中国经济技术开发区效率测度及时空分异研究

doi:10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2014.07.794

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

运用数据包络分析法（DEA）及Malmquist生产率指数法,选择实际利用外资额、进口总额作为输入指标与GDP、出口总额作为输出指标,测算了中国41个国家级经济技术开发区2001~2010年的综合效率与全要素生产率指数,并对其时空分异特征进行分析。研究结果表明：① 平均综合效率偏低,总体呈“M”型变化趋势;② 综合效率区域差异明显,西部最高,东部次之,中部最低;③ TFP年均增长率为1.025,处于低速增长状态,说明开发区的整体生产效率逐年改善;④ TFP增长率地区分布为东部最高,西部次之,中部最低,综合效率较高的开发区TFP增长率反而较低;⑤ 对GDP增长速度与TFP增长速度双低的开发区进行分类指导与合理整治,以全面提高开发区的可持续发展能力。

关键词: 经济技术开发区, 综合效率, Malmquist指数, DEA

Abstract:

Economic and Technological Development Zones are the growth pole of China’s urban economic development. Therefore the study of the development efficiency of these zones is very essential to optimize resource allocations, to promote the transformation and upgrading of Economic and Technological Development Zones and to contribute to a sustainable development. Using the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and Malmquist index, this article uses the total amount of foreign capital actually utilized and total import volume as input indicators, GDP and the total export volume as output indicators to calculate. the overall efficiency and total-factor productivity (TFP) index of China’s 41 state-level Economic-Technological Development Zones, from 2001 to 2010, are and analyzed their spatio temporal differentiation. The results suggest: 1) the average overall efficiency is generally on the low level, with an “M” trend. 2) Overall-development efficiency has an obvious regional differentiation with the highest in the west, and the lowest in the central regions. 3)The average annual growth rate of TFP is 1.025, which suggests that the overall production efficiency is ameliorating annually with a slow rate. 4) The growth rate of TFP is the highest in the east, and the lowest in central regions. The Zones with higher overall efficiency have relatively lower TFP growth rate. 5) In order to raise the sustainable development capacity of the development zones, we should offer respective guidance and reasonable regulation to zones with both low GDP growth rate and low TFP growth rate. Therefore, in order to strengthen the ability of resource allocation and integrated management, as well as to promote the transformation and upgrading of Economic and Technological Development Zones and sustainable development, we suggest as follows: 1) investment in human capital and innovation platforms should be increased and contributions of technological innovations be augmented to the overall efficiency of these zones, 2) the eastern region should gradually reduce their Economic and Technological Development Zones’ reliance on foreign capital and importation; instead, increase the overall efficiency, and this region should steer towards attracting both foreign and domestic capital and a co-development of export and domestic sales. 3) as for zones with high GDP growth rate and high TFP growth rate, it is necessary to further optimize resource allocations and reasonable utilization, so as to keep a rapid and sustainable development; zones with both low GDP growth rate and low TFP rate should on the other hand strengthen inspections on internal resource allocations and reasonable utilization, find out what the problem is and learn from other more advanced zones, to gradually improve overall management; 4) institutional innovations and innovative mechanisms should be reinforced, theses zones’ management skills to raised achieve all-around improvement in development efficiency; 5) influencing factors of Economic and Technological Development Zones’ development efficiency and unusual samples should be studied in future researches.

Key words: Economic and Technological Development Zones, overall efficiency, Malmquist productivity index, Data Envelopment Analysis, China

中图分类号:

F127.9

蔡善柱, 陆林. 中国经济技术开发区效率测度及时空分异研究[J]. 地理科学, 2014, 34(7): 794-802.

Shan-zhu CAI, Lin LU. Efficiency Measurement and Spatio-temporal Differentiation of Economic and Technological Development Zones in China[J]. SCIENTIA GEOGRAPHICA SINICA, 2014, 34(7): 794-802.

图/表 5

表1

图1

图2

表2

2001~2010年41个国家级经济技术开发区各项效率指标"

地区	开发区	技术效率		纯技术效率	规模效率	技术效率变化	技术进步变化	纯技术效率变化	规模效率变化	TFP变化
地区	开发区	数值		纯技术效率	规模效率	技术效率变化	技术进步变化	纯技术效率变化	排名	数值	排名
东部	大连	0.270	29	0.931	0.286	0.920	1.038	0.996	0.924	0.955	31
	秦皇岛	0.224	37	0.550	0.395	0.925	1.058	0.976	0.948	0.979	28
	天津	0.289	24	0.997	0.289	0.982	1.071	1.000	0.982	1.052	17
	烟台	0.285	25	0.874	0.327	1.138	0.996	1.002	1.136	1.134	8
	青岛	0.242	34	0.992	0.244	0.965	1.035	0.997	0.968	0.999	25
	连云港	0.144	41	0.446	0.318	0.939	1.063	0.953	0.985	0.998	27
	南通	0.247	33	0.650	0.372	0.990	0.989	0.990	1.000	0.979	28
	宁波	0.219	38	0.660	0.333	0.956	1.046	0.937	1.020	0.999	25
	福州	0.226	36	0.660	0.350	1.014	1.062	0.964	1.051	1.077	13
	广州	0.241	35	1.000	0.241	1.023	1.097	1.000	1.023	1.121	9
	湛江	0.756	5	0.868	0.834	1.211	1.090	1.092	1.108	1.319	1
	闵行	0.497	15	0.83	0.573	1.049	1.020	0.933	1.124	1.070	14
	漕河泾	0.777	3	0.999	0.778	1.187	1.017	1.000	1.187	1.206	3
	温州	0.909	2	1.000	0.909	1.065	0.991	1.000	1.065	1.056	16
	萧山	0.491	16	0.923	0.526	0.974	1.064	0.982	0.991	1.036	21
	营口	0.502	14	0.864	0.58	1.061	1.008	1.036	1.024	1.070	14
	威海	0.274	28	0.540	0.502	0.994	1.049	0.999	0.995	1.043	19
	福清融侨	0.666	8	0.861	0.786	1.163	0.874	0.976	1.192	1.017	22
	广州南沙	0.214	40	0.618	0.344	0.915	1.020	0.970	0.944	0.933	36
	惠州大亚湾	0.260	31	0.530	0.487	1.025	1.021	1.081	0.948	1.047	18
	昆山	0.520	13	1.000	0.520	1.129	1.042	1.000	1.129	1.177	5
	东山	0.776	4	0.899	0.856	1.119	1.068	1.052	1.064	1.195	4
	沈阳	0.276	27	0.947	0.294	1.032	0.977	1.000	1.032	1.009	24
	杭州	0.329	22	0.685	0.46	1.105	1.033	1.018	1.086	1.141	7
	北京	0.398	19	0.759	0.525	1.214	0.910	1.035	1.173	1.105	12
	南京	0.277	26	0.515	0.545	1.004	1.039	0.936	1.072	1.043	19
中部	哈尔滨	0.347	21	0.777	0.425	0.893	1.046	0.961	0.930	0.935	36
	长春	0.443	17	0.937	0.458	0.842	1.004	0.960	0.877	0.845	39
	武汉	0.216	39	0.83	0.251	1.012	1.099	0.992	1.020	1.112	11
	芜湖	0.405	18	0.912	0.437	0.997	0.970	0.985	1.011	0.967	30
	合肥	0.261	30	0.865	0.292	1.053	0.959	1.039	1.014	1.010	23
	郑州	0.614	11	0.692	0.814	0.937	0.814	0.976	0.960	0.762	41
	长沙	0.252	32	0.826	0.301	1.113	1.030	1.066	1.043	1.146	6
	南昌	0.618	10	0.934	0.645	0.886	0.998	0.965	0.918	0.884	38
	太原	0.316	23	0.428	0.717	0.904	1.030	0.993	0.911	0.931	37
西部	重庆	0.370	20	0.746	0.439	1.215	0.999	1.053	1.154	1.214	2
	西安	0.649	9	0.88	0.723	1.189	0.937	1.061	1.121	1.114	10
	成都	0.715	7	0.941	0.740	0.834	0.936	0.976	0.854	0.781	40
	昆明	0.593	12	0.759	0.760	0.966	0.974	0.986	0.980	0.941	34
	贵阳	0.915	1	0.947	0.961	1.009	0.938	1.026	0.983	0.947	32
	石河子	0.750	6	0.784	0.931	1.000	0.943	1.000	1.000	0.943	33
东部平均		0.397	2	0.792	0.487	1.042	1.026	0.997	1.045	1.068	1
中部平均		0.386	3	0.800	0.482	0.960	0.994	0.993	0.965	0.955	3
西部平均		0.665	1	0.843	0.759	1.036	0.955	1.017	1.015	0.990	2
总平均		0.433		0.801	0.526	1.018	1.007	0.998	1.020	1.025

表2

图3

参考文献 21

[1]	Rolf Fare,Shawna Grosskopf, Mary Norris et al. Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries[J].The American Economic Review, 1994, 84(1): 66-83.
[2]	Lilyan E Fulginiti, Richard K Perrin.Agricultural productivity in developing countries[J]. Agricultural Economics,1998,19(1):45-51.
[3]	李郇, 徐现祥, 陈浩辉. 20 世纪90 年代中国城市效率的时空变化[J].地理学报,2005,60(4):615~625.
[4]	张宁,胡鞍钢,郑京海.应用DEA方法评测中国各地区健康生产效率[J].经济研究,2006,41(7):92~105.
[5]	陶卓民,薛献伟,管晶晶.基于数据包络分析的中国旅游业发展效率特征[J].地理学报,2010,65(8):1004~1012.
[6]	方创琳,关兴良.中国城市群投入产出效率的综合测度与空间分异[J].地理学报,2011,66(8):1011~1022.
[7]	范斐,杜德斌,李恒,等.中国地级以上城市科技资源配置效率的时空格局[J].地理学报,2013,68(10):1331~1343.
[8]	白雪洁,姜凯,庞瑞芝.我国主要国家级开发区的运行效率及提升路径选择——基于外资与土地利用视角[J].中国工业经济,2008,(8):26~35.
[9]	赵晓雷,邵帅,杨莉莉.管理体制与中国开发区经济发展效率增长——基于Malmquist指数和GMM的实证分析[J].财经研究,2011,37(8):4~15.
[10]	庄红卫,李红.湖南省不同区域开发区工业用地利用效率评价研究[J].经济地理,2011,31(11):2100~2104.
[11]	郑奕. 基于数据包络分析的上海开发区资源配置效率的研究[J].中国管理科学,2012,20(11):198~203.
[12]	齐二石,孔海宁,刘晓峰,等.基于DEA方法的我国国家级经济技术开发区效率评价[J].西安电子科技大学学报(社会科学版),2008,18(5):1~6.
[13]	武鹏,余永泽.我国国家级高新区的产出效率及其影响因素[J].西安交通大学学报(社会科学版),2010,30(5):16~23.
[14]	Farrell M J.The measurement of productive efficiency[J]. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society.1957,120(3): 253-281.
[15]	Charnes A, Cooper W W, Rhodes E.Measuring the efficiency of decision making units[J].European Journal of Operational Research,1978,2(6):429-444.
[16]	Charnes A, Cooper W W, Rhodes E.Evaluating program and managerial efficiency: An applications of data envelopment analysis to program follow through[J]. Management Science, 1981, 27(6):668-697.
[17]	Abraham Charnes,William W Cooper, Shanling Li.Using data envelopment analysis to evaluate efficiency in the economic performance of Chinese cities[J].Socio-Economic Planning Sciences,1989,23(6):325-344.
[18]	魏权龄. 数据包络分析(DEA)[J].科学通报,2000,45(17):1793~1808.
[19]	魏权龄. 数据包络分析[M].北京:科学出版社,2004.
[20]	吴育华,李从东.DEA方法与生产函数法的比较[J].系统工程,2004,13(3):15~19.
[21]	中国开发区协会.中国开发区年鉴[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2000~2010.

年份	技术效率	纯技术效率	规模效率	技术效率变化	技术进步变化	纯技术效率变化	规模效率变化	TFP变化
2001年	0.281	0.780	0.360
2002年	0.433	0.780	0.549	1.648	0.519	0.978	1.685	0.855
2003年	0.565	0.836	0.647	1.380	0.790	1.113	1.240	1.090
2004年	0.516	0.814	0.624	0.926	0.954	0.961	0.964	0.883
2005年	0.437	0.825	0.519	0.825	1.423	1.011	0.816	1.174
2006年	0.490	0.812	0.596	1.155	0.909	0.983	1.175	1.049
2007年	0.571	0.829	0.677	1.181	0.889	1.023	1.154	1.050
2008年	0.354	0.778	0.438	0.530	2.024	0.927	0.572	1.073
2009年	0.343	0.775	0.429	0.950	1.139	0.998	0.952	1.083
2010年	0.346	0.776	0.422	0.986	1.026	1.003	0.983	1.011
平均	0.434	0.801	0.526	1.018	1.007	0.998	1.020	1.025