企业家精神、企业生命周期和聚集经济
|
摘要
中国正在经历着迅速而猛烈的城市化进程。截至2009年,我国城镇化比率为46.6%,比2000年多出20个百分点。中国已经成为近30年来全世界城市化率增速最快的国家之一。在O' Sullivan的城市经济学教材的第一章“Whycities exist"中指出,假定一个不存在任何城市的社会,城市逐渐的出现是基于以下三个条件：首先,相对优势的出现使得分工和贸易产生,进而出现家庭作坊；其次,内部规模经济使得家庭作坊进一步形成工厂及工厂镇(Factory town);最后,聚集经济(又称“规模外部经济”)则是不同企业聚集在一起形成城市的根本原因。聚集经济一直是城市经济学中理论和实证研究的热点。
在一个城市中,单个企业聚集在城市中会不同程度的受益于城市中同行业的企业或城市中其它行业的企业对其产生的外部性,我们分别称之为马歇尔外部经济和雅各布外部经济。Marshall(1920)指出同一产业的聚集,可以使得人们共享劳动力市场,从而减少寻找工作的时间和降低失业率,同时企业也降低了匹配劳动力的搜寻时间；可以共享产品市场,可以使企业减少运输成本从而减低生产成本；可以存在知识外溢效应,企业和工人均受益于同
产业的其它企业的知识影响,从而行业内聚集经济也称马歇尔外部经济。Jacobs(1969)则强调一个城市各种行业的集中,形成产业多样化的城市结构。在一个各种知识和人才聚集的地方,新思想和新的产品更容易产生,从而促进城市增长。她对纽约内衣制造业的研究发现,纽约内衣行业的发展并不是由于制衣行业本身的创新,而是由于缝纫技术的提高,于是跨行业聚集经济也被称作雅克布外部经济。
有关马歇尔外部经济和雅克布外部经济对微观企业和城市就业增长的作用,城市经济学家们一直没有一致的结论。我们基于文献的基础之上,提出以下问题：从企业生命周期角度,企业从出生到成熟是否会受益于不同的聚集经济形式?新生企业是否更容易在一个多样化城市产生?而“迁址”企业是否会迁移到一个专业化程度更高的城市?如何理解这种现象背后的机制?是否由于不同年龄阶段的企业的创新产出会受益于不同城市聚集经济的影响?是否企业越年轻,跨行业聚集经济更促进企业创新?而企业年龄越大,企业创新产出会更受益于行业内聚集经济?另一方面,企业家精神是否最终影响城市增长?最后,如果在一个城市内部,如果同时存在两种不同水平聚集经济的企业,那么均衡时城市的分布如何?是否高聚集经济的企业会占据城市中心位置?
回答上述问题,本文首先结合中国规模以上制造业企业和城市统计年鉴有关数据,围绕城市中不同产业结构所代表的不同类型的聚集经济,以及企业家精神的核心思想创业与创新两个角度,分别研究在企业生命周期的不同阶段：企业生命周期与聚集经济,企业创新与聚集经济,企业家精神和城市增长的关系。在本文的最后,我们构建了一个多中心城市理论模型,通过引入两种不同的行业来研究在一个城市内部存在跨行业聚集经济时,不同聚集经济类型与均衡时城市土地使用类型之间的关系。
本文第一章为导论,分别介绍有关聚集经济、企业家精神对应的企业创新和创业,企业家精神分布及与城市经济增长相关的文献。在第一章,我们给出了本文研究的理论背景。
本文的第二章研究企业生命周期与聚集经济之间的关系。我们运用1998-2007年中国规模以上制造业企业的微观数据,发现企业在生命周期的不同阶段会聚集在不同产业结构的城市中。(一)新生或者年轻企业更容易在多样化城市产生。原因是由于,首先新生或者年轻的企业无论在创新、技术、市场及人力资本各方面存在诸多的不确定性,产业多样化的城市有利于降低企业面临的各种风险。Fu等(2009)认为城市多样化可以降低城市的失业率,Duranton和Puga(2001)认为年轻企业在创业初期创新时,会不断搜寻最有效的创新方案。多样化的产业结构有利于企业的搜寻过程,从而降低创新失败的风险。其次,新生企业在多样化的城市中可以获得更多的外部经济。新生企业发展迅速,在多样化的城市,新生企业可以更大范围的与邻近企业沟通,从而受益于外部经济,促进其发展；(二)迁址企业会更多地偏向迁址到产业专业化程度较高的城市。随着企业的逐渐成熟,企业承受风险的能力会越来越强,企业对其所在行业的专业技术能力要求也越来越高。多样化城市提供的“保护”作用和“多样化信息和资源共享”功能逐渐减弱。另外,多样化的城市意味着较高的交通与摩擦成本。多样化的城市己不是成长以后企业的最优选择。我们对发生迁址的企业进行描述性统计,发现企业会从一个专业化城市较低的城市迁移到一个专业化程度较高的城市；(三)在城市产业水平,制造业企业平均年龄与产业专业化指数显著正相关,与产业多样化指数显著负相关。即一个城市专业化水平越高,该城市对应的行业企业平均年龄就越大,而城市多样化水平越高,该城市新生或年轻企业就越多。
本文的第三章研究企业在生命周期不同阶段聚集在不同产业结构的城市的背后机制：企业创新。Duranton和Puga (2001)从企业生命周期角度,建立理论模型研究新生企业和迁址企业与聚集经济的关系,认为创新是聚集经济起作用的主要机制。本文利用中国制造业数据对企业年龄按分位数划分为不同的年龄阶段,在对企业新产品产值进行回归时,通过控制年龄阶段变量与各个衡量聚集经济的指数的交叉项来检验企业在生命周期不同阶段其创新与聚集经济之间的关系。我们发现新生企业或者年轻企业,创新产出更多地受益于雅各布外部经济,而随着企业年龄的增长,马歇尔外部经济开始逐渐起作用,成熟的企业的创新显著受益于产业专业化。需要指出的是,我们实证研究还发现,企业创新产出与两种聚集经济的关系随着企业的年龄增长呈现“二次”型趋势。企业在成为“老字号或资深”企业(年龄超过16岁)以后,在对于企业创新产出的影响上,马歇尔外部经济开始减弱,而雅各布外部经济则开始增强。
在第四章,我们关注企业家精神的核心思想：创业和创新,我们运用新生企业比重,私营从业人员比重和新产品产值比重,以及研发费用比重四个变量指标来衡量企业家精神,研究企业家精神对城市增长的作用。首先,我们实证研究发现,无论是企业家创业精神还是创新精神均能够显著促进城市的经济增长。一个城市的新生企业比重越高,私营企业比重越高,该城市总就业人口增长就越快。而且城市中的新产品产值比重越高,对应城市和产业的经济增长就越快。其次,我们按照Glaeser (2009)的观点,进一步探究了影响企业家精神的外生原因,重点研究政府企业家精神与城市的产业结构对企业家精神的影响。实证结果显示,政府企业家精神对城市的企业家精神有正向作用,但并不十分显著,而产业结构对企业家精神的作用就十分明显,所有行业的多样化显著促进企业家精神的聚集。
本文的第五章给出了中国城市企业家精神和产业结构的分布状况。利用规模以上工业企业数据中制造业的数据,我们发现中国企业家精神和聚集经济分布表现出以下三个特点：首先,在资源化程度比较显著的城市,产业专业化程度比较高,比如攀枝花、大兴安岭等。Marshall(1920)指出,产业集聚的重要原因之一就是节约成本。中国的制造业,尤其是依赖原材料投入较多的产业,应该在邻近资源的城市选址,这样会充分享受产业专业化带来的马歇尔外部经济；其次,我们对“创业型”城市和“创新型”城市的统计分析发现在多样化的环境下,企业家精神更高；最后,我们还发现无论企业创业还是创新精神都有显著的地域特性。我们对新生企业的数据汇总可以看到新生企业集中在山东省产生,而对新产品产值比重的数据汇总发现其在四川省尤为集中。根据以上三个描述性统计,我们更清楚地了解了中国城市聚集经济与企业创业、创新精神的分布状况,并给出相应的政策建议。
最后,在本文的第六章我们通过建立理论模型来研究城市内部聚集经济与城市土地使用类型之间的关系。跨行业聚集经济是城市经济学理论研究中一个重要的问题,然而近年来对它的研究很少。我们构建一个具有两种不同行业厂商的多中心城市模型,研究行业内部以及不同行业之间的聚集经济是如何影响城市的分布的。在本章中,我们首先证明了城市均衡的存在性,其次,我们给定不同衡量聚集经济的参数进行数值模拟,研究不同类型聚集经济存在的情况下城市的分布状况。我们发现,首先城市可以在两个行业并存的情况下存在均衡,这种均衡的存在仅仅因为两种行业彼此之间存在跨行业之间的聚集经济：其次,模拟结果显示,如果一个城市存在一个“高聚集经济”的企业和一个“高生产能力”的企业,均衡时前者会位于城市的中心；如果一个城市存在一个“创新领导者”企业,它的存在使得所有行业外的企业都提高生产值,均衡时该行业的企业会位于城市的中心。
China has experienced an amazingly fast urbanization process in recent years. The urbanization rate has reached46.6%in2009, which is much higher than the year2000, and China has become one of the fastest urbanization countries in the world. In the textbook of Urban Economics written by O'Sullivan, he describes the reason why cities exist by assuming a society without any cities, then comparative advantage makes trade between regions advantageous, and the interregional trade causes market cities. Internal scale economies in production allow factories to produce goods more efficiently than individuals, and the production of goods in factories causes the development of factory town. Finally, it is agglomeration economies that make firms cluster in cities, and this clustering makes large cities arise. Agglomeration economies are among the most important and heated topics in urban theories.
In the city, the firm's productivity will be affected by both externalities of other firms within industry and firms in other industries. We call such two kinds of externalities as Marshall externalities and Jacobs externalities respectively. Marshall (1920) argues that firms in the same industry by locating close to each other can share the labor market, then the worker will reduce the risk of unemployment, and both the worker and the employers will reduce their searching cost in labor market; they also can share input factor market and consumers, which will reduce firm's marginal cost; In the same time, there are also knowledge spillover between those firms and workers in the same industry. However, Jacobs (1969) stresses the importance of urban diversity instead of urban specialization. She argues that a diverse environment can foster cross-fertilization of ideas. For instance, she notes that New York's brassiere industry evolved not from the lingerie industry but from dressmakers'innovations. Therefore the externalities between firms in different industries are also called as Jacobs externalities.
There is no consensus in urban literature on whether it is Marshall externalities or Jacobs externalities that promote the firm's productivity. In our paper, we want to answer this question in terms of firm life circle:From firms' birth to maturity, will the firm benefit from different types of agglomeration economies? Are the new firms more likely born in a diverse city? Do those "Relocation" firms migrate from a lower specialization city to a higher one? What is the mechanism behind this phenomenon? Is it just because the firm's innovation will benefit from different types of agglomeration economies at different stages of firm life cycle? Are these young firms'innovation more likely affected by urbanization economy? Are the older ones more likely to benefit from localization economy? On the other hand, will the entrepreneurship in a city really promote the urban growth? Finally, if there are two types of industry at different levels of aggregation economy within a city, what does the equilibrium distribution of the city look like? Will the higher agglomeration company occupy the city center?
To answer above questions, our paper links the agglomeration economies which are represented by different types of industry structure to new firm births and innovation productivity in terms of firm life circle. We try to find out the relationship of firm life circle with agglomeration economy, the mechanism of firm's innovation and agglomeration economy, and finally empirically to check whether entrepreneurship promotes city growth or not. In the last part of the paper, we set up a nonmonocentric model with co-agglomeration in the city by introducing two types of firms to investigate how the co-agglomeration economy level affects the land use patterns of the city in spatial equilibrium.
Chapter1is the introduction. We provide related literatures on agglomeration economy, entrepreneurship which focus on new firm birth and firm's innovation, and the relationship between entrepreneurship and city growth. The theoretical background of the paper is described in this part.
In Chapter2, we study the relationship of firm's life cycle and agglomeration economy. By employing the micro level data of manufacturing firms from1998to2007, we find that enterprises in different stages of the life cycle will gather in different industrial structure cities.1) Newly-born firms or young firms are more likely to locate in a diverse city. Because these new-birth firms or young enterprises are confronted with uncertainties and risks related to both their product technology and human capital, a diverse environment will help them to reduce those various risks. Fu et al (2009) stress that the city diversification can reduce the city's unemployment rate; Duranton and Puga (2001) believes that young enterprises in the early stage of innovation product are in the process of searching for the most innovative way. A diversified industrial structure is conducive to such a search and learning process, and also will reduce the risk of failure about firm's innovation. Second, there is more knowledge spillover in diverse cities. The more diverse a city is, the more opportunities new enterprises have in the city to communicate with neighborhoods.2) If relocated, the mature business will move from a city with lower industry specialization to one with a higher degree of specialization. As firms grow mature, their tolerance of risk will be higher. What they need most is to be professional and more technical. The function of a diverse city of "protection" and "information and resource sharing" are gradually weakened. In addition, a variety of city also bring traffic and friction problems which bring higher costs. Diverse cities are no longer the optimal choice of these mature enterprises.3) At city-sic2level, firm's average age will be higher if the city is a lower diverse but higher specialize cities. That is, young firms are more likely located in diverse cites and mature firms prefer the specialized one.
We explore the mechanism why firms locate in cities with different industrial structure at different stages of their life cycle in Chapter3. Duranton and Puga (2001) establish a theoretical model to link the enterprises location choice with the agglomeration economies. They find that the mechanism behind it is "innovation" In this paper, we employ the Chinese manufacturing data, and divide them into different subsamples by quintiles of firm's age. Empirical results show that newly-born or young firms'innovation is more likely to benefit from Marshall externalities, and as the firm grow older, Jacobs externalities will begin to work, the mature firm's innovation is more likely to benefit from industrial specialization. It should be noted that the relationship between enterprise innovation output and the agglomeration economy are showing a "secondary" characteristics, namely, Marshall external economies will begin to weaken as the enterprises in their senior stage(age over16), while Jacobs externalities begin to increase again.
Chapter4is to study the relationship between entrepreneurship and city growth by using China's urban employment data. First, we find that entrepreneurship contributes to urban economic and employment growth, this result is significant for both entrepreneurship related to firm's births and entrepreneurship related to firm's innovation; Second, we further explore the factors which affect the distribution of entrepreneurship according to Glaeser (2010). We find that government entrepreneurship is positive but not significant, and industry diversification significantly promotes a city's entrepreneurship, and the impact of industry diversification is significantly positive.
Chapter5gives the distribution of China's urban entrepreneurship and industrial structure. Using the Chinese manufacturing-sector data, we find three characteristics of the distribution of entrepreneurship and agglomeration economies. First, the specialization index will be higher in cities where the natural resources of the city are relatively higher, such as Panzhihua, Daxing'anling etc. Marshall (1920) points out that one of the important causes of industrial agglomeration is the cost savings. China's manufacturing industry, in particular, more heavily rely on raw materials which conduct them to choose the location nearby, therefore they can fully enjoy Marshall externalities; Second, after comparing the "entrepreneurial" cities and "innovative"city, we find that entrepreneurship will be higher in a diverse environment. Finally, we find that both entrepreneurship and innovation city have a significant geographical feature. We see that the new enterprises are most concentrated in Shandong province, and the new product is particularly concentrated in Sichuan province. By describing those basic statistics above, we give some policy implications for Chinese government in the development of cities.
Finally, in Chapter6, we establish a theoretical model to study the relationship between co-agglomeration economies and urban land use patterns. Co-agglomeration is an important topic in urban economics. However, few theoretical models address it in recent years. We construct a nonmonocentric model with two industries, which allow us to analyze co-agglomeration between industries. In this paper, first, we prove that there exits an equilibrium for the two-industry city in a nonmonocentric model settings. We find that a city in the case of the coexistence of the two industries can exist in equilibrium just only because of the cross-industry agglomeration economies between the two industries. Second, we simulate to obtain land use patterns in the city equilibrium. Given two different combination of agglomeration parameters, we study how different types of agglomeration economies affect the city distribution. We find that, if a city has one "high agglomeration economies" firm and one "high production ability" enterprises, the former will located in the center of the city in equilibrium; if a city has an innovative leader enterprise, and enterprises in such an industry will locate in the city center in equilibrium. Our paper sheds some lights on both empirical analysis and government policy on land markets.
在一个城市中,单个企业聚集在城市中会不同程度的受益于城市中同行业的企业或城市中其它行业的企业对其产生的外部性,我们分别称之为马歇尔外部经济和雅各布外部经济。Marshall(1920)指出同一产业的聚集,可以使得人们共享劳动力市场,从而减少寻找工作的时间和降低失业率,同时企业也降低了匹配劳动力的搜寻时间；可以共享产品市场,可以使企业减少运输成本从而减低生产成本；可以存在知识外溢效应,企业和工人均受益于同
产业的其它企业的知识影响,从而行业内聚集经济也称马歇尔外部经济。Jacobs(1969)则强调一个城市各种行业的集中,形成产业多样化的城市结构。在一个各种知识和人才聚集的地方,新思想和新的产品更容易产生,从而促进城市增长。她对纽约内衣制造业的研究发现,纽约内衣行业的发展并不是由于制衣行业本身的创新,而是由于缝纫技术的提高,于是跨行业聚集经济也被称作雅克布外部经济。
有关马歇尔外部经济和雅克布外部经济对微观企业和城市就业增长的作用,城市经济学家们一直没有一致的结论。我们基于文献的基础之上,提出以下问题：从企业生命周期角度,企业从出生到成熟是否会受益于不同的聚集经济形式?新生企业是否更容易在一个多样化城市产生?而“迁址”企业是否会迁移到一个专业化程度更高的城市?如何理解这种现象背后的机制?是否由于不同年龄阶段的企业的创新产出会受益于不同城市聚集经济的影响?是否企业越年轻,跨行业聚集经济更促进企业创新?而企业年龄越大,企业创新产出会更受益于行业内聚集经济?另一方面,企业家精神是否最终影响城市增长?最后,如果在一个城市内部,如果同时存在两种不同水平聚集经济的企业,那么均衡时城市的分布如何?是否高聚集经济的企业会占据城市中心位置?
回答上述问题,本文首先结合中国规模以上制造业企业和城市统计年鉴有关数据,围绕城市中不同产业结构所代表的不同类型的聚集经济,以及企业家精神的核心思想创业与创新两个角度,分别研究在企业生命周期的不同阶段：企业生命周期与聚集经济,企业创新与聚集经济,企业家精神和城市增长的关系。在本文的最后,我们构建了一个多中心城市理论模型,通过引入两种不同的行业来研究在一个城市内部存在跨行业聚集经济时,不同聚集经济类型与均衡时城市土地使用类型之间的关系。
本文第一章为导论,分别介绍有关聚集经济、企业家精神对应的企业创新和创业,企业家精神分布及与城市经济增长相关的文献。在第一章,我们给出了本文研究的理论背景。
本文的第二章研究企业生命周期与聚集经济之间的关系。我们运用1998-2007年中国规模以上制造业企业的微观数据,发现企业在生命周期的不同阶段会聚集在不同产业结构的城市中。(一)新生或者年轻企业更容易在多样化城市产生。原因是由于,首先新生或者年轻的企业无论在创新、技术、市场及人力资本各方面存在诸多的不确定性,产业多样化的城市有利于降低企业面临的各种风险。Fu等(2009)认为城市多样化可以降低城市的失业率,Duranton和Puga(2001)认为年轻企业在创业初期创新时,会不断搜寻最有效的创新方案。多样化的产业结构有利于企业的搜寻过程,从而降低创新失败的风险。其次,新生企业在多样化的城市中可以获得更多的外部经济。新生企业发展迅速,在多样化的城市,新生企业可以更大范围的与邻近企业沟通,从而受益于外部经济,促进其发展；(二)迁址企业会更多地偏向迁址到产业专业化程度较高的城市。随着企业的逐渐成熟,企业承受风险的能力会越来越强,企业对其所在行业的专业技术能力要求也越来越高。多样化城市提供的“保护”作用和“多样化信息和资源共享”功能逐渐减弱。另外,多样化的城市意味着较高的交通与摩擦成本。多样化的城市己不是成长以后企业的最优选择。我们对发生迁址的企业进行描述性统计,发现企业会从一个专业化城市较低的城市迁移到一个专业化程度较高的城市；(三)在城市产业水平,制造业企业平均年龄与产业专业化指数显著正相关,与产业多样化指数显著负相关。即一个城市专业化水平越高,该城市对应的行业企业平均年龄就越大,而城市多样化水平越高,该城市新生或年轻企业就越多。
本文的第三章研究企业在生命周期不同阶段聚集在不同产业结构的城市的背后机制：企业创新。Duranton和Puga (2001)从企业生命周期角度,建立理论模型研究新生企业和迁址企业与聚集经济的关系,认为创新是聚集经济起作用的主要机制。本文利用中国制造业数据对企业年龄按分位数划分为不同的年龄阶段,在对企业新产品产值进行回归时,通过控制年龄阶段变量与各个衡量聚集经济的指数的交叉项来检验企业在生命周期不同阶段其创新与聚集经济之间的关系。我们发现新生企业或者年轻企业,创新产出更多地受益于雅各布外部经济,而随着企业年龄的增长,马歇尔外部经济开始逐渐起作用,成熟的企业的创新显著受益于产业专业化。需要指出的是,我们实证研究还发现,企业创新产出与两种聚集经济的关系随着企业的年龄增长呈现“二次”型趋势。企业在成为“老字号或资深”企业(年龄超过16岁)以后,在对于企业创新产出的影响上,马歇尔外部经济开始减弱,而雅各布外部经济则开始增强。
在第四章,我们关注企业家精神的核心思想：创业和创新,我们运用新生企业比重,私营从业人员比重和新产品产值比重,以及研发费用比重四个变量指标来衡量企业家精神,研究企业家精神对城市增长的作用。首先,我们实证研究发现,无论是企业家创业精神还是创新精神均能够显著促进城市的经济增长。一个城市的新生企业比重越高,私营企业比重越高,该城市总就业人口增长就越快。而且城市中的新产品产值比重越高,对应城市和产业的经济增长就越快。其次,我们按照Glaeser (2009)的观点,进一步探究了影响企业家精神的外生原因,重点研究政府企业家精神与城市的产业结构对企业家精神的影响。实证结果显示,政府企业家精神对城市的企业家精神有正向作用,但并不十分显著,而产业结构对企业家精神的作用就十分明显,所有行业的多样化显著促进企业家精神的聚集。
本文的第五章给出了中国城市企业家精神和产业结构的分布状况。利用规模以上工业企业数据中制造业的数据,我们发现中国企业家精神和聚集经济分布表现出以下三个特点：首先,在资源化程度比较显著的城市,产业专业化程度比较高,比如攀枝花、大兴安岭等。Marshall(1920)指出,产业集聚的重要原因之一就是节约成本。中国的制造业,尤其是依赖原材料投入较多的产业,应该在邻近资源的城市选址,这样会充分享受产业专业化带来的马歇尔外部经济；其次,我们对“创业型”城市和“创新型”城市的统计分析发现在多样化的环境下,企业家精神更高；最后,我们还发现无论企业创业还是创新精神都有显著的地域特性。我们对新生企业的数据汇总可以看到新生企业集中在山东省产生,而对新产品产值比重的数据汇总发现其在四川省尤为集中。根据以上三个描述性统计,我们更清楚地了解了中国城市聚集经济与企业创业、创新精神的分布状况,并给出相应的政策建议。
最后,在本文的第六章我们通过建立理论模型来研究城市内部聚集经济与城市土地使用类型之间的关系。跨行业聚集经济是城市经济学理论研究中一个重要的问题,然而近年来对它的研究很少。我们构建一个具有两种不同行业厂商的多中心城市模型,研究行业内部以及不同行业之间的聚集经济是如何影响城市的分布的。在本章中,我们首先证明了城市均衡的存在性,其次,我们给定不同衡量聚集经济的参数进行数值模拟,研究不同类型聚集经济存在的情况下城市的分布状况。我们发现,首先城市可以在两个行业并存的情况下存在均衡,这种均衡的存在仅仅因为两种行业彼此之间存在跨行业之间的聚集经济：其次,模拟结果显示,如果一个城市存在一个“高聚集经济”的企业和一个“高生产能力”的企业,均衡时前者会位于城市的中心；如果一个城市存在一个“创新领导者”企业,它的存在使得所有行业外的企业都提高生产值,均衡时该行业的企业会位于城市的中心。
China has experienced an amazingly fast urbanization process in recent years. The urbanization rate has reached46.6%in2009, which is much higher than the year2000, and China has become one of the fastest urbanization countries in the world. In the textbook of Urban Economics written by O'Sullivan, he describes the reason why cities exist by assuming a society without any cities, then comparative advantage makes trade between regions advantageous, and the interregional trade causes market cities. Internal scale economies in production allow factories to produce goods more efficiently than individuals, and the production of goods in factories causes the development of factory town. Finally, it is agglomeration economies that make firms cluster in cities, and this clustering makes large cities arise. Agglomeration economies are among the most important and heated topics in urban theories.
In the city, the firm's productivity will be affected by both externalities of other firms within industry and firms in other industries. We call such two kinds of externalities as Marshall externalities and Jacobs externalities respectively. Marshall (1920) argues that firms in the same industry by locating close to each other can share the labor market, then the worker will reduce the risk of unemployment, and both the worker and the employers will reduce their searching cost in labor market; they also can share input factor market and consumers, which will reduce firm's marginal cost; In the same time, there are also knowledge spillover between those firms and workers in the same industry. However, Jacobs (1969) stresses the importance of urban diversity instead of urban specialization. She argues that a diverse environment can foster cross-fertilization of ideas. For instance, she notes that New York's brassiere industry evolved not from the lingerie industry but from dressmakers'innovations. Therefore the externalities between firms in different industries are also called as Jacobs externalities.
There is no consensus in urban literature on whether it is Marshall externalities or Jacobs externalities that promote the firm's productivity. In our paper, we want to answer this question in terms of firm life circle:From firms' birth to maturity, will the firm benefit from different types of agglomeration economies? Are the new firms more likely born in a diverse city? Do those "Relocation" firms migrate from a lower specialization city to a higher one? What is the mechanism behind this phenomenon? Is it just because the firm's innovation will benefit from different types of agglomeration economies at different stages of firm life cycle? Are these young firms'innovation more likely affected by urbanization economy? Are the older ones more likely to benefit from localization economy? On the other hand, will the entrepreneurship in a city really promote the urban growth? Finally, if there are two types of industry at different levels of aggregation economy within a city, what does the equilibrium distribution of the city look like? Will the higher agglomeration company occupy the city center?
To answer above questions, our paper links the agglomeration economies which are represented by different types of industry structure to new firm births and innovation productivity in terms of firm life circle. We try to find out the relationship of firm life circle with agglomeration economy, the mechanism of firm's innovation and agglomeration economy, and finally empirically to check whether entrepreneurship promotes city growth or not. In the last part of the paper, we set up a nonmonocentric model with co-agglomeration in the city by introducing two types of firms to investigate how the co-agglomeration economy level affects the land use patterns of the city in spatial equilibrium.
Chapter1is the introduction. We provide related literatures on agglomeration economy, entrepreneurship which focus on new firm birth and firm's innovation, and the relationship between entrepreneurship and city growth. The theoretical background of the paper is described in this part.
In Chapter2, we study the relationship of firm's life cycle and agglomeration economy. By employing the micro level data of manufacturing firms from1998to2007, we find that enterprises in different stages of the life cycle will gather in different industrial structure cities.1) Newly-born firms or young firms are more likely to locate in a diverse city. Because these new-birth firms or young enterprises are confronted with uncertainties and risks related to both their product technology and human capital, a diverse environment will help them to reduce those various risks. Fu et al (2009) stress that the city diversification can reduce the city's unemployment rate; Duranton and Puga (2001) believes that young enterprises in the early stage of innovation product are in the process of searching for the most innovative way. A diversified industrial structure is conducive to such a search and learning process, and also will reduce the risk of failure about firm's innovation. Second, there is more knowledge spillover in diverse cities. The more diverse a city is, the more opportunities new enterprises have in the city to communicate with neighborhoods.2) If relocated, the mature business will move from a city with lower industry specialization to one with a higher degree of specialization. As firms grow mature, their tolerance of risk will be higher. What they need most is to be professional and more technical. The function of a diverse city of "protection" and "information and resource sharing" are gradually weakened. In addition, a variety of city also bring traffic and friction problems which bring higher costs. Diverse cities are no longer the optimal choice of these mature enterprises.3) At city-sic2level, firm's average age will be higher if the city is a lower diverse but higher specialize cities. That is, young firms are more likely located in diverse cites and mature firms prefer the specialized one.
We explore the mechanism why firms locate in cities with different industrial structure at different stages of their life cycle in Chapter3. Duranton and Puga (2001) establish a theoretical model to link the enterprises location choice with the agglomeration economies. They find that the mechanism behind it is "innovation" In this paper, we employ the Chinese manufacturing data, and divide them into different subsamples by quintiles of firm's age. Empirical results show that newly-born or young firms'innovation is more likely to benefit from Marshall externalities, and as the firm grow older, Jacobs externalities will begin to work, the mature firm's innovation is more likely to benefit from industrial specialization. It should be noted that the relationship between enterprise innovation output and the agglomeration economy are showing a "secondary" characteristics, namely, Marshall external economies will begin to weaken as the enterprises in their senior stage(age over16), while Jacobs externalities begin to increase again.
Chapter4is to study the relationship between entrepreneurship and city growth by using China's urban employment data. First, we find that entrepreneurship contributes to urban economic and employment growth, this result is significant for both entrepreneurship related to firm's births and entrepreneurship related to firm's innovation; Second, we further explore the factors which affect the distribution of entrepreneurship according to Glaeser (2010). We find that government entrepreneurship is positive but not significant, and industry diversification significantly promotes a city's entrepreneurship, and the impact of industry diversification is significantly positive.
Chapter5gives the distribution of China's urban entrepreneurship and industrial structure. Using the Chinese manufacturing-sector data, we find three characteristics of the distribution of entrepreneurship and agglomeration economies. First, the specialization index will be higher in cities where the natural resources of the city are relatively higher, such as Panzhihua, Daxing'anling etc. Marshall (1920) points out that one of the important causes of industrial agglomeration is the cost savings. China's manufacturing industry, in particular, more heavily rely on raw materials which conduct them to choose the location nearby, therefore they can fully enjoy Marshall externalities; Second, after comparing the "entrepreneurial" cities and "innovative"city, we find that entrepreneurship will be higher in a diverse environment. Finally, we find that both entrepreneurship and innovation city have a significant geographical feature. We see that the new enterprises are most concentrated in Shandong province, and the new product is particularly concentrated in Sichuan province. By describing those basic statistics above, we give some policy implications for Chinese government in the development of cities.
Finally, in Chapter6, we establish a theoretical model to study the relationship between co-agglomeration economies and urban land use patterns. Co-agglomeration is an important topic in urban economics. However, few theoretical models address it in recent years. We construct a nonmonocentric model with two industries, which allow us to analyze co-agglomeration between industries. In this paper, first, we prove that there exits an equilibrium for the two-industry city in a nonmonocentric model settings. We find that a city in the case of the coexistence of the two industries can exist in equilibrium just only because of the cross-industry agglomeration economies between the two industries. Second, we simulate to obtain land use patterns in the city equilibrium. Given two different combination of agglomeration parameters, we study how different types of agglomeration economies affect the city distribution. We find that, if a city has one "high agglomeration economies" firm and one "high production ability" enterprises, the former will located in the center of the city in equilibrium; if a city has an innovative leader enterprise, and enterprises in such an industry will locate in the city center in equilibrium. Our paper sheds some lights on both empirical analysis and government policy on land markets.
引文
[1]. Abdel-Rahman, H. and M. Fujita (1990). "Product variety, Marshallian externalities and city size." Journal of Regional Science 30(2):165-183.
[2]. Acs, Z. J. and D. B. Audretsch (1988). "Innovation in large and small firms: an empirical analysis." The American Economic Review:678-690.
[3]. Acs, Z. J., D. B. Audretsch, et al. (1992). "Real effects of academic research: comment." The American Economic Review 82(1):363-367.
[4]. Acs, Z. J., D. B. Audretsch, et al. (1994). "R & D spillovers and recipient firm size." The Review of Economics and Statistics:336-340.
[5]. Ades, A. F. and E. L. Glaeser (1995). "Trade and circuses:explaining urban giants." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(1):195-227.
[6]. Aghion, P. and P. Howitt (1992). "A model of growth through creative."
[7]. Andrikopoulos, A., J. Brox, et al. (1990). "Shift-Share Analysis and the Potential for Predicting Regional Growth Patterns:Some Evidence for the Region of Quebec, Canada." Growth and Change 21(1):1-10.
[8]. Attaran, M. (1986). "Industrial diversity and economic performance in US areas." The Annals of Regional Science 20(2):44-54.
[9]. Audretsch, D. B., M. A. Carree, et al. (2002). "Impeded industrial restructuring:the growth penalty." Kyklos 55(1):81-98.
[10].Audretsch, D. B. and M. P. Feldman (1996). "R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production." The American Economic Review 86(3):630-640.
[11].Audretsch, D. B. and M. P. Feldman (2004). "Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation." Handbook of regional and urban economics 4: 2713-2739.
[12]. Audretsch, D. B. and M. Fritsch (1996). "Creative destruction:turbulence and economic growth in Germany." Behavioral norms, technological progress, and economic dynamics:Studies in Schumpeterian economics 5:137.
[13].Audretsch, D. B. and M. Fritsch (2002). "Growth regimes over time and space." Regional Studies 36(2):113-124.
[14].Audretsch, D. B. and M. Keilbach (2004). "Does entrepreneurship capital matter?" Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 28(5):419-429.
[15].Audretsch, D. B. and M. Keilbach (2005). "Entrepreneurship capital and regional growth." The Annals of Regional Science 39(3):457-469.
[16].Audretsch, D. B., R. Thurik, et al. (2001). "Linking entrepreneurship to growth."
[17].Bates, T. (1987). "Self-employed minorities:Traits and trends." Social Science Quarterly 68(3):539-551.
[18].Bates, T. M. (1997). Race, self-employment, and upward mobility:An illusive American dream, Johns Hopkins Univ Pr.
[19].Batisse, C. (2002). "Dynamic externalities and local growth:A panel data analysis applied to Chinese provinces." China Economic Review 13(2): 231-251.
[20].Baumol, W. J. (1990). "Entrepreneurship:Productive, unproductive, and destructive." Journal of political economy.893-921.
[21].Blau, D. M. (1987). "A time-series analysis of self-employment in the United States." The Journal of Political Economy 95(3):445-467.
[22].Brouwer, A. E., I. Mariotti, et al. (2004). "The firm relocation decision:An empirical investigation." The Annals of Regional Science 38(2):335-347.
[23].Calem, P. S. and G. A. Carlino (1991). "Urban agglomeration economies in the presence of technical change." Journal of Urban Economics 29(1):82-95.
[24].Cantillon, R., H. Higgs, et al. (1931). Essai sur la nature du commerce en general. London,, Macmillan & Co., ltd. for the Royal Economic Society.
[25].Carlton, D. W. (1983). "The location and employment choices of new firms: An econometric model with discrete and continuous endogenous variables." The Review of Economics and Statistics 65(3):440-449.
[26].Carree, M., A. Van Stel, et al. (2002). "Economic development and business ownership:an analysis using data of 23 OECD countries in the period 1976-1996." Small Business Economics 19(3):271-290.
[27].Caves, R. E. (1998). "Industrial organization and new findings on the turnover and mobility of firms." Journal of economic literature 36(4): 1947-1982.
[28].Chiang, S. (2009). "The effects of industrial diversification on regional unemployment in Taiwan:is the portfolio theory applicable?" The Annals of Regional Science 43(4):947-962.
[29].Chinitz, B. (1961). "Contrasts in agglomeration:New york and Pittsburgh." The American Economic Review 51(2):279-289.
[30].Ciccone, A. (2002). "Agglomeration effects in Europe." European Economic Review 46(2):213-227.
[31].Ciccone, A. and R. E. Hall (1996). "Productivity and the Density of Economic Activity." The American Economic Review 86(1):54-70.
[32].Cohen, W. M. and S. Klepper (1991). "Firm size versus diversity in the achievement of technological advance." Innovation and technological change. Harvester Wheatsheaf, London:183-203.
[33].Cohen, W. M. and S. Klepper (1992). "The tradeoff between firm size and diversity in the pursuit of technological progress." Small Business Economics 4(1):1-14.
[34].Combes, P. P. (2000). "Economic structure and local growth:France, 1984-1993." Journal of Urban Economics 47(3):329-355.
[35].Costa, D. L. and M. E. Kahn (2000). "Power couples:changes in the locational choice of the college educated,1940-1990." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 115(4):1287-1315.
[36].Costa, D. L. and M. E. Kahn (2001). Understanding the decline in social capital,1952-1998, National Bureau of Economic Research.
[37].Davidsson, P. and J. Wiklund (2001). "Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research:Current research practice and suggestions for the future." Concepts, Theory and Perspective:245.
[38].Davis, D. R. and D. E. Weinstein (1999). "Economic geography and regional production structure:an empirical investigation." European Economic Review 43(2):379-407.
[39].Dekle, R. and J. Eaton (1999). "Agglomeration and land rents:evidence from the prefectures." Journal of Urban Economics 46(2):200-214.
[40].Diamond, C. A. and C. J. Simon (1990). "Industrial specialization and the returns to labor." Journal of Labor Economics:175-201.
[41].Doms, M., E. Lewis, et al. (2010). "Local labor force education, new business characteristics, and firm performance." Journal of Urban Economics 67(1): 61-77.
[42].Dumais, G., G. Ellison, et al. (2002). "Geographic Concentration as a Dynamic Process." Review of Economics and Statistics 84(2):193-204.
[43].Ellison, G. and E. L. Glaeser (1999). "The geographic concentration of industry:Does natural advantage explain agglomeration?" The American Economic Review 89(2):311-316.
[44].Ethier, W. J. (1982). "National and international returns to scale in the modern theory of international trade." The American Economic Review 72(3): 389-405.
[45].Evans, D. S. and L. S. Leighton (1989). "Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship." The American Economic Review 79(3):519-535.
[46].Feldman, M. P. (1993). "An examination of the geography of innovation." Industrial and Corporate Change 2(3):451-470.
[47].Feldman, M. P. (1994). "Knowledge complementarity and innovation." Small Business Economics 6(5):363-372.
[48].Feldman, M. P. and D. B. Audretsch (1999). "Innovation in cities:: Science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition." European Economic Review 43(2):409-429.
[49].Fritsch, M. (1997). "New firms and regional employment change." Small Business Economics 9(5):437-448.
[50].Fu, S. (2007). "Smart Cafe Cities:Testing human capital externalities in the Boston metropolitan area." Journal of Urban Economics 61(1):86-111.
[51].Fu, S., X. Dong, et al. (2010). "Industry specialization, diversification, churning, and unemployment in Chinese cities." China Economic Review 21(4):508-520.
[52].Fuchs, V. R. (1962). Changes in the Location of Manufacturing in the United States since 1929, Yale University Press New Haven.
[53].Fujita, M. (1988). "A monopolistic competition model of spatial agglomeration* 1::Differentiated product approach." Regional science and urban economics 18(1):87-124.
[54].Fujita, M. and H. Ogawa (1982). "Multiple equilibria and structural transition of non-monocentric urban configurations." Regional science and urban economics 12(2):161-196.
[55].Gao, T. (2004). "Regional industrial growth:evidence from Chinese industries." Regional science and urban economics 34(1):101-124.
[56].George, L. and J. Waldfogel (2000). Who Benefits Whom in Daily Newspaper Markets?, National Bureau of Economic Research.
[57].Glaeser, E. and W. Kerr (2011). Entrepreneurship, Mines, and Urban Growth, Working Paper.
[58].Glaeser, E. L. (1998). "Are cities dying?" The Journal of Economic Perspectives 12(2):139-160.
[59].Glaeser, E. L. (2007). Entrepreneurship and the City, National Bureau of Economic Research.
[60].Glaeser, E. L., H. D. Kallal, et al. (1991). Growth in cities, National Bureau of Economic Research.
[61].Glaeser, E. L. and W. R. Kerr (2009). "Local industrial conditions and entrepreneurship:how much of the spatial distribution can we explain?" Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 18(3):623-663.
[62].Glaeser, E. L., W. R. Kerr, et al. (2010). "Clusters of entrepreneurship." Journal of Urban Economics 67(1):150-168.
[63].Glaeser, E. L., J. Kolko, et al. (2001). "Consumer city." Journal of Economic Geography 1:27-50.
[64].Glaeser, E. L. and D. C. Mare (1994). Cities and skills, National Bureau of Economic Research.
[65].Glaeser, E. L., S. S. Rosenthal, et al. (2010). "Urban economics and entrepreneurship." Journal of Urban Economics 67(1):1-14.
[66].Griliches, Z. (1979). "Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth." Bell J. Econ. (United States) 10(1).
[67].Griliches, Z. (1987). R & D, patents, and productivity, University of Chicago Press.
[68].Griliches, Z. (1992). "The Search for R&D Spillovers." Scandinavian Journal of Economics 94(0):S29-47.
[69].Griliches, Z. (1994). "Productivity, R&D, and the data constraint." The American Economic Review 84(1):1-23.
[70].Grossman, G. M. and E. Helpman (1991). "Quality ladders in the theory of growth." The Review of Economic Studies 58(1):43-61.
[71].Hanson, G. (1998a). "North American economic integration and industry location." Oxford Review of Economic Policy 14(2):30-44.
[72].Hanson, G. H. (1998b). "Regional adjustment to trade liberalization." Regional science and urban economics 28(4):419-444.
[73].Hart, M. and E. Hanvey (1995). "Job generation and new and small firms: some evidence from the late 1980s." Small Business Economics 7(2):97-109.
[74].Hayter, R. (1997). The dynamics of industrial location:the factory, the firm, and the production system, Wiley Chichester.
[75].Hebert, R. F. and A. N. Link (1989). "In search of the meaning of entrepreneurship." Small Business Economics 1(1):39-49.
[76].Helsley, R. W. and W. C. Strange (1990). "Matching and agglomeration economies in a system of cities." Regional science and urban economics 20(2):189-212.
[77].Henderson, J. V. (1986). "Efficiency of resource usage and city size." Journal of Urban Economics 19(1):47-70.
[78].Henderson, J. V. (2003). "Marshall's scale economies." Journal of Urban Economics 53(1):1-28.
[79].Henderson, J. V., A. Kuncoro, et al. (1992). Industrial development in cities, National Bureau of Economic Research.
[80].Henderson, V. (1997). "Externalities and industrial development." Journal of Urban Economics 42(3):449-470.
[81].Henderson, V. (2003). "The urbanization process and economic growth:The so-what question." Journal of Economic Growth 8(1):47-71.
[82].Holmes, T. J. (1999). "Localization of industry and vertical disintegration." Review of Economics and Statistics 81(2):314-325.
[83].Izraeli, O. and K. J. Murphy (2003). "The effect of industrial diversity on state unemployment rate and per capita income." The Annals of Regional Science 37(1):1-14.
[84]. Jacobs, J., Ed. (1969). The Economy of Cites. New York, Vintage.
[85].Jaffe, A. and M. Trajtenberg (2002). Innovations:A Window on the Knowledge Economy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
[86].Jaffe, A. B., M. Trajtenberg, et al. (1993). "Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 108(3):577-598.
[87].Jaffe, A. B. (1989). "Real effects of academic research." The American Economic Review:951-910.
[88].Jovanovic, B. (1982). "Selection and the Evolution of Industry." Econometrica:Journal of the Econometric Society:649-670.
[89].Jovanovic, B. (1995). Learning and growth, National Bureau of Economic Research.
[90].Jovanovic, B. and G. MacDonald (1994). The life-cycle of a competitive industry, National Bureau of Economic Research.
[91].Kelly, M. and A. Hageman (1999). "Marshallian externalities in innovation." Journal of Economic Growth 4(1):39-54.
[92].Kihlstrom, R. E. and J. J. Laffont (1979). "A general equilibrium entrepreneurial theory of firm formation based on risk aversion." The Journal of Political Economy:719-748.
[93].Kim, S. (1995). "Expansion of markets and the geographic distribution of economic activities:the trends in US regional manufacturing structure, 1860-1987." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(4):881-908.
[94].Kim, S. (1999). "Regions, resources, and economic geography:sources of US regional comparative advantage,1880-1987." Regional science and urban economics 29(1):1-32.
[95].Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainly and profit.
[96].Krugman, P. (1980). "Scale economies, product differentiation, and the pattern of trade." The American Economic Review 70(5):950-959.
[97].Krugman, P. R. (1991a). Geography and trade, the MIT Press.
[98].Krugman, P. (1991b). "Increasing Returns and Economic Geography." The Journal of Political Economy 99(3):483-499.
[99].Lucas Jr, R. E. (1978). "On the size distribution of business firms." The Bell Journal of Economics:508-523.
[100]. Lucas Jr, R. E. (1993). "Making a miracle." Econometrica:Journal of the Econometric Society:251-272.
[101]. Lucas Jr., R. E. (2002). "Externalities and Cites." Review of Economics Dynamics 4(2):245-274.
[102]. Lucas, R. E. (1988). "On the mechanics of economic development." Journal of monetary economics 22(1):3-42.
[103]. Lucas, R. E. and E. Rossi-Hansberg (2002). "On the internal structure of cities." Econometrica 70(4):1445-1476.
[104]. Machlup, F. (1967). "Theories of the firm:marginalist, behavioral, managerial." The American Economic Review 57(1):1-33.
[105]. Malizia, E. E. and S. Ke (1993). "The influence of economic diversity on uemployment and stability." Journal of Regional Science 33(2):221-235.
[106]. Marshall, Ed. (1920). Principles of Economics. London, Macmillan.
[107]. Mata, J. (1994). "Firm growth during infancy." Small Business Economics 6(1):27-39.
[108]. Mills, E. S., Ed. (1972). Studies in the Structure of the Urban Economy. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins press.
[109]. Mizuno, K., F. Mizutani, et al. (2006). "Industrial diversity and metropolitan unemployment rate." The Annals of Regional Science 40(1): 157-172.
[110]. Moomaw, R. L. (1981). "Productivity and city size:a critique of the evidence." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 96(4):675-688.
[111]. Moretti, E. (2002). Estimating the social return to higher education: evidence from longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional data, National Bureau of Economic Research.
[112]. Nakamura, R. (1985). "Agglomeration economies in urban manufacturing industries:a case of Japanese cities." Journal of Urban Economics 17(1): 108-124.
[113]. Ogawa, H. and M. Fujita (1980). "Eqlibrium land use patterns in a nonmoncentric." Journal of Regional Science 20(4):455-475.
[114]. Ogawa, H. and M. Fujita (1989). "Nonmonocentric urban configurations in a two-dimensional space." Environment and Planning A 21(3):363-374.
[115]. Paci, R. and S. Usai (1999). "Externalities, knowledge spillovers and the spatial distribution of innovation." GeoJournal 49(4):381-390.
[116]. Pakes, A. and Z. Griliches (1980). "Patents and R&D at the firm level:A first report." Economics Letters 5(4):377-381.
[117]. Pan, Z. and F. Zhang (2002). "Urban productivity in China." Urban Studies 39(12):2267.
[118]. Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations:with a new introduction, Free Pr.
[119]. Rauch, J. E. (1993). "Productivity Gains from Geographic Concentration of Human Capital:Evidence from the Cities." Journal of Urban Economics 34: 380.
[120]. Reynolds, P. D. (1999). "Creative destruction:source or symptom of economic growth." Entrepreneurship, small and medium-sized enterprises and the macroeconomy:97-136.
[121]. Rivera-Batiz, L. A. and P. M. Romer (1990). Economic integration and endogenous growth, National Bureau of Economic Research.
[122]. Romer, P. M. (1986). "Increasing returns and long-run growth." The Journal of Political Economy:1002-1037.
[123]. Rosenthal, S. S. and A. Ross (2010). "Violent crime, entrepreneurship, and cities." Journal of Urban Economics 67(1):135-149.
[124]. Rosenthal, S. S. and W. C. Strange (2001). "The determinants of agglomeration." Journal of Urban Economics 50(2):191-229.
[125]. Rosenthal, S. S. and W. C. Strange (2003). "Geography, industrial organization, and agglomeration." Review of Economics and Statistics 85(2):377-393.
[126]. Rosenthal, S. S. and W. C. Strange (2004). "Evidence on the nature and sources of agglomeration economies." Handbook of regional and urban economics 4:2119-2171.
[127]. Rosenthal, S. S. and W. C. Strange (2005). "The geography of entrepreneurship in the New York metropolitan area." Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review 11:29-53.
[128]. Rosenthal, S. S. and W. C. Strange (2010). Small establishments/big effects: Agglomeration, industrial organization and entrepreneurship, University of Chicago Press.
[129]. Saxenian, A. (1994). "Lessons from silicon valley." Technology Review 97(5):42-51.
[130]. Saxenian, A. (2001). "The role of immigrant entrepreneurs in new venture creation." The entrepreneurship dynamic:40-67.
[131]. Schumpeter, J. and U. Backhaus (2003). "The theory of economic development." Joseph Alois Schumpeter:61-116.
[132]. Segarra, A. and M. Callejon (2002). "New firms' survival and market turbulence:New evidence from Spain." Review of Industrial Organization 20(1):1-14.
[133]. Simon, C. J. (1988). "Frictional unemployment and the role of industrial diversity." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 103(4):715-728.
[134]. Sinai, T. and J. Waldfogel (2004). "Geography and the Internet:is the Internet a substitute or a complement for cities?" Journal of Urban Economics 56:1-24.
[135]. Shefer, D. and A. Frenkel (1998). "Local milieu and innovations:some empirical results." The Annals of Regional Science 32(1):185-200.
[136]. Smith, A. (1937). "The Wealth of Nations (1776)." New York:Modern Library:740.
[137]. Stevenson, L., A. Lundstrom, et al. (2001). "Patterns and trends in entrepreneurship/SME policy and practice in ten economies."
[138]. Storey, D. J. (1991). "The birth of new firms-does unemployment matter? A review of the evidence." Small Business Economics 3(3):167-178.
[139]. Sveikauskas, L. (1975). "The productivity of cities." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 89(3):393-413.
[140]. Tabuchi, T. and A. Yoshida (2000). "Separating urban agglomeration economies in consumption and production." Journal of Urban Economics 48(1):70-84.
[141]. Tarzwell, G. and B. Kamloops (1999). "Canadian city unemployment rates and the impact of economic diversity." Journal article by Gordon Tarzwell; Canadian Journal of Regional Science 20.
[142]. Van Oort, F. (2002). "Innovation and agglomeration economies in the Netherlands." Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie 93(3): 344-360.
[143]. Wheaton, W. C. and M. J. Lewis (2002). "Urban wages and labor market agglomeration." Journal of Urban Economics 51(3):542-562.
[144]. Wilson, W. J. (2011). When work disappears:The world of the new urban poor, Vintage.
[145]. Yu, T. F. L. (1997). Entrepreneurship and economic development in Hong Kong, Psychology Press.
[1].傅十和,洪俊杰(2009) “企业规模,城市规模与集聚经济——对中国制造业企业普查数据的实证分析”经济研究(11)：112-125.
[2].白重恩,杜颖娟等(2004) “地方保护主义及产业地区集中度的决定因素和变动趋势”经济研究(4)：29-40.
[3].陈秀山,徐瑛(2008) “中国制造业空间结构变动及其对区域分工的影响”经济研究(10)：104-116.
[4].范剑勇(2004) “市场一体化,地区专业化与产业集聚趋势——兼谈对地区差距的影响”中国社会科学(6)：39-51.
[5].范剑勇(2006)“产业集聚与地区间劳动生产率差异”经济研究(11)：72-81.
[6].蒋春燕,赵曙明(2006)“社会资本和公司企业家精神与绩效的关系：组织学习的中介作用——江苏与广东新兴企业的实证研究”管理世界(10)：90-99.
[7].李宏彬,李杏等(2009) “企业家的创业与创新精神对中国经济增长的影响”经济研究(10)：99-108.
[8].李新春,王珺等(2002)“企业家精神,企业家能力与企业成长——“企业家理论与企业成长国际研讨会”综述“经济研究(1)：89-92.
[9].路江涌,陶志刚(2007) “我国制造业区域集聚程度决定因素的研究’经济学季刊(3)：801-816.
[10].路江涌,陶志刚(2006) “中国制造业区域聚集及国际比较”经济研究(3)：103-114.
[11].罗勇,曹丽莉(2005) “中国制造业集聚程度变动趋势实证研究”经济研究(8)106-115.
[12].章元,刘修岩(2008) “聚集经济与经济增长：来自中国的经验证据’ 世界经济(3)：60-70
[13].庄子银(2003) “南方模仿,企业家精神和长期增长”经济研究(1)62-70.
[14].庄子银(2007) “创新,企业家活动配置与长期经济增长”经济研究(8)： 82-94.
[2]. Acs, Z. J. and D. B. Audretsch (1988). "Innovation in large and small firms: an empirical analysis." The American Economic Review:678-690.
[3]. Acs, Z. J., D. B. Audretsch, et al. (1992). "Real effects of academic research: comment." The American Economic Review 82(1):363-367.
[4]. Acs, Z. J., D. B. Audretsch, et al. (1994). "R & D spillovers and recipient firm size." The Review of Economics and Statistics:336-340.
[5]. Ades, A. F. and E. L. Glaeser (1995). "Trade and circuses:explaining urban giants." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(1):195-227.
[6]. Aghion, P. and P. Howitt (1992). "A model of growth through creative."
[7]. Andrikopoulos, A., J. Brox, et al. (1990). "Shift-Share Analysis and the Potential for Predicting Regional Growth Patterns:Some Evidence for the Region of Quebec, Canada." Growth and Change 21(1):1-10.
[8]. Attaran, M. (1986). "Industrial diversity and economic performance in US areas." The Annals of Regional Science 20(2):44-54.
[9]. Audretsch, D. B., M. A. Carree, et al. (2002). "Impeded industrial restructuring:the growth penalty." Kyklos 55(1):81-98.
[10].Audretsch, D. B. and M. P. Feldman (1996). "R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production." The American Economic Review 86(3):630-640.
[11].Audretsch, D. B. and M. P. Feldman (2004). "Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation." Handbook of regional and urban economics 4: 2713-2739.
[12]. Audretsch, D. B. and M. Fritsch (1996). "Creative destruction:turbulence and economic growth in Germany." Behavioral norms, technological progress, and economic dynamics:Studies in Schumpeterian economics 5:137.
[13].Audretsch, D. B. and M. Fritsch (2002). "Growth regimes over time and space." Regional Studies 36(2):113-124.
[14].Audretsch, D. B. and M. Keilbach (2004). "Does entrepreneurship capital matter?" Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 28(5):419-429.
[15].Audretsch, D. B. and M. Keilbach (2005). "Entrepreneurship capital and regional growth." The Annals of Regional Science 39(3):457-469.
[16].Audretsch, D. B., R. Thurik, et al. (2001). "Linking entrepreneurship to growth."
[17].Bates, T. (1987). "Self-employed minorities:Traits and trends." Social Science Quarterly 68(3):539-551.
[18].Bates, T. M. (1997). Race, self-employment, and upward mobility:An illusive American dream, Johns Hopkins Univ Pr.
[19].Batisse, C. (2002). "Dynamic externalities and local growth:A panel data analysis applied to Chinese provinces." China Economic Review 13(2): 231-251.
[20].Baumol, W. J. (1990). "Entrepreneurship:Productive, unproductive, and destructive." Journal of political economy.893-921.
[21].Blau, D. M. (1987). "A time-series analysis of self-employment in the United States." The Journal of Political Economy 95(3):445-467.
[22].Brouwer, A. E., I. Mariotti, et al. (2004). "The firm relocation decision:An empirical investigation." The Annals of Regional Science 38(2):335-347.
[23].Calem, P. S. and G. A. Carlino (1991). "Urban agglomeration economies in the presence of technical change." Journal of Urban Economics 29(1):82-95.
[24].Cantillon, R., H. Higgs, et al. (1931). Essai sur la nature du commerce en general. London,, Macmillan & Co., ltd. for the Royal Economic Society.
[25].Carlton, D. W. (1983). "The location and employment choices of new firms: An econometric model with discrete and continuous endogenous variables." The Review of Economics and Statistics 65(3):440-449.
[26].Carree, M., A. Van Stel, et al. (2002). "Economic development and business ownership:an analysis using data of 23 OECD countries in the period 1976-1996." Small Business Economics 19(3):271-290.
[27].Caves, R. E. (1998). "Industrial organization and new findings on the turnover and mobility of firms." Journal of economic literature 36(4): 1947-1982.
[28].Chiang, S. (2009). "The effects of industrial diversification on regional unemployment in Taiwan:is the portfolio theory applicable?" The Annals of Regional Science 43(4):947-962.
[29].Chinitz, B. (1961). "Contrasts in agglomeration:New york and Pittsburgh." The American Economic Review 51(2):279-289.
[30].Ciccone, A. (2002). "Agglomeration effects in Europe." European Economic Review 46(2):213-227.
[31].Ciccone, A. and R. E. Hall (1996). "Productivity and the Density of Economic Activity." The American Economic Review 86(1):54-70.
[32].Cohen, W. M. and S. Klepper (1991). "Firm size versus diversity in the achievement of technological advance." Innovation and technological change. Harvester Wheatsheaf, London:183-203.
[33].Cohen, W. M. and S. Klepper (1992). "The tradeoff between firm size and diversity in the pursuit of technological progress." Small Business Economics 4(1):1-14.
[34].Combes, P. P. (2000). "Economic structure and local growth:France, 1984-1993." Journal of Urban Economics 47(3):329-355.
[35].Costa, D. L. and M. E. Kahn (2000). "Power couples:changes in the locational choice of the college educated,1940-1990." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 115(4):1287-1315.
[36].Costa, D. L. and M. E. Kahn (2001). Understanding the decline in social capital,1952-1998, National Bureau of Economic Research.
[37].Davidsson, P. and J. Wiklund (2001). "Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research:Current research practice and suggestions for the future." Concepts, Theory and Perspective:245.
[38].Davis, D. R. and D. E. Weinstein (1999). "Economic geography and regional production structure:an empirical investigation." European Economic Review 43(2):379-407.
[39].Dekle, R. and J. Eaton (1999). "Agglomeration and land rents:evidence from the prefectures." Journal of Urban Economics 46(2):200-214.
[40].Diamond, C. A. and C. J. Simon (1990). "Industrial specialization and the returns to labor." Journal of Labor Economics:175-201.
[41].Doms, M., E. Lewis, et al. (2010). "Local labor force education, new business characteristics, and firm performance." Journal of Urban Economics 67(1): 61-77.
[42].Dumais, G., G. Ellison, et al. (2002). "Geographic Concentration as a Dynamic Process." Review of Economics and Statistics 84(2):193-204.
[43].Ellison, G. and E. L. Glaeser (1999). "The geographic concentration of industry:Does natural advantage explain agglomeration?" The American Economic Review 89(2):311-316.
[44].Ethier, W. J. (1982). "National and international returns to scale in the modern theory of international trade." The American Economic Review 72(3): 389-405.
[45].Evans, D. S. and L. S. Leighton (1989). "Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship." The American Economic Review 79(3):519-535.
[46].Feldman, M. P. (1993). "An examination of the geography of innovation." Industrial and Corporate Change 2(3):451-470.
[47].Feldman, M. P. (1994). "Knowledge complementarity and innovation." Small Business Economics 6(5):363-372.
[48].Feldman, M. P. and D. B. Audretsch (1999). "Innovation in cities:: Science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition." European Economic Review 43(2):409-429.
[49].Fritsch, M. (1997). "New firms and regional employment change." Small Business Economics 9(5):437-448.
[50].Fu, S. (2007). "Smart Cafe Cities:Testing human capital externalities in the Boston metropolitan area." Journal of Urban Economics 61(1):86-111.
[51].Fu, S., X. Dong, et al. (2010). "Industry specialization, diversification, churning, and unemployment in Chinese cities." China Economic Review 21(4):508-520.
[52].Fuchs, V. R. (1962). Changes in the Location of Manufacturing in the United States since 1929, Yale University Press New Haven.
[53].Fujita, M. (1988). "A monopolistic competition model of spatial agglomeration* 1::Differentiated product approach." Regional science and urban economics 18(1):87-124.
[54].Fujita, M. and H. Ogawa (1982). "Multiple equilibria and structural transition of non-monocentric urban configurations." Regional science and urban economics 12(2):161-196.
[55].Gao, T. (2004). "Regional industrial growth:evidence from Chinese industries." Regional science and urban economics 34(1):101-124.
[56].George, L. and J. Waldfogel (2000). Who Benefits Whom in Daily Newspaper Markets?, National Bureau of Economic Research.
[57].Glaeser, E. and W. Kerr (2011). Entrepreneurship, Mines, and Urban Growth, Working Paper.
[58].Glaeser, E. L. (1998). "Are cities dying?" The Journal of Economic Perspectives 12(2):139-160.
[59].Glaeser, E. L. (2007). Entrepreneurship and the City, National Bureau of Economic Research.
[60].Glaeser, E. L., H. D. Kallal, et al. (1991). Growth in cities, National Bureau of Economic Research.
[61].Glaeser, E. L. and W. R. Kerr (2009). "Local industrial conditions and entrepreneurship:how much of the spatial distribution can we explain?" Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 18(3):623-663.
[62].Glaeser, E. L., W. R. Kerr, et al. (2010). "Clusters of entrepreneurship." Journal of Urban Economics 67(1):150-168.
[63].Glaeser, E. L., J. Kolko, et al. (2001). "Consumer city." Journal of Economic Geography 1:27-50.
[64].Glaeser, E. L. and D. C. Mare (1994). Cities and skills, National Bureau of Economic Research.
[65].Glaeser, E. L., S. S. Rosenthal, et al. (2010). "Urban economics and entrepreneurship." Journal of Urban Economics 67(1):1-14.
[66].Griliches, Z. (1979). "Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth." Bell J. Econ. (United States) 10(1).
[67].Griliches, Z. (1987). R & D, patents, and productivity, University of Chicago Press.
[68].Griliches, Z. (1992). "The Search for R&D Spillovers." Scandinavian Journal of Economics 94(0):S29-47.
[69].Griliches, Z. (1994). "Productivity, R&D, and the data constraint." The American Economic Review 84(1):1-23.
[70].Grossman, G. M. and E. Helpman (1991). "Quality ladders in the theory of growth." The Review of Economic Studies 58(1):43-61.
[71].Hanson, G. (1998a). "North American economic integration and industry location." Oxford Review of Economic Policy 14(2):30-44.
[72].Hanson, G. H. (1998b). "Regional adjustment to trade liberalization." Regional science and urban economics 28(4):419-444.
[73].Hart, M. and E. Hanvey (1995). "Job generation and new and small firms: some evidence from the late 1980s." Small Business Economics 7(2):97-109.
[74].Hayter, R. (1997). The dynamics of industrial location:the factory, the firm, and the production system, Wiley Chichester.
[75].Hebert, R. F. and A. N. Link (1989). "In search of the meaning of entrepreneurship." Small Business Economics 1(1):39-49.
[76].Helsley, R. W. and W. C. Strange (1990). "Matching and agglomeration economies in a system of cities." Regional science and urban economics 20(2):189-212.
[77].Henderson, J. V. (1986). "Efficiency of resource usage and city size." Journal of Urban Economics 19(1):47-70.
[78].Henderson, J. V. (2003). "Marshall's scale economies." Journal of Urban Economics 53(1):1-28.
[79].Henderson, J. V., A. Kuncoro, et al. (1992). Industrial development in cities, National Bureau of Economic Research.
[80].Henderson, V. (1997). "Externalities and industrial development." Journal of Urban Economics 42(3):449-470.
[81].Henderson, V. (2003). "The urbanization process and economic growth:The so-what question." Journal of Economic Growth 8(1):47-71.
[82].Holmes, T. J. (1999). "Localization of industry and vertical disintegration." Review of Economics and Statistics 81(2):314-325.
[83].Izraeli, O. and K. J. Murphy (2003). "The effect of industrial diversity on state unemployment rate and per capita income." The Annals of Regional Science 37(1):1-14.
[84]. Jacobs, J., Ed. (1969). The Economy of Cites. New York, Vintage.
[85].Jaffe, A. and M. Trajtenberg (2002). Innovations:A Window on the Knowledge Economy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
[86].Jaffe, A. B., M. Trajtenberg, et al. (1993). "Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 108(3):577-598.
[87].Jaffe, A. B. (1989). "Real effects of academic research." The American Economic Review:951-910.
[88].Jovanovic, B. (1982). "Selection and the Evolution of Industry." Econometrica:Journal of the Econometric Society:649-670.
[89].Jovanovic, B. (1995). Learning and growth, National Bureau of Economic Research.
[90].Jovanovic, B. and G. MacDonald (1994). The life-cycle of a competitive industry, National Bureau of Economic Research.
[91].Kelly, M. and A. Hageman (1999). "Marshallian externalities in innovation." Journal of Economic Growth 4(1):39-54.
[92].Kihlstrom, R. E. and J. J. Laffont (1979). "A general equilibrium entrepreneurial theory of firm formation based on risk aversion." The Journal of Political Economy:719-748.
[93].Kim, S. (1995). "Expansion of markets and the geographic distribution of economic activities:the trends in US regional manufacturing structure, 1860-1987." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(4):881-908.
[94].Kim, S. (1999). "Regions, resources, and economic geography:sources of US regional comparative advantage,1880-1987." Regional science and urban economics 29(1):1-32.
[95].Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainly and profit.
[96].Krugman, P. (1980). "Scale economies, product differentiation, and the pattern of trade." The American Economic Review 70(5):950-959.
[97].Krugman, P. R. (1991a). Geography and trade, the MIT Press.
[98].Krugman, P. (1991b). "Increasing Returns and Economic Geography." The Journal of Political Economy 99(3):483-499.
[99].Lucas Jr, R. E. (1978). "On the size distribution of business firms." The Bell Journal of Economics:508-523.
[100]. Lucas Jr, R. E. (1993). "Making a miracle." Econometrica:Journal of the Econometric Society:251-272.
[101]. Lucas Jr., R. E. (2002). "Externalities and Cites." Review of Economics Dynamics 4(2):245-274.
[102]. Lucas, R. E. (1988). "On the mechanics of economic development." Journal of monetary economics 22(1):3-42.
[103]. Lucas, R. E. and E. Rossi-Hansberg (2002). "On the internal structure of cities." Econometrica 70(4):1445-1476.
[104]. Machlup, F. (1967). "Theories of the firm:marginalist, behavioral, managerial." The American Economic Review 57(1):1-33.
[105]. Malizia, E. E. and S. Ke (1993). "The influence of economic diversity on uemployment and stability." Journal of Regional Science 33(2):221-235.
[106]. Marshall, Ed. (1920). Principles of Economics. London, Macmillan.
[107]. Mata, J. (1994). "Firm growth during infancy." Small Business Economics 6(1):27-39.
[108]. Mills, E. S., Ed. (1972). Studies in the Structure of the Urban Economy. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins press.
[109]. Mizuno, K., F. Mizutani, et al. (2006). "Industrial diversity and metropolitan unemployment rate." The Annals of Regional Science 40(1): 157-172.
[110]. Moomaw, R. L. (1981). "Productivity and city size:a critique of the evidence." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 96(4):675-688.
[111]. Moretti, E. (2002). Estimating the social return to higher education: evidence from longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional data, National Bureau of Economic Research.
[112]. Nakamura, R. (1985). "Agglomeration economies in urban manufacturing industries:a case of Japanese cities." Journal of Urban Economics 17(1): 108-124.
[113]. Ogawa, H. and M. Fujita (1980). "Eqlibrium land use patterns in a nonmoncentric." Journal of Regional Science 20(4):455-475.
[114]. Ogawa, H. and M. Fujita (1989). "Nonmonocentric urban configurations in a two-dimensional space." Environment and Planning A 21(3):363-374.
[115]. Paci, R. and S. Usai (1999). "Externalities, knowledge spillovers and the spatial distribution of innovation." GeoJournal 49(4):381-390.
[116]. Pakes, A. and Z. Griliches (1980). "Patents and R&D at the firm level:A first report." Economics Letters 5(4):377-381.
[117]. Pan, Z. and F. Zhang (2002). "Urban productivity in China." Urban Studies 39(12):2267.
[118]. Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations:with a new introduction, Free Pr.
[119]. Rauch, J. E. (1993). "Productivity Gains from Geographic Concentration of Human Capital:Evidence from the Cities." Journal of Urban Economics 34: 380.
[120]. Reynolds, P. D. (1999). "Creative destruction:source or symptom of economic growth." Entrepreneurship, small and medium-sized enterprises and the macroeconomy:97-136.
[121]. Rivera-Batiz, L. A. and P. M. Romer (1990). Economic integration and endogenous growth, National Bureau of Economic Research.
[122]. Romer, P. M. (1986). "Increasing returns and long-run growth." The Journal of Political Economy:1002-1037.
[123]. Rosenthal, S. S. and A. Ross (2010). "Violent crime, entrepreneurship, and cities." Journal of Urban Economics 67(1):135-149.
[124]. Rosenthal, S. S. and W. C. Strange (2001). "The determinants of agglomeration." Journal of Urban Economics 50(2):191-229.
[125]. Rosenthal, S. S. and W. C. Strange (2003). "Geography, industrial organization, and agglomeration." Review of Economics and Statistics 85(2):377-393.
[126]. Rosenthal, S. S. and W. C. Strange (2004). "Evidence on the nature and sources of agglomeration economies." Handbook of regional and urban economics 4:2119-2171.
[127]. Rosenthal, S. S. and W. C. Strange (2005). "The geography of entrepreneurship in the New York metropolitan area." Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review 11:29-53.
[128]. Rosenthal, S. S. and W. C. Strange (2010). Small establishments/big effects: Agglomeration, industrial organization and entrepreneurship, University of Chicago Press.
[129]. Saxenian, A. (1994). "Lessons from silicon valley." Technology Review 97(5):42-51.
[130]. Saxenian, A. (2001). "The role of immigrant entrepreneurs in new venture creation." The entrepreneurship dynamic:40-67.
[131]. Schumpeter, J. and U. Backhaus (2003). "The theory of economic development." Joseph Alois Schumpeter:61-116.
[132]. Segarra, A. and M. Callejon (2002). "New firms' survival and market turbulence:New evidence from Spain." Review of Industrial Organization 20(1):1-14.
[133]. Simon, C. J. (1988). "Frictional unemployment and the role of industrial diversity." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 103(4):715-728.
[134]. Sinai, T. and J. Waldfogel (2004). "Geography and the Internet:is the Internet a substitute or a complement for cities?" Journal of Urban Economics 56:1-24.
[135]. Shefer, D. and A. Frenkel (1998). "Local milieu and innovations:some empirical results." The Annals of Regional Science 32(1):185-200.
[136]. Smith, A. (1937). "The Wealth of Nations (1776)." New York:Modern Library:740.
[137]. Stevenson, L., A. Lundstrom, et al. (2001). "Patterns and trends in entrepreneurship/SME policy and practice in ten economies."
[138]. Storey, D. J. (1991). "The birth of new firms-does unemployment matter? A review of the evidence." Small Business Economics 3(3):167-178.
[139]. Sveikauskas, L. (1975). "The productivity of cities." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 89(3):393-413.
[140]. Tabuchi, T. and A. Yoshida (2000). "Separating urban agglomeration economies in consumption and production." Journal of Urban Economics 48(1):70-84.
[141]. Tarzwell, G. and B. Kamloops (1999). "Canadian city unemployment rates and the impact of economic diversity." Journal article by Gordon Tarzwell; Canadian Journal of Regional Science 20.
[142]. Van Oort, F. (2002). "Innovation and agglomeration economies in the Netherlands." Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie 93(3): 344-360.
[143]. Wheaton, W. C. and M. J. Lewis (2002). "Urban wages and labor market agglomeration." Journal of Urban Economics 51(3):542-562.
[144]. Wilson, W. J. (2011). When work disappears:The world of the new urban poor, Vintage.
[145]. Yu, T. F. L. (1997). Entrepreneurship and economic development in Hong Kong, Psychology Press.
[1].傅十和,洪俊杰(2009) “企业规模,城市规模与集聚经济——对中国制造业企业普查数据的实证分析”经济研究(11)：112-125.
[2].白重恩,杜颖娟等(2004) “地方保护主义及产业地区集中度的决定因素和变动趋势”经济研究(4)：29-40.
[3].陈秀山,徐瑛(2008) “中国制造业空间结构变动及其对区域分工的影响”经济研究(10)：104-116.
[4].范剑勇(2004) “市场一体化,地区专业化与产业集聚趋势——兼谈对地区差距的影响”中国社会科学(6)：39-51.
[5].范剑勇(2006)“产业集聚与地区间劳动生产率差异”经济研究(11)：72-81.
[6].蒋春燕,赵曙明(2006)“社会资本和公司企业家精神与绩效的关系：组织学习的中介作用——江苏与广东新兴企业的实证研究”管理世界(10)：90-99.
[7].李宏彬,李杏等(2009) “企业家的创业与创新精神对中国经济增长的影响”经济研究(10)：99-108.
[8].李新春,王珺等(2002)“企业家精神,企业家能力与企业成长——“企业家理论与企业成长国际研讨会”综述“经济研究(1)：89-92.
[9].路江涌,陶志刚(2007) “我国制造业区域集聚程度决定因素的研究’经济学季刊(3)：801-816.
[10].路江涌,陶志刚(2006) “中国制造业区域聚集及国际比较”经济研究(3)：103-114.
[11].罗勇,曹丽莉(2005) “中国制造业集聚程度变动趋势实证研究”经济研究(8)106-115.
[12].章元,刘修岩(2008) “聚集经济与经济增长：来自中国的经验证据’ 世界经济(3)：60-70
[13].庄子银(2003) “南方模仿,企业家精神和长期增长”经济研究(1)62-70.
[14].庄子银(2007) “创新,企业家活动配置与长期经济增长”经济研究(8)： 82-94.