Economic Innovation and Development Index: Guangdong, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Shanghai and Beijing rank among the top 5
Innovation is the main force driving economic and social development and a key support for improving overall national strength. On December 22, the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the Social Sciences Literature Press jointly released the "Blue Book on High-Quality Development: Report on High-Quality Development of the Chinese Economy." The report shows that China's economic innovation and development index in 2022 will be 34.33, an increase of 47.60% compared with 2013, and the average annual growth rate will reach 4.4%. Among the secondary indicators, the score of the system and environment index increased from 6.42 to 8.96, the score of the resource and input index increased from 3.80 to 6.38, and the score of the output and benefit index increased from 13.03 to 18.99.
Guided by General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important exposition on innovative development, the report team constructed China’s economic innovation development index based on three aspects: system and environment, resources and input, and output and benefits. It also used statistical data to analyze the Party’s Ten Decisions. Since the Eighth National Congress, the economic innovation and development index of the country and various regions has been measured. The index also includes 15 third-level indicators such as innovation culture, legal environment, product innovation investment, labor factor efficiency, and management factor efficiency.
Look at the annual rankings: Guangdong, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Shanghai and Beijing are ranked in the top 5
The report ranks the economic innovation development index and secondary indicators of 31 provincial-level regions in 2022. Guangdong’s economic innovation and development index is 61.14, ranking first; Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Shanghai, and Beijing are ranked second to fifth, with their economic innovation and development indexes being 58.84, 56.01, 54.96, and 49.60 respectively. The five provincial-level regions with the lowest economic innovation development index are Gansu, Ningxia, Xinjiang, Qinghai, and Tibet, with their economic innovation development indexes being 19.53, 19.32, 17.51, 17.08, and 16.01 respectively. Generally speaking, economically developed provincial regions pay more attention to innovative development and have the technology, capital, talent, culture and other conditions to promote innovative development, so their economic innovation development index is higher.
Judging from the scores of secondary indicators in each region, the top five provincial-level regions with institutional and environmental indicator scores are Zhejiang, Beijing, Guangdong, Shanghai, and Jiangsu; the bottom five are Xinjiang, Guangxi, Yunnan, and Tibet. , Qinghai. It can be found that the regions with high scores on institutional and environmental indicators are all regions with a high level of economic development. These regions generally provide strong financial support for scientific and technological innovation, and have a high proportion of direct financing and a high proportion of the economically active population. The proportion of higher education personnel is relatively high, the number of intellectual property administrative enforcement cases is relatively high, and the proportion of government funds in the internal R&D expenditures of industrial enterprises above designated size is relatively high. Thanks to this, these regions have created a good policy and institutional environment for innovation and development, and thus achieved high scores in terms of institutions and environment.
The top five provincial-level regions in terms of resource and input index scores are Guangdong, Jiangsu, Shanghai, Zhejiang, and Beijing; the bottom five are Guizhou, Shanxi, Qinghai, Ningxia, and Inner Mongolia. It is worth noting that the top 5 regions in terms of resource and input index scores also rank in the top 5 in institutional and environmental index scores, but significant changes have occurred in the bottom 5 regions, including resource-rich areas such as Shanxi and Inner Mongolia. area. This may be because these areas are rich in mineral resources, so they still have the conditions to rely on resource development to a certain extent, resulting in weak endogenous motivation to promote innovative development. For example, the proportion of R&D expenditure in GDP in Shanxi and Inner Mongolia is only 1.2% and 1.0% respectively, which is significantly lower than the national average of 2.6%. Moreover, the expenditure on new product development of industrial enterprises above designated size is also not high, which is also significantly lower than the national average. level.
The top five provincial-level regions in terms of output and benefit index scores are Shanghai, Jiangsu, Fujian, Beijing, and Zhejiang; the bottom five are Qinghai, Ningxia, Gansu, Xinjiang, and Tibet. The ranking of output and efficiency indicator scores is still positively correlated with the level of economic development. For regions with a good level of economic development, their labor productivity, total factor productivity, land output per unit area of urban built-up areas, the proportion of non-state-owned capital investment by enterprises above designated size are higher, and their energy consumption per unit of GDP is lower. Therefore, The output and efficiency index scores rank relatively high.
Looking at the ten-year trend: Zhejiang, Hebei, Anhui, Jiangxi, Shanxi, Tibet have higher growth rates
Judging from the changing trends of the economic innovation development index of 31 provincial-level regions, from 2013 to 2022, the economic innovation development index of each region has improved to a certain extent. Zhejiang, Hebei, Anhui, Jiangxi, Shanxi, and Tibet have higher growth rates, all above 70%. In particular, Zhejiang's economic innovation development index has increased from 29.29 in 2013 to 56.01 in 2022, an increase of 91.2%. The main reason is that the scores of the secondary indicators of resources and input in these regions have increased significantly. Except for Shanxi, the scores of the secondary indicators of resources and input in Zhejiang, Hebei, Anhui, Jiangxi, and Tibet have increased by more than 100%.
Looking at the national rankings, although the rankings of the economic innovation development index of each region in 2022 are roughly the same as in 2013, the top-ranked regions have changed. Beijing dropped from 1st place in 2013 to 5th place in 2022, Guangdong rose from 2nd place in 2013 to 1st place in 2022, and Tianjin dropped from 5th place in 2013 to 8th place in 2022. , Zhejiang rose from sixth place in 2013 to third place in 2022. Overall, the level of economic innovation and development in the southeastern coastal areas has improved significantly, and its level of economic innovation and development has always maintained certain advantages over economically underdeveloped regions.
Judging from the changing trends of institutional and environmental index scores in 31 provincial-level regions, the institutional and environmental index scores of most regions have improved, but the institutional and environmental index scores of some regions have declined. Among them, Zhejiang, Sichuan, Jiangxi, and Hebei were the four regions with larger increases in institutional and environmental index scores, and their institutional and environmental index scores increased by more than 130%. The main reason is that the scores of the third-level indicator of legal environment in these areas have increased significantly. However, the institutional and environmental index scores of Qinghai, Yunnan, Guizhou, and Shaanxi experienced negative growth, with decreases of 37.7%, 18.3%, 4.0%, and 3.3% respectively. The main reason for this result was that the above-mentioned regions were in the third level of the new national system. There have been varying degrees of negative growth in indicator scores.
Judging from the changing trends of the resource and input index scores in the 31 provincial-level regions, except for Qinghai and Ningxia, the resource and input index scores of other regions have improved. The increases in Guangxi, Fujian, Anhui, Hebei and other regions all exceeded 100%. The main reason is that the scores of the third-level indicator of product innovation investment in these regions increased significantly, and the increase in the scores of the third-level indicator of basic research investment in some areas was significantly higher than that of other regions. area. However, for Qinghai and Ningxia, the scores of the third-level indicator of basic research investment have experienced negative growth, and the increases in the scores of other third-level indicators have also been relatively small. In particular, Qinghai's third-level indicator score of external technology investment has also experienced negative growth. .
Judging from the changing trends of the output and benefit index scores of the 31 provincial-level regions, the output and benefit index scores of each region have improved. From the perspective of growth rate, Shanxi, Qinghai, and Ningxia have higher growth rates in their output and efficiency index scores, reaching 105.4%, 114.8%, and 108.5% respectively. The main reason is that the three-level index scores of labor factor efficiency and technical factor efficiency in these areas have increased significantly. The increase is higher. In contrast, the output and efficiency indicator scores of Guangdong, Tianjin, and Beijing increased slightly. This is related to their large bases on the one hand, and to the negative growth of some third-level indicator scores in these regions, such as Beijing's management The score of the third-level indicator of factor benefit showed negative growth. Tianjin’s score of the third-level indicator of technical factor benefit, land factor benefit, and environmental factor benefit showed negative growth. Guangdong’s score of the third-level indicator of technical factor benefit showed negative growth.
Based on the calculation results of China's economic innovation and development index, the report puts forward three policy recommendations in order to further promote economic innovation and development.
First, we must further adhere to the "double-wheel" drive of scientific and technological innovation and institutional innovation, give full play to the role of the new national system, and create a better policy and institutional environment for innovation and development. Research shows that although the scores of institutional and environmental indicators have increased steadily in recent years, compared with the scores of resources and inputs, output and benefits, the average annual growth rate of institutional and environmental index scores is the lowest. The main reason for this phenomenon is related to the negative growth in the score of the new national system of the third-level indicator, which reflects the inefficiency of innovative resource allocation and organizational methods. Therefore, it is necessary to correctly understand the relationship between the government and the market and find the fusion point between a promising government and an effective market. On the one hand, it is necessary to give full play to the decisive role of the market in the optimal allocation of innovation resources, focusing on the role of enterprises as innovation subjects; on the other hand, innovation subjects should continuously improve their own innovation capabilities and capabilities under the guidance of national policies and the coordination of relevant departments. Vitality and efficiency, while actively exploring the establishment of docking and cooperation mechanisms, conducting joint research on key core technologies, creating a good collaborative innovation ecosystem, and resolving conflicts of goals and interests among innovation entities.
Second, we must further strengthen basic research and put basic research in a key position in scientific and technological innovation. Research shows that the basic research investment indicator score was only 0.50 in 2013, and even by 2022, it will only increase to 0.76. The average annual growth rate of the basic research investment index score is not only less than 5%, but also the lowest score among the resource and investment indicators. The main reason for this phenomenon is insufficient attention and investment in basic research. Therefore, it is necessary to further broaden investment channels for basic research and increase the proportion of funding expenditures. On the one hand, it is necessary to appropriately increase the proportion of basic research funding in R&D funding. Although my country has set the target value of basic research funding in R&D funding at more than 8% in 2025, it is still compared with 15%-25% in developed countries. Compared with the general level, there is still room for improvement. On the other hand, unlike other research, basic research has the characteristics of high investment, high risk, uniqueness, and long cycle. Therefore, long-term and stable financial investment should be guaranteed. At the same time, leading scientific and technological enterprises should be further encouraged to invest in basic research and explore Establish an institutional mechanism for more social donations to be invested in basic research.
Third, we must further build a high-quality regional innovation system and narrow the innovation development gap between regions. Research shows that the level of economic innovation development in economically developed areas is generally higher than that in less developed areas. In 2013, the area with the first economic innovation development index was 33.61 points higher than the area with the lowest economic innovation development index. By 2022, this gap will grow. By 45.13, it shows that the innovation development gap between regions has not shown a convergence trend over time. Therefore, it is necessary to narrow the regional innovation development gap and promote coordinated regional development. On the one hand, policy-making departments should appropriately increase regulatory efforts and strengthen support for innovative development in economically underdeveloped areas. At the same time, economically developed areas should also play a supporting role to promote innovative development in underdeveloped areas; on the other hand, underdeveloped areas It is necessary to combine local comparative advantages and promote innovative development according to local conditions. It is also necessary to further improve the innovation system and environment, and focus on the role of improving the legal environment in stimulating innovative development.
