张恒龙,陈宪.政府间转移支付对地方财政努力与财政均等的影响.经济科学,2007(1)：15-23.
[88]张恒龙,秦鹏亮.政府间转移支付与省际经济收敛.上海经济研究,2011(8)：90-98.
[89]钟正生,宋旺.我国总量转移支付的影响因素及其均等化效应.经济科学,2008(4)：5-16.
[90]赵人伟,李实.中国居民收入分配再研究.经济研究,1999(4)：3-17
[91]周浩,郑筱婷.交通基础设施质量与经济增长：来自中国铁路提速的证据.世界经济,2012(1)：78-97.
[92]亚当·斯密.国民财富的性质和原因的研究.北京：商务印书馆,1983.
[93]Chrixtaller W (1933).常正文,王兴中等译.德国南部中心地原理.北京：商务印书馆,1998.
[94]Losch A.王守礼译.经济空间秩序.北京：商务印书馆,1995.
[95]Weber. A工业区位论.李刚剑等译.北京：商务印书馆,1997.
[96][美]H·钱纳里.S·鲁宾逊.M·赛尔奎因.工业化和经济增长的比较研究.吴奇,王松宝.上海：上海三联出版社.上海人民出版社,1995.
[97]Alonso, W. Location and Land Use:Towardsa General Theory of Land Rent.Harvard University Press,Cambridge. Mass,1964
[98]Amiti, M. and C. A. Pissarides. Trade and industrial location with heterogeneous labor. Journal of International Economics,2005(67):392-412
[99]Antras, P. and E. Helpman.Global Sourcing.The Journal of Political Economy, 2004,112(3):552-580.
[100]Armstrong, H. W. and Taylor, J. Regional Economics and Policy, Philip Allan,1985
[101]Arrow, K. andKurz M. Public Investment, the rate of return and optimal fiscal policy. The John Hopkins Press. Baltimore,1970.
[102]Aschauer, D.A. Does public capital crowd out private capital?". Journal ofMonetary Economics.1989(24):178-235.
[103]Aschauer, D. A.Infrastructure and Macroeconomic Performance:Direct and Indirect Effects. In The OECD jobs study:Investment. Productivity and Employment,OECD Paris,1993:85-101.
[104]Balassa, B. A. Trade liberalization among industrial countries, McGraw-Hill. New York,1967
[105]Baldwin, R. E.Agglomerate and Endogenous Capital.European Economic Review, 1999(43):253-280.
[106]Baldwin, R. E., P.Martin and G I. P. Ottaviano. Global income divergence, trade and industrialization:The geography of growth take-off. Journal of Economic Growth, 2001(6):5-37.
[107]Baldwin,R.,R. Forslid.,P. Martin, et al.Economic geography and public policy. Princeton:Princeton University Press,2003.
[108]Baldwin.R. E.and P. Martin., Agglomeration and regional growth., Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics:Cities and Geography edited by Vernon Henderson and Jacques-Francois Thisse,2004.
[109]Baldwin, R.E. and Okubo T., Heterogeneous firms, agglomeration and economic geography:Spatial selection and sorting. Journal of Economic Geography,2006.
[110]Barro, R. J. Government spending in a simple model of endogenous growth. Journal of Political Economy.1990,98(5):103-125.
[111]Barro,R. J.Economic growth in a cross sections of countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics.1991,106 (5)407-433.
[112]Barro, R. J. and X. Sala-I-Martin. Convergence. Journal of Political Economy, 1992(100):223-251.
[113]Baumol, W. Productivity growth. convergence. and welfare:what the long-run data show.American Economic Review.1986,76(5):1072-85.
[114]Bavaud,F. Models for spatial weights:a systematic look. Geographical Analysis, 1998,30(1):153-171.
[115]Bernard, A. B. and J. B. Jensen.Exceptional exporter performance:cause, effect, or both?Journal of International Economics,1999,47(1):1-25.
[116]Berliant, M. and M. Fujita., Dynamics of knowledge creation and transfer:The two person case. MPRA Paper, No.4973,2007.
[117]Behrens, K.,C. Gaigne and J.F. Thisse.Industry location and welfare when transport costs are endogenous.Journal of Urban Economics,2009,65(2):195-208.
[118]Brander, J. and P. Krugman. A'eciprocal dumping' model of international trade.Journal ofInternational Economics,1983,15(3-4):313-321.
[119]Brander, J. A. and B. J. Spencer.Export subsidies and international market share rivalry.Journal of International Economics,1985,18(1-2):83-100.
[120]Adam, B. and K. Michel. Infrastructure and poverty linkages:a literature review.Mimeograph. Washington. D.C. World Bank,2002.
[121]Bronzini, R. and P. Piselli, Determinants of long-run regional productivity with geographical spillovers:The role of R&D, human capital and public infrastructure. Regional Science and Urban Economics,2009,39 (2):187-199.
[122]Brulhart, M., M. Crozet and P. Koenig. Enlargement and the EU periphery:the impact of changing market potential. The World Economy, Wiley Online Library,2004.
[123]Buurman, J. and P. Rietveld. Transport infrastructure investment and Canadian manufacturing productivity. Review of urban and regional development studies. 1999,11(1):45-62.
[124]Cabral, L. M. B. and J. Mata. On the evolution of the firm size distribution:facts and theory. The American Economic Review,2003,93(4):1075-1090.
[125]Canova, F., Testing for convergence clubs in income per-capita:a predictive density approach. HWWA discussion paper,2001,139:7-35.
[126]Cermeo, R. Growth convergence clubs:evidence from markov-switching models using panel data. Paper for the 10th International Conference on Panel Data,Berlin,2002:1-19.
[127]Chamberlin, E. H.The theory of monopolistic competition.Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press,1933.
[128]Chandra, A. and E. Thompson. Does public infrastructure affect economic activity? Evidence from the rural interstate highway system. Regional science and urban economics,2000(30):457-490.
[129]Chenery. H., S. Robinson and M. Syrquin. Industrialization and growth:a comparative study. Oxford University Press,1986.
[130]Chow, G. C.Capital formation and economic growth in China", Q. J. E,1993(8): 809-842.
[131]Cliff, A.D. and J.K.Ord. Spatial Autocorrelation, Pion, London,1973.
[132]Cliff, A.D. and J.K.Ord. Spatial Processes, Pion, London,1981.
[133]Cohen, J. P. and P.Morrison. Public infrastructure investment, interstate spatial spillovers, andmanufacturing costs. Review of Economic and Statistics.2004(86): 551-560.
[134]Cohen,J. P.Economic benefits of investments in transport infrastructure.OECD/ITF JointTransportResearch Centre Discussion Papers.13, OECD. InternationalTransportForum,2007
[135]Combes, P. P.,T. Mayer and J.F. Thisse.Economic Geography:The Integration of Regionsand Nations. Princeton:Princeton University Press,2008.
[136]Demetriades, P.O. and Mamuneas. T. P.Intertemporal output and employment effects of public infrastructure capital:evidence from 12 OECD economies.The Economic Journal.2000.110(465):687-712.
[137]Desdoigts, A. Patterns of economic development and the formation of clubs,Journal of Economic Growth,1999,4(3):305-330.
[138]Dixit, A. K. and J. E. Stiglitz.Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity.The American Economic Review,1977,67(3):297-308.
[139]Duggal. V. G, C.Saltzman. and L. R. Klein. Infrastructure and productivity:a nonlinear approach.Journal of Econometrics,1999.92(1):47-74.
[140]Dupont, V. and P. Martin.Subsidies to poor regions and inequalities:some unpleasant arithmetic.Journal of Economic Geography,2006,6(2):223-240.
[141]Duranton, G and M. Storper.Rising trade costs? Agglomeration and trade with endogenous transaction costs.The Canadian Journal of Economics,2008, 41(1):292-319.
[142]Eaton, J.,S. Kortum and F. Kramarz.Dissecting trade:firms, industries, and export destinations.The American Economic Review,2004,94(2):150-154.
[143]Ethier, W. J.National and international returns to scale in-the modern theory of international trade.The American Economic Review,1982,72(3):389-405.
[144]Everaert, G and F. Heylen. Public capital and productivity growth:Evidence for Belgium.1953-1996.Economic Modeling,2001,18 (1):97-116.
[145]Fan. S., Zhang. L. and Zhang. X.Growth, inequality and poverty in rural China:The role of public investments.Research Report (125), International Food Policy. Research Institute,2002
[146]Fay, M. The contribution of power infrastructure to economic growth. Background Paper forWorld Development Report, World Bank, Washington, D. C.,1993.
[147]Fernald, J. G. Roads to prosperity? Assessing the link between public capital and productivit. American Economic Review.1999.89 (3):619-638.
[148]Fischer, M. M. and C. Stirbock, Pan-European regional income growth and club-convergence insights from a spatial econometric perspective. Annals of regional science,2006,40(4):693-721.
[149]Forslid, R. Agglomeration with human and physical capital:an analytically solvable case. Discussion Paper No.2012, Center for economic policy research,1999.
[150]Forslid, R. and G. I. P.Ottaviano. An analytically solvable core-periphery model. Journal of Economic Geography,2003,3:229-240.
[151]Forslid, R.Tax competition and agglomeration:main effects and empirical implications.Swedish Economic Policy Review,2005,12:113-137.
[152]Forslid, R.and T. Okubo.On the development strategy of countries of intermediate size——An analysis of heterogenous firms in a multiregion framework. Discussion paper series RIEB,2010.
[153]Forslid, R. Regional Policy, intergration and the location of industry. http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/2/2333/papers/forslid.pdf,2004.
[154]Friedman, J. Regional development policy:A case of Venezuela, the MIT Press,1966
[155]Fujita, M. and P.Krugman. When is the economy monocentric? Von Thunen and Chamberlin unified. Regional Science and Urban Economics,1995,25:508-528.
[156]Fujita, M. and T.Mori. The role of ports in the making of major cities: self-agglomeration and hub-effect. Journal of Development Economics, 1996,49:93-120.
[157]Fujita, M. andT. Mori. Structural stability and evolution of urban systems. Regional Science and Urban Economics,1997,27:399-442.
[158]Fujita, M.,P. Krugman. and T. Mori. On the evolution of hierarchical urban systems. European Economic Review 1999,43:209-251.
[159]Fujita, M., P. Krugman. and A. J.Venables. The spatial economy:Cities, regions and international trade. Cambridge and Massachusetts:MIT Press,1999.
[160]Fujita, M. and T. Mori. Frontiers of the new economic geography. Papers in Regional Science,2005,84(3):377-405.
[161]Fujita,M. Towards the new economic geography in the brain power society. Regional Science and Urban Economics,2007,37:482-490
[162]Geary, R.C. The contiguity ratio and statistical mapping. The Incorporated Statistician,1954(5):115-127.
[163]Garcia-Mila, T., T. J.McGuire. and R. H. Porter.The effect of public capital in state level production functions reconsidered. Review ofEconomics and Statistics,1996,78(2):177-180.
[164]Goldsmith, R.W. and M. R. Gainsburgh. A perpetual inventory of national wealth: Studies in income and wealth. Princeton,1951
[165]Gonzalez, R., L. Lanaspa. and F. Pueyo. Trade policies, concentration, growth and welfare. Economic Modelling, Elsevier,2009.
[166]Gruber, S. and L. Marattin.Taxation, infrastructure and endogenous trade costs in NewEconomic Geography. Papers in Regional Science,2010,89(1):203-222.
[167]Heckscher, E.The effect of foreign trade on the distribution of income. Ekonomisk Tidskrift,1919(21):497-512. Reprinted, in Flam, H. and M.Flanders. Heckscher-Ohlin Trade Theory. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1991:43-69.
[168]Helpman, E.International trade in the presence of product differentiation, economies of scale and monopolistic competition:A Chamberlin-Heckscher-Ohlin approach.Jornal ofInternational Economics,1981,11(3):305-340.
[169]Helpman, E.Imperfect competition and international trade:Evidence from fourteen industrial countries.Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 1987,1(1):62-81.
[170]Helpman, E.,M. J. Melitz. and S. R. Yeaple.Export versus FDI with heterogeneousfirms.The American Economic Review,2004,94(1):300-316.
[171]Henderson, J. V.The sizes and types of cities.The American Economic Review.1974, 64(4):640-656.
[172]Hirschman, A. O. The strategy of economic development, New Haven:Yale University Press,1958.
[173]Hopenhayn, H. A.Entry, exit, and firm dynamics in long run equilibrium.Econometrica,1992,60(5):1127-1150.
[174]Hoover, E. M. The location of economic activity. New York:McGraw-Hill,1948.
[175]Hirschman, A. O. The Strategy of Economic Development. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.,1958
[176]Holl, A. Transport infrastructure, agglomeration economicsand firm birth:empirical evidence from Portugal. Journal of regional science,2004,44(4):693-712.
[177]Holtz-Eakin, D. Public sector capital and the productivity puzzle. NBER Working Paper.1993. No.4122.
[178]Holtz-Eakin,D.Public sectorcapital and the productivity puzzle. Review ofEconomics and Statistics.1994,76:12-21.
[179]Holtz-Eakin, D. and A. E. Schwartz.Spatial productivity spillovers from public infrastructure:Evidence from state highways. InternationalTax andPublicFinance, 1995,2:459-468.
[180]Isard, W. Location and space-economy. Cambridge:MIT Press,1956.
[181]Inman,R. P. Federal assistance and local services in the United States:The evolution of a New Federalist Fiscal Order. In Fiscal Federalism. Harvey Rosen. ed. Chicago: U. Chicago Press.1988
[182]Jonasson, O, Agricultural regional of Europe. Economic Geography,1925,1: 277-314
[183]Keynes,J. M. The general theory of employment, interest and money. London: Macmillian&Co,1936中译本.就业,利息和货币通论.商务印书馆.1983年第2版.
[184]Konishi, H. Hub cities:city formation without increasing returns. Journal of Urban Economics,2000,48:1-28.
[185]Krugman, P.Increasing returns, monopolistic competition, and international trade. Journal of International Economics,1979,9(4):469-479.
[186]Krugman, P.Scale economies, product differentiation, and the pattern of trade.TheAmerican Economic Review,1980,70(5):950-959.
[187]Krugman, P. The hub effect:or, threeness in international trade. In:Ethier,W.J., E.Helpman.and J.P. Neary.(Eds.), Trade policy and dynamics in international trade. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,1993:29-37.
[188]Krugman, P. and A. J. Venables. Globalization and the inequality of nations. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1995,60:857-880.
[189]Krugman, P. What's new about the new economic geography?Oxford Review of Economic Policy,1998,14(2):7-17.
[190]Lave, C. A. and K.Train. A disaggregate model of auto-type choice. Transportation Research Part A:General,1979,13(1):1-9.
[191]Lave, C. A. and J. Bradley. Market share of imported cars:a model of geographic and demographic determinants.Transportation Research Part A:General, 1980,14(5-6):379-387.
[192]Lancaster, K.Socially optimal product differentiation. The American Economic Review,1975,65(4):567-585.
[193]Lancaster, K.Intra-industry trade under perfect monopolistic competition.Journal oflntemational Economics,1980,10(2):151-175.
[194]Leontief, W. Domestic production and foreign trade:The American capital position re-examined. Proceedings ofTheAmerican Philosophical Society, 1953,97(4):332-349.
[195]Lesage,J.P. and R.K. Pace. Spatial econometric models. Handbook of Applied Spatial Analysis,2010:355-376.
[196]Lucas, R.E.On the mechanics of economic development. Journal ofMonetary Economics,1988,22(1):3-42.
[197]Mankiw, G.,D. Romer. and D. Weil. A contribution to the empirics of economic growth, Quarterly Journal of Economics.1992,107(2):407-37.
[198]Martin, P. and C. A. Rogers. Industrial Location and Public Infrastructure. Journal of International Economics,1995,39(3.4):335-351.
[199]Martin, P. and G. I.P. Ottaviano.Growing locations:Industry location in a model of endogenous growth. European Economic Review,1999,43 (2):281-302.
[200]Martin, P. and G I.P. Ottaviano. Growth and agglomeration. International Economic Review,2001,42:947-968.
[201]Martinez-Vazquez, J., B. Qiao. and L. Zhang. The role of provincial policies in fiscal equalization outcomes in China. The China Review,2008,8(2):07-05.
[202]Matsuyama, K. and T.Takahashi. Self-defeating regional concentration. Review of Economic Studies,1998,65:211-234.
[203]Melitz.M. The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica,2003,71:335-351.
[204]Melitz, M. J. and G I. P. Ottaviano. Market size, trade, and productivity. The Review of Economic Studies,2008,75(1):295-316.
[205]Monfort,P. and R. Nicolini. Regional convergence and international integration. Journal of Urban Economics,2000,48:286-306.
[206]Moreno, R., E.Lopez-Bazo. AndM. Artis.Public infrastructure and the performance ofmanufacturing industries:Shortand long-run effects. Regional Science and Urban Economics,2002,32(1):97-121.
[207]Michael, R. T. Education in nonmarket production. Journal of Political Economy, 1973,81(2):306-327.
[208]Monfort, P. and R. Nicolini. Regional convergence and international integration. Journal of Urban Economics,2000(48):286-306.
[209]Moran. P. The interpretation of statistical maps. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,1948(5):32-63.
[210]Moran, P. A. P. Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika,1950,37(1): 17-23
[211]Moria, T. and A. Turrinib.Skills,agglomeration and segmentation.European Economic Review,2005,49:201-225.
[212]Mori, T. A modeling of megalopolis formation:the maturing of city systems. Journal of Urban Economics,1997,42:133-157.
[213]Mori, T. and K. Nishikimi. Economies of transport density and industrial agglomeration. Regional Science and Urban Economics,2002,32:167-200.
[214]Morrison, J.L., M. W. Scripter. and R. H. T. Smith. Basic measures of manufacturing in the united states,1958. Economic Geography,1968,34:296-311.
[215]Munnell, A. Why has productivity declined? Productivity and public investment. New England Economic Review.1990. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
[216]Murata, Y.Product diversity, taste heterogeneity, and geographic distribution of economic activities:Market Vs. Non-Market interacrions.Journal of Urban Economics,2003,53(1):126-144.
[217]Murata, Y. and J.F. Thisse.A simple model of economic geography LaHelpman-Tabuchi.Journal of Urban Economics,2005,58(1):137-155.
[218]Murata, Y. Taste heterogeneity and the scale of production:Fragmentation, unification, and segmentation. Journal of Urban Economics,2007 (62):135-160.
[219]Nurkse, R.Problems ofcapital formation in developing countries. Oxford. UK:Basil Blackwel,1953.
[220]Oates, W. E. An essay on fiscal federalism. Journal of Economic Literature.1999, 37(3)1120-1149.
[221]Ohlin, B. G. Interregional and international trade. Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1933.
[222]Okubo, T. Trade liberalisation and agglomeration with firm heterogeneity:Forward and backward linkages. Regional Science and Urban Economics,2009,39:530-541.
[223]Okubo, T., P. M. Picard. and J. F. Thisse. The spatial selection of heterogeneous firms. Journal of International Economics,2010,82:230-237.
[224]Ottaviano, GI.P.,T. Tabuchi. andJ. Thisse. Agglomeration and trade revisited. International Economic Review,2002,43:409-436.
[225]Ottaviano, G. I. P.Monopolistic competition, trade, and endogenous spatial fluctuations.Regional Science and Urban Economics,2001,31(1):51-77.
[226]Palander, T. Beitruge zur Standortstheoris Uppsala:Almqvist and Wiksells.1935.
[227]Paluzie, E. Trade policy and regional inequalities. Regional Science,2001,80:67-85.
[228]Pereira, A. M. and O. Roca-Sagales.Spillovers effects of public capital formation: Evidence from the Spanish Regions.Journal ofUrban Economics,2003,53:28-256.
[229]Perkins, D. Reforming China's Economic System. Journal of Economic Literature, 1988,26(2):601-645.
[230]Pfluger, M.A simple, analytically solvable, Chamberlinian agglomeration model.Regional Science and Urban Economics,2004,34(5):565-573.
[231]Picard, P. M. and D.Z. Zeng.Agricultural Sector and Industrial Agglomeration.Journal ofDevelopment Economics,2005,77(1):75-106.
[232]Puga, D. and A. J. Venables.Preferential trading arrangements and industrial location.Journal of International Economics,1997,43(3-4):347-368.
[233]Quah, D. Twin peaks:Growth and convergence in models of distribution dynamics, Economic Journal,1996,106(437):1045-1055.
[234]Quah, D. T. Empirics for Economic Growth and Convergence. European Economic Review,1996,40(6):1353-75.
[235]Quah, D. Spatial agglomeration dynamics. CEPR DP.3208,2002.
[236]Robinson, J.The economics of imperfect competition.London:Macmillan,1933.
[237]Romer,P.M.Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal ofPolitical Economy,1986,94(5):1002-1052.
[238]Rodan, R. P.N.Problems of industrialization of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe.The Economic Journal.1943,53:202-211.
[239]Rostow,W.W.The stage of economic growth.The Economic History Review. 1959,12(1):1-16.
[240]Russek, S.Differential labour mobility and agglomeration.Papers in Regional Science,2010,89(3):587-606.
[241]Saghir, J.Energy and poverty:Myths,linksand policy issues.Energy Working Paper. No.4. Washington D.C..World Bank,2005.
[242]Samuelson, P. A. The transfer problem and transport costs:the terms of trade when impediments are absent. Economic Journal,1952,62(246):278-304.
[243]Schultz, A. The new economic geography. Journal of Economic Surveys,1961,13(4): 355-379.
[244]Sheard, N. Regional policy in a multiregional setting:when the poorest are hert by subsidies. Review of World Economics,2012,148(2):403-423.
[245]Shirley, C.and C.Wintson. Firm inventory behavior and the returns from highway infrastructure investment. Journal of Urban Economics.2004,55(2):398-415.
[246]Solow, R. M. A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1956,70(2):65-94.
[247]Spence, M.Product differentiation and welfare.The American Economic Review,1976,66(2):407-414.
[248]Spulber, D.F. Global competitive strategy. Cambridge, Cambridge UniversityPress,2007.
[249]Stine,W. F. Is local government revenue response to federal aid symmetrical? Evidence from Pennsylvania County Governments in an era of retrenchment. National Tax Journal,1994,47 (4):799-816.
[250]Tabuchi, T.Urban agglomeration and dispersion:A synthesis of Alonso andKrugman.Journal of Urban Economics,1998,44(3):333-351.
[251]Tabuchi, T. and J.F. Thisse.Taste heterogeneity, labor mobility and economic geography.Journal of Development Economics,2002,69(1):155-177.
[252]Tatom, J. A. Should government spending on capital goods be raised?Federal Reserve Bank of St.Louis Review,1991(3/5):3-15.
[253]Treisman, D. Decentralization, fiscal incentivesand economic performance:A reconsideration. Working Paper.2004.
[254]Tsui,K. Local tax system, intergovernmental transfers and China's local fiscal disparities. Journal of Comparative Economics,2005,33 (1):173-196.
[255]Von Thunen, J. H.Der Isolierte Staat in Beziehung Auf Landtschaft Und Nationalokonomie. Hamburg:1826.
[256]Waltz, U. Transport costs, intermediate goods, and localized growth. Regional Science and Urban Economics,1996,26:671-695.
[257]Wylie, P. J.Infrastrueture and Canada Eeonomic Growth 1946-1991.The Canadian Journal of Eeonomies,1996,29(4):350-355.
[258]Yamamoto, K. Agglomeration and growth with innovation in the intermediate goods sector. Regional Science and Urban Economics,2003,33:335-360.
[259]Young, A. Gold into base metals:Productivity growth in the People's Republic of China during the reform period. Journal of Political Economy, 2003,111(6):1220-1260.