| 苏玺鉴,孙久文,夏添,周建华.因地制宜发展新质生产力的理论逻辑与路径范式[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2026,(10):5-30 | | 因地制宜发展新质生产力的理论逻辑与路径范式 | | The Theoretical Logic and Path Paradigms of Place-based Development of New Quality Productive Forces | | | | DOI： | | 中文关键词: 因地制宜 生产力阶段 区域能力边界 制度适配 区域发展范式 | | 英文关键词: Place-based Development Stages of Productive Forces Regional Capability Frontier Institutional Adaptation Regional Development Paradigms | | 基金项目: | | | 中文摘要: | | 随着传统的要素投入和规模扩张模式难以支撑高质量发展，必须将因地制宜发展新质生产力摆在更加突出的战略位置，完善与新质生产力更相适应的生产关系。本文以马克思主义政治经济学关于生产力与生产关系的基本原理为基础，将因地制宜置于生产力发展条件演进与新时代新质生产力生成的双重语境中作系统阐释。因地制宜发展新质生产力，是各地区立足物质禀赋与区位条件、社会化组织条件和数字智能条件的现实组合及其演进潜力，动态识别由此形成的区域能力边界，选择与自身能力基础和功能定位相适配的发展路径，统筹推进传统产业改造与新动能培育，并通过与能力边界和发展路径相匹配的制度供给和动态治理，促进潜在优势向现实生产力转化、推动区域能力边界持续拓展的过程。本文按主要约束、能力基础、要素组织方式和功能定位，将区域发展新质生产力的路径类型划分为集聚创新型、承接嵌入型、重塑跃迁型与涵养增值型四类范式，并构建多层级政府协同、多元主体共治和多维标准评估的治理机制，推动因地制宜由一般性原则转化为可评估、可复制、可推广的政策体系，为中国区域高质量发展提供系统分析框架与实践路径。 | | 英文摘要: | | The conventional growth model driven by factor inputs and scale expansion can no longer sustain high-quality development. During the 15th Five-Year Plan period, developing new quality productive forces in light of local conditions must therefore be placed in a more prominent strategic position, together with relations of production better aligned with those forces.
Grounded in the principles of Marxism political economy concerning productive forces and relations of production, this paper places adapting measures to local conditions within the dual context of the long-term evolution of China’s regional development and the formation of new quality productive forces in the new era. As Marx observes, favourable natural conditions offer only the possibility, and never the actuality, of surplus labour and productive-force development. Regional endowments are therefore not a fixed inventory of resources but a capability system continuously identified, organized and transformed through labour, technology, industrial division and institutional arrangements.
On this basis, the paper distinguishes three successive stages in the conditions underpinning regional productive forces. The first rests on natural endowments and locational conditions, which define the material starting point, the initial cost structure and the ecological ceiling of regional development. The second rests on socialized organizational conditions, including infrastructure, market systems, industrial networks and institutionalized cooperation, which convert latent endowments into production conditions that can be organized, circulated and allocated. The third rests on digital-intelligent conditions, under which data, algorithms, computing power, industrial software and knowledge networks alter factor combinations, extend the radius of cooperation and raise the efficiency of innovation diffusion. The stages are cumulative rather than substitutive, and their superposition within a given institutional environment, together with the efficiency of conversion, constitutes the regional capability frontier.
In this sense, place-based development is not a matter of comparing static endowments and matching industries accordingly, but of identifying the regional capability frontier formed by the superposition of material endowments and locational conditions, socialized organizational conditions and digital-intelligent conditions, while simultaneously supplying the institutional systems and dynamic governance mechanisms aligned with that frontier. Capability identification and institutional supply are thus unified within a single process of coordinated adjustment between productive forces and relations of production, rather than constituting two sequential steps.
The paper then categorizes regional development paths into four paradigms. The agglomeration-innovation paradigm, typical of metropolitan areas and city clusters in developed regions, rests on the high-density agglomeration of knowledge, talent, capital and platforms, and functions as a source of original innovation, standard setting and technological diffusion. The receiving-embedding paradigm applies to regions with a manufacturing base and locational connectivity but limited innovation capacity, where the priority is selective receiving followed by the organizational embedding of relocated industries into local supply networks, so that process, product and functional upgrading proceed in sequence. The restructuring-leapfrogging paradigm corresponds to old industrial and resource-based regions facing weakening growth momentum, and combines the reallocation of existing assets with digital and green retrofitting. The conservation-value-creation paradigm applies to ecological function zones under rigid ecological constraints, where the priority is to render ecological capital measurable and traceable and to realize its value through eco-product catalogues, carbon accounting rules and green certification. The four paradigms are functionally complementary and imply no overall ranking, and the latter three may, through value-chain upgrading, the reconstruction of existing capabilities and the deepening of ecological innovation, acquire innovation-source functions in their respective fields of advantage.
For these paths to be implemented, the paper constructs a governance mechanism combining multi-level governmental coordination, multi-actor co-governance and multi-dimensional evaluation. The central government defines strategic direction and baseline rules, provincial governments translate national strategy into operable regional arrangements, and municipal and county governments focus on scenarios, projects and institutional entrepreneurship. Government withdraws from direct intervention in micro-level activity and concentrates on rules, platforms and public services, while market entities, universities and research institutes, financial institutions and social organizations assume differentiated roles. A closed loop of policy formulation, implementation, evaluation and adjustment, supported by pilot programmes, milestone-based funding, fault-tolerance arrangements and exit rules, keeps policy instruments adjustable, transferable and reversible.
Six policy directions follow: establishing a shared institutional foundation of regional capability evaluation, differentiated authorization and basic market rules; strengthening innovation-source capacity and spatial-spillover incentives in agglomeration-innovation regions; tying selective receiving and technology absorption to local capability accumulation in receiving-embedding regions; supporting asset revitalization, retrofitting and skill transition in restructuring-leapfrogging regions; building a complete chain from ecological accounting and certification to value realization and reinvestment in conservation-value-creation regions; and improving multi-actor co-governance, cross-regional cooperation, dynamic evaluation and security floors so that the four paradigms evolve in concert. Place-based development is thereby transformed from a general principle into an evaluable, replicable and scalable policy system, providing a systematic analytical framework and practical pathways for high-quality regional development in China. | | 查看全文 |
| | |
