约束结构视角下高技术产业集群演化研究
|
摘要
因其对产业结构升级和经济发展方式转变的重要影响,高技术产业的战略性地位被越来越多的学者和政府所关注。从现实看,集群是目前高技术产业发展的重要组织形式,各地政府也争相兴建各种类型和级别的高技术产业园区或开发区。但在发展高技术产业的热潮中,地方政府大多是就高技术产业而论高技术产业,很大程度上忽视了对高技术产业赖以生存、发展的环境或基础的培育。本文认为,除去先天的自然条件之外,一个地区的产业资源、技术资源和制度资源对高技术产业的发展有着重要影响。因此,研究区域经济、技术、制度等资源禀赋对高技术产业集群演化的影响和作用机理具有重要的理论意义和实践价值。基于以上认识,本文从区域约束结构的视角,分别阐释了区域的产业结构、技术结构和制度结构对高技术产业集群演化的影响机制。
主要研究内容与结论如下：
建立约束结构理论框架。借助结构的思想,论文提出了“约束结构”概念,并建立了分析框架。其中,约束结构是从结构的视角出发,反映区域资源禀赋系统的组成要素类别、质量,以及各要素之间的比例关系、主次关系或相互作用的模式。它具体包括产业结构、技术结构、制度结构三个要素,即分别从产业关联性、技术适宜性和多样性、制度协调性方面对区域资源禀赋系统的结构特征进行刻画。约束结构三要素之间并不孤立,而是相互依存、相互影响、互为条件的。同时,约束结构也不是静态的,约束结构中任何一个要素的变化,都会使得其他要素甚至约束结构整体发生变迁。
约束结构框架下高技术产业集群的演化。结合生命周期理论对高技术产业集群演化阶段以及演化过程中体现出的“要素的流向、企业数量的增减、网络关系的强弱、发展速度的快慢、集群绩效的好坏”等特征进行讨论。文章从企业数目变化的角度,借用两参数的传染病模型,并辅之以数值模拟,刻画了集群的演化轨迹,并解释了约束结构是如何发挥作用的。最后,提出集群演化中的三个关键问题,即集群的启动、集群的成长、集群的衰退或升级,并运用约束结构对上述问题予以一般性的解释,即约束结构对集群的触发机理,约束结构与集群的循环累积机理以及集群衰退的约束结构锁定机理。
基于产业结构对高技术产业集群演化进行分析。投入产出数据分析表明,高技术产业与非高技术产业以及高技术产业内部各行业之间存在较强的投入产出关联,因此,一个地区中与高技术产业关联度较大的产业的规模,即区域的产业结构状态会影响高技术产业集群的发展。本文通过一个基于垂直联系的新经济地理学模型阐释了其中的机理,指出上下游产业间的需求—成本联系是促使产业集聚的重要力量,特别地,在两地区的贸易成本处于一个恰当的较低水平时,产业集聚的空间结构会是稳定的。从集群演化的三个问题看,区域产业结构中任何一个产业环节的规模优势,都会影响到其上下游关联产业的发展和空间布局；集群与区域产业结构之间相互促进、相互增强、循环累积,为集群持续成长提供内生动力；各种原因引起的产业链条或产业网络的断裂和瓦解,都将导致集群的衰退。
基于技术结构对高技术产业集群演化进行分析。本文从纵向和横向两个维度考虑了技术或知识的结构性特征,研究了区域技术适宜性和技术多样性对产业空间分布的影响。通过分析发现,从技术结构的纵向维度而言,地区的技术并非越先进越好,也并非越成熟越好,两方面都存在一个最佳适宜度。从技术结构的横向维度看,地区包含的技术种类越多,多样化水平越高,越利于高技术产业的集聚。针对集群演化的三个问题,论文的结论是：集群启动关键是该区域拥有大量的知识和知识的创造者,通过技术成果的商业化、产业化,诞生了一批高技术企业,同时也吸引了其他地区高技术企业的流入；集群成长促进了区域技术结构的优化升级,即技术适宜性和多样性越来越强,这反过来又促进了集群的进一步发展壮大,两者之间形成了良好的循环互动；技术发展的路径依赖和技术结构的锁定,使高技术企业面临技术突变时难以适应,高技术企业的纷纷倒闭和外流,最终使集群迅速衰退。
基于制度结构对高技术产业集群演化进行分析。制度结构反映了区域制度资源系统中,不同类型、不同层次、不同领域、不同时期的各种制度之间的协调性。协调的制度结构会降低高技术企业与其他企业或组织之间的交易成本,从而吸引高技术企业,促进高技术产业集群的发展。本文假设两个地区的交易成本不同,通过一个新经济地理模型并结合数值仿真,考察了交易成本对产业集群的影响,发现地区交易成本和市场规模的共同作用影响了产业的空间分布。针对集群演化的三个问题,本文表明,依靠强制性制度创新或历史制度演化累积形成的制度结构具有较低的交易成本,触发了集群的启动；集群发展提出的制度创新需求与制度结构持续的制度创新供给之间所形成的相互促进、相互适应的良性循环累积,在一段时间内为集群成长提供了持续的内生动力；但是,在循环累积过程中形成了区域制度创新的路径依赖和制度结构的锁定,最终导致集群的衰退,若能突破制度结构的锁定,则集群可以实现升级。
约束结构影响高技术产业集群的实证研究。通过区位基尼系数指标从整体上考察了中国高技术产业的空间分布状态,表明从20世纪90年代中期以来,中国高技术产业整体上趋于集中。然后,利用包含10年、30个地区的面板数据对理论分析结果进行了计量经济分析,结果表明,在控制了各地区的人口规模后,关联性产业比重、技术适宜性、技术多样性、制度的协调性等与高技术产业集聚程度均有显著的正相关关系。这表明,一个地区的产业结构、技术结构、制度结构等都对高技术产业集群发展有明显的影响。
With significant impact on industrial structure upgrade and the evolution of economic developing pattern, the strategic importance of high-tech industry is being more and more attracted by the researchers and the government. In reality, cluster is a major way of high-tech industrial development. Local governments are rushing to establish all sorts of high-tech industrial parks and development zones. But in this High-tech bubby, local governments have ignored the growing environment and fundamental breeding of the high-tech industry, instead of concerning on the industry itself. This paper suggests the nature resource is not the only key element of the high-tech industry development. There are also industrial element, technological element and the institutional element. Therefore, researching on the impact and mode of operation of the high-tech industry cluster evolution, regarding the endowment of resource such as regional economy, technology and institution, have great theoretical importance and practical value. Based on the above argument, this paper separately identified the mode of effect on industrial cluster development of the industrial, technological and institutional structure from the constraint structure perspective.
The main content of this paper is summarized as following:
The establishent of the constraint structure theoretical framework. Using the structural way of thinking, this paper created a "constraint structure" concept and established an analyzing framework. A constraint structure is from the structural perspective to indicate the types, quality and the proportion from one to another of elements of the regional endowment system. The three elements are industrial structure, technological structure and institutional structure, which draw a sketch of the regional endowment system from the angles of industrial relevance, technical resiliency and diversity, and institutional coordination. Any of he three elements of the constraint structure is not isolated but interacts with each other. Meanwhile, constraint structure is not static. Any change of any element in the constraint structure will lead the change of the other elements even the whole constraint structure.
The evolution of High-tech industrial cluster under constraint structure framework. By applying the product life cycle theory. The paper discussed the stages of evolution of high-tech industrial cluster and the indicators during the evolution, which includes the element flow, change of the number of enterprises, network, speed of development and performance. The paper adapted a Two-parameter Epidemic Model with mathematic simulation to draw the trajectory of evolution and explained how the constraint structure works on it. Three key issues, the setup of cluster, the growth of cluster and the decline or upgrade of cluster, were addressed in the end of this chapter.Then we generally explained the above issues by the constraint structure, which is how the constraint structure trigger the cluster, how the constraint structure cycle and accumulate with cluster, and how the constraint structure lock down the cluster recession.
Analyzing the evolution of high-tech industrial cluster by industrial structure. I/O data analysis table indicates high-tech industry has strong correlation of I/O with non high-tech industry and with the industries within the high-tech industry. So the scale of industry which has strong correlation with high-tech industry in a region, as know as the status of the industrial structure, has significant impact on the development of high-tech industry cluster. Based on the principle of vertical geographical modle of the new economy, this paper pointed out the demand-cost correlation between upstream and downstream industries is a significant force that stimulates the industrial assembling. In addition, when the trading cost is at an appropriate low level, the space structure of industrial assembling would be stable. According to the three issues of the evolution of cluster, the advantage of size in any part of process in the industry all has effect on the space structure in upstream and downstream industries. A complete I/O industrial chain or industrial network infers that high-tech industrial cluster in this region is ready to mobilize. Cluster and regional industrial structure are mutually stimulated, enhanced and accumulated, which provides endogenous dynamic for the growth of the cluster. Various reasons which cause the collapse of I/O industrial chain or industrial network would cause the decline of the cluster.
The analysis on high-tech industrial cluster evolution based on technological structure. This paper analysed the effect of regional technical suitability and diversity on the industrial configuration, which considered the structural attributes of technology and knowledge from the vertical and horizontal dimensions. The analysis indicated that in terms of vertical dimension, regional technology is not the more advanced the better or the more mature the better, but has an optimal level. In terms of horizontal dimension of technological structure, the more categories there are, the higher level of diversity, and the better to the regional high-tech industrial cluster. The finding of this paper in regard to the three issues of evolution of cluster is, firstly, the major drive of a regional cluster is a significant amount of knowledge and people who create them, to create a group of high-tech enterprises by industrializing themselves in addition to absorb the high-tech enterprises from other regions. Secondly, the growth of cluster promotes optimizing and upgrading of the regional technological structure, which means the resiliency and diversity of technology is becoming stronger to promote back on the growth of cluster as well. There is a favorable interaction cycle between them. Finally, the path dependency of technological development and the technological structure lock-down make the high-tech enterprises hard to resilient when they were facing the technological mutation, so that the high-tech enterprises start to close or outbound, and the cluster would decline dramatically in the end.
The analysis on the evolution of high-tech industrial cluster based on institutional structure. The institutional structure indicateds the coordination among different institutions of different types, different levels, different fields and different stages in the regional institutional resource system. Coordinating institutional structure will decrease the transaction cost between the high-tech enterprises and other enterprises or organizations in order to absorb the high-tech enterprises and promote the development of industrial cluster. This paper maked a hypothesis that the transaction cost in the two region are different, then research on the impact of transaction cost on industrial cluster by adopting a new economic geometrical modle, and found the regional transaction cost and the market size both have impact on space distribution of industry. Regarding the three issues of evolution of cluster, this paper showed that the institutional structure relied on the accumulation from mandatory institutional innovation or evolution of historical institution has low level of transaction cost, which triggers the setup of cluster. The relationship between the demand and supply of institutional innovation is mutually enhanced and resilient positive cycle of accumulation, which provides endogenous dynamic to the growth of the cluster. However, the path dependency of institutional development and the institutional structure lock-down, which were formed during the process of cycle of accumulation, eventually cause the decline of cluster. The cluster can be upgraded only if the institutional structure lock-down were broken.
The empirical study of the impact of constraint structure on high-tech industrial cluster. Studying the status of the space distribution of Chinese high-tech industry as a whole by adopting Locational Gini-coefficient indicates Chinese high-tech industry is becoming more concentrating as a whole since the mid of 1990s.Moreover, adopting the econometric analysis by calculating the result of theoretical analysis of the panel data within 10 years and 30 regions, shows it is a strongly positive correlation between the factors of proportion of related industries, the technological resiliency, technology diversity, and the coordination of institution and the level of concentration of high-tech industry. It implicated industrial structure, technological structure, and institutional structure etc. in a region have significant impact on the development of the high-tech industrial clusters.
主要研究内容与结论如下：
建立约束结构理论框架。借助结构的思想,论文提出了“约束结构”概念,并建立了分析框架。其中,约束结构是从结构的视角出发,反映区域资源禀赋系统的组成要素类别、质量,以及各要素之间的比例关系、主次关系或相互作用的模式。它具体包括产业结构、技术结构、制度结构三个要素,即分别从产业关联性、技术适宜性和多样性、制度协调性方面对区域资源禀赋系统的结构特征进行刻画。约束结构三要素之间并不孤立,而是相互依存、相互影响、互为条件的。同时,约束结构也不是静态的,约束结构中任何一个要素的变化,都会使得其他要素甚至约束结构整体发生变迁。
约束结构框架下高技术产业集群的演化。结合生命周期理论对高技术产业集群演化阶段以及演化过程中体现出的“要素的流向、企业数量的增减、网络关系的强弱、发展速度的快慢、集群绩效的好坏”等特征进行讨论。文章从企业数目变化的角度,借用两参数的传染病模型,并辅之以数值模拟,刻画了集群的演化轨迹,并解释了约束结构是如何发挥作用的。最后,提出集群演化中的三个关键问题,即集群的启动、集群的成长、集群的衰退或升级,并运用约束结构对上述问题予以一般性的解释,即约束结构对集群的触发机理,约束结构与集群的循环累积机理以及集群衰退的约束结构锁定机理。
基于产业结构对高技术产业集群演化进行分析。投入产出数据分析表明,高技术产业与非高技术产业以及高技术产业内部各行业之间存在较强的投入产出关联,因此,一个地区中与高技术产业关联度较大的产业的规模,即区域的产业结构状态会影响高技术产业集群的发展。本文通过一个基于垂直联系的新经济地理学模型阐释了其中的机理,指出上下游产业间的需求—成本联系是促使产业集聚的重要力量,特别地,在两地区的贸易成本处于一个恰当的较低水平时,产业集聚的空间结构会是稳定的。从集群演化的三个问题看,区域产业结构中任何一个产业环节的规模优势,都会影响到其上下游关联产业的发展和空间布局；集群与区域产业结构之间相互促进、相互增强、循环累积,为集群持续成长提供内生动力；各种原因引起的产业链条或产业网络的断裂和瓦解,都将导致集群的衰退。
基于技术结构对高技术产业集群演化进行分析。本文从纵向和横向两个维度考虑了技术或知识的结构性特征,研究了区域技术适宜性和技术多样性对产业空间分布的影响。通过分析发现,从技术结构的纵向维度而言,地区的技术并非越先进越好,也并非越成熟越好,两方面都存在一个最佳适宜度。从技术结构的横向维度看,地区包含的技术种类越多,多样化水平越高,越利于高技术产业的集聚。针对集群演化的三个问题,论文的结论是：集群启动关键是该区域拥有大量的知识和知识的创造者,通过技术成果的商业化、产业化,诞生了一批高技术企业,同时也吸引了其他地区高技术企业的流入；集群成长促进了区域技术结构的优化升级,即技术适宜性和多样性越来越强,这反过来又促进了集群的进一步发展壮大,两者之间形成了良好的循环互动；技术发展的路径依赖和技术结构的锁定,使高技术企业面临技术突变时难以适应,高技术企业的纷纷倒闭和外流,最终使集群迅速衰退。
基于制度结构对高技术产业集群演化进行分析。制度结构反映了区域制度资源系统中,不同类型、不同层次、不同领域、不同时期的各种制度之间的协调性。协调的制度结构会降低高技术企业与其他企业或组织之间的交易成本,从而吸引高技术企业,促进高技术产业集群的发展。本文假设两个地区的交易成本不同,通过一个新经济地理模型并结合数值仿真,考察了交易成本对产业集群的影响,发现地区交易成本和市场规模的共同作用影响了产业的空间分布。针对集群演化的三个问题,本文表明,依靠强制性制度创新或历史制度演化累积形成的制度结构具有较低的交易成本,触发了集群的启动；集群发展提出的制度创新需求与制度结构持续的制度创新供给之间所形成的相互促进、相互适应的良性循环累积,在一段时间内为集群成长提供了持续的内生动力；但是,在循环累积过程中形成了区域制度创新的路径依赖和制度结构的锁定,最终导致集群的衰退,若能突破制度结构的锁定,则集群可以实现升级。
约束结构影响高技术产业集群的实证研究。通过区位基尼系数指标从整体上考察了中国高技术产业的空间分布状态,表明从20世纪90年代中期以来,中国高技术产业整体上趋于集中。然后,利用包含10年、30个地区的面板数据对理论分析结果进行了计量经济分析,结果表明,在控制了各地区的人口规模后,关联性产业比重、技术适宜性、技术多样性、制度的协调性等与高技术产业集聚程度均有显著的正相关关系。这表明,一个地区的产业结构、技术结构、制度结构等都对高技术产业集群发展有明显的影响。
With significant impact on industrial structure upgrade and the evolution of economic developing pattern, the strategic importance of high-tech industry is being more and more attracted by the researchers and the government. In reality, cluster is a major way of high-tech industrial development. Local governments are rushing to establish all sorts of high-tech industrial parks and development zones. But in this High-tech bubby, local governments have ignored the growing environment and fundamental breeding of the high-tech industry, instead of concerning on the industry itself. This paper suggests the nature resource is not the only key element of the high-tech industry development. There are also industrial element, technological element and the institutional element. Therefore, researching on the impact and mode of operation of the high-tech industry cluster evolution, regarding the endowment of resource such as regional economy, technology and institution, have great theoretical importance and practical value. Based on the above argument, this paper separately identified the mode of effect on industrial cluster development of the industrial, technological and institutional structure from the constraint structure perspective.
The main content of this paper is summarized as following:
The establishent of the constraint structure theoretical framework. Using the structural way of thinking, this paper created a "constraint structure" concept and established an analyzing framework. A constraint structure is from the structural perspective to indicate the types, quality and the proportion from one to another of elements of the regional endowment system. The three elements are industrial structure, technological structure and institutional structure, which draw a sketch of the regional endowment system from the angles of industrial relevance, technical resiliency and diversity, and institutional coordination. Any of he three elements of the constraint structure is not isolated but interacts with each other. Meanwhile, constraint structure is not static. Any change of any element in the constraint structure will lead the change of the other elements even the whole constraint structure.
The evolution of High-tech industrial cluster under constraint structure framework. By applying the product life cycle theory. The paper discussed the stages of evolution of high-tech industrial cluster and the indicators during the evolution, which includes the element flow, change of the number of enterprises, network, speed of development and performance. The paper adapted a Two-parameter Epidemic Model with mathematic simulation to draw the trajectory of evolution and explained how the constraint structure works on it. Three key issues, the setup of cluster, the growth of cluster and the decline or upgrade of cluster, were addressed in the end of this chapter.Then we generally explained the above issues by the constraint structure, which is how the constraint structure trigger the cluster, how the constraint structure cycle and accumulate with cluster, and how the constraint structure lock down the cluster recession.
Analyzing the evolution of high-tech industrial cluster by industrial structure. I/O data analysis table indicates high-tech industry has strong correlation of I/O with non high-tech industry and with the industries within the high-tech industry. So the scale of industry which has strong correlation with high-tech industry in a region, as know as the status of the industrial structure, has significant impact on the development of high-tech industry cluster. Based on the principle of vertical geographical modle of the new economy, this paper pointed out the demand-cost correlation between upstream and downstream industries is a significant force that stimulates the industrial assembling. In addition, when the trading cost is at an appropriate low level, the space structure of industrial assembling would be stable. According to the three issues of the evolution of cluster, the advantage of size in any part of process in the industry all has effect on the space structure in upstream and downstream industries. A complete I/O industrial chain or industrial network infers that high-tech industrial cluster in this region is ready to mobilize. Cluster and regional industrial structure are mutually stimulated, enhanced and accumulated, which provides endogenous dynamic for the growth of the cluster. Various reasons which cause the collapse of I/O industrial chain or industrial network would cause the decline of the cluster.
The analysis on high-tech industrial cluster evolution based on technological structure. This paper analysed the effect of regional technical suitability and diversity on the industrial configuration, which considered the structural attributes of technology and knowledge from the vertical and horizontal dimensions. The analysis indicated that in terms of vertical dimension, regional technology is not the more advanced the better or the more mature the better, but has an optimal level. In terms of horizontal dimension of technological structure, the more categories there are, the higher level of diversity, and the better to the regional high-tech industrial cluster. The finding of this paper in regard to the three issues of evolution of cluster is, firstly, the major drive of a regional cluster is a significant amount of knowledge and people who create them, to create a group of high-tech enterprises by industrializing themselves in addition to absorb the high-tech enterprises from other regions. Secondly, the growth of cluster promotes optimizing and upgrading of the regional technological structure, which means the resiliency and diversity of technology is becoming stronger to promote back on the growth of cluster as well. There is a favorable interaction cycle between them. Finally, the path dependency of technological development and the technological structure lock-down make the high-tech enterprises hard to resilient when they were facing the technological mutation, so that the high-tech enterprises start to close or outbound, and the cluster would decline dramatically in the end.
The analysis on the evolution of high-tech industrial cluster based on institutional structure. The institutional structure indicateds the coordination among different institutions of different types, different levels, different fields and different stages in the regional institutional resource system. Coordinating institutional structure will decrease the transaction cost between the high-tech enterprises and other enterprises or organizations in order to absorb the high-tech enterprises and promote the development of industrial cluster. This paper maked a hypothesis that the transaction cost in the two region are different, then research on the impact of transaction cost on industrial cluster by adopting a new economic geometrical modle, and found the regional transaction cost and the market size both have impact on space distribution of industry. Regarding the three issues of evolution of cluster, this paper showed that the institutional structure relied on the accumulation from mandatory institutional innovation or evolution of historical institution has low level of transaction cost, which triggers the setup of cluster. The relationship between the demand and supply of institutional innovation is mutually enhanced and resilient positive cycle of accumulation, which provides endogenous dynamic to the growth of the cluster. However, the path dependency of institutional development and the institutional structure lock-down, which were formed during the process of cycle of accumulation, eventually cause the decline of cluster. The cluster can be upgraded only if the institutional structure lock-down were broken.
The empirical study of the impact of constraint structure on high-tech industrial cluster. Studying the status of the space distribution of Chinese high-tech industry as a whole by adopting Locational Gini-coefficient indicates Chinese high-tech industry is becoming more concentrating as a whole since the mid of 1990s.Moreover, adopting the econometric analysis by calculating the result of theoretical analysis of the panel data within 10 years and 30 regions, shows it is a strongly positive correlation between the factors of proportion of related industries, the technological resiliency, technology diversity, and the coordination of institution and the level of concentration of high-tech industry. It implicated industrial structure, technological structure, and institutional structure etc. in a region have significant impact on the development of the high-tech industrial clusters.
引文
①韩宇.美国高技术城市研究[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2009：20-27
②李拓晨.中国高新技术产业竞争力研究[M].北京：知识产权出版社,2009
③赵玉林.高技术产业经济学[M].北京：中国经济出版社,2004：4-5
④有一些研究在划分高技术产业时范围更广泛,既包括高技术制造业部门,也包括高技术服务业部门。一般的研究多是指代高技术制造业部门。
⑤李拓晨.中国高新技术产业竞争力研究[M].北京：知识产权出版社,2009
⑥即同时考虑了直接R&D经费和间接R&D经费,用R&D总经费占总产值的比例、直接R&D经费占总产值的比重和直接R&D经费占增加值的比重等三个指标重新定义高技术产业。
①孙静娟等.对我国高技术产业统计界定的思考[J].统计与决策,2008(4)：4-6
①转引自韩宇.美国高技术城市研究[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2009
①该定义选自"Douglass C. North. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press,1990"的2008中译本,杭行译,格致出版社、上海三联出版社、上海人民出版社出版
②正式制度三个层次的观点,源于"Douglass C. North. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press,1990"的2008中译本,杭行译,格致出版社、上海三联出版社、上海人民出版社出版
③ Boyd and Richerson(1985)认为,文化是指“由教育与模仿而代代相传,并能影响行为的那些知识、价值及其他因素。”
④关于制度变迁将在下节详细讨论。
①技术、制度的微小创新都可以看作是技术结构、制度结构的边际变化,技术、制度创新的长期积累就体现为技术结构、制度结构的显著变迁。
②核能作为一项新的技术,能否被采纳并应用于商业性发电,取决于制度的保障和支持,这产生了对制度创新的需求。当支持性保险政策产生后,进一步促进了技术的采纳、发展和经济性应用。两者之间的相互适应和促进,体现了技术结构与技术结构之间的共同演化过程。
①罗纳德·科斯(Coase R)1937年提出科斯定理后,市场和企业被视为是两种资源分配的方式,但现实经济世界中,有很多组织既不是市场也不是企业,
①朱启才(2006)提出了类似的概念“制度束”,是指“影响和约束人们交易行为的一切正式制度和非正式制度的统一”。
①制度是一个系统,结构决定了系统的功能。
②经济元指任何经济体,如个人、企业、家庭等。
①转引自阿兰·斯密德著.刘璨,吴水荣译.《制度与行为经济学》.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004：77
①单豪杰,沈坤荣.制度与增长：文献综述及中国的经验.工作论文
②诺斯提出三种交换形式,即人际关系化交换、非人际关系化交换和由第三方实施的非人际关系化交换。
③交易成本经济学是由罗纳德·科斯创立,并由奥利弗·威廉姆森等发展起来的一个经济学派。关于交易成本经济学,可参见Oliver E. Williamson. Economic Institutions of Capitalism:Firms, Markets and Relational Contracts, New York:Free Press,1985
④此定义出自道格拉斯·诺思,罗伯特·托马斯.《西方世界的兴起》,转引自同崎哲二著.何平译.经济发展中的制度与组织[M].北京：中信出版社,2010年6月第58页
①道格拉斯.诺思,《制度、制度变迁与经济绩效》,格致出版社,上海三联书店,上海人民出版社
②此处制度为制度系统,制度系统就代表了一个特定的制度结构,因此,本质上是制度结构的状况影响了交易成本的大小。
③冈崎哲二(2010)曾指出,交易成本经济学用于经济研究的视角是“经济主体的激励受到制度的影响。”出自同崎哲二著.何平译.经济发展中的制度与组织[M].北京：中信出版社,2010年6月：p64
[1]Acs, Audretsch and Feldman. Real Effects of Academic Research:Comment[J]. American Economic Review,1992,82:363-367
[2]Adams and Jaffe. Bounding the Effects of R&D:an Investigation Using Matched Establishment-firm Data[J].The Rand Journal of Economics,1996,94:700-721
[3]Alfred Spielkamp and Katrin Vopel. Mapping Innovative Clusters in National Innovation Systems. ZEW Center for European Economic Research[J]. Gerymany, 1998,8
[4]Almeida and Kogut. Localizatin of Knowledge and the Mobility of Engineers in Regional Networks[J]. Management Science,1999,45:905-916
[5]Anselin L, Varga A and Acs Z J. Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations [J].Journal of Urban Economics,1997,42: 422-448
[6]Aoki. Patent Licensing with Spillovers[J]. Economics Letters,2001,73(1):125-130
[7]Arbia et al. Does spatial concentration foster economic growth? Empirical evidence on EU regions[J]. Conference paper of First Seminar of Spatial Econometrics, 2004,12:136-175
[8]Audretsch and Stephan.Company Scientist Locational Links:the Case ofBiotechnology[J].American Economic Review,1996,86:641-652
[9]Audretsch. R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production[J]. American Economic Review,1996,86:630-640
[10]Baldwin, R. and P. Martin. Agglomeration and regional growth[J]. In Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics:cities and geography.2003
[11]Beaudry C, Breschi S. Are firms in clusters really more innovative? [J]. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,2003,4:325-342
[12]Best. Cluster Dynamics, Ch.3 in:The New Competitive Advantage:The Renewal of American Industry[M].Oxford University Press.2001
[13]Bezold B. Technology clusters in St. Louis[J]. Economic Development Journal, 2004,2:50-53
[14]Bischi,Dawid & Kopel.Spillover effects and the evolution of firm clusters. [J].Journal of Economic Behavior and Organazation,2003,50:47-75
[15]Braunerhjelm P, Johansson D.The determinants of spatial concentration:the manufacturing and service sentors in an international perspective[J]. Industry and Innovation,2003,10:41-63
[16]Brett Anitra Gilbert, Patricia P. McDougall, David B. Audretsch. Clusters, knowledge spillovers and new venture performance:An empirical examination[J]. Journal of Business Venturing,2008,23:405-422
[17]Brian Uzzi. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks:the paradox of embeddedness [J]. Administrative science quarterly,1997,42:35-67
[18]Brian Uzzi. The source and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations:the network effect[J]. American sociological review, 1996,61:674-698
[19]Brulhart M. and F. Trionfetti. Public expenditure, international specialization and agglomeration[J]. European Economic Review,2006,48:851-881
[20]Bruno, Amable. Institutional Complementarity and Diversity of Social Systems of Innovation and Production[J].Review of International Political Economy,2000(7): 645-687
[21]Burt, Ron. Structural holes:the social structure of competition. Cambridge [M]. MA: Harvard University,1992
[22]Caniels. Knowledge Spillovers and Economic Growth:Regional Growth Differentials across Europe[J]. Cheltenham and Northampton,MA:Edward.Elgar. 2000
[23]Chang-Yang Lee. Do firms in clusters invest in R&D more intensively? Theory and evidence from muluti-country data[J]. Research Policy,2009,38:1159-1171
[24]Christian R. Ostergaard. Knowledge flows through social networks in a cluster: Comparing university and industry links[J]. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,2009,20:196-210
[25]Christopher D. Rosin, Richard K. Belew. New methods for competitive coevolution[J]. Evolutionary Computation,1997,5 (1):1-29
[26]Chuan-Kai Lee. How does a cluster relocate across the border? The case of information technology cluster in the Taiwan-Suzhou region [J]. Technological Forecasting&Social Change,2009,76:371-381
[27]Coe and Helpman. International R&D Spillovers[J]. European Economic Review,1995,39:859-887
[28]Commons. Institutional Economics. Madison:University of Wisconsin Press,1934
[29]Cowan, R., David, P.A., Foray, D..The explicit economics of knowledge: codification and tacitness[J].Ind Corp Change,2000,9 (2):211-253
[30]Daniel Scholten MSc.The role of coherence in the coevolution between institutions and technologies[J]. Working Paper,2009,12
[31]Devereux M P, Griffith R, Simpson H.The geographic distribution of production activity in UK[J].Regional Science and Urban Economics,2004,34:533-564
[32]Dijk M. Government policies with respect to an information technology cluster in Bangalore, India[J]. Europe Journal of Development Research,2003,2:93-108
[33]Dong-Won Sohn, Martin Kenney. Universities, clusters and innovation systems:the case of Seoul, Korea [J]. World Development 2007,35(6):991-1004
[34]Douglas K.R.Robinson, Arie Rip, Vincent Mangematin. Techonological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechonology[J]. Research Policy,2007,36:871-879
[35]Douglass C. North. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance[M]. Cambridge University Press,1990
[36]Edward L. Glaeser. Growth in Cities [J].Journal of Political Economy,1992,100(6): 1126-1152
[37]Effie Kesidou, Henny Romijn. Do local knowledge spillovers matter for development? A empirical study of Uruguay's software cluster[J]. World Development,2008,36(10):2004-2028
[38]Ellision G, Glaeser E. L. Geographic Concentration in U.S. Manufacturing Industries:A Dartboard Approach[J].Joural of Political Economy,1998,105(5): 899-927
[39]Emilio J. Castilla. Social networks in silicion valley [R].2000
[40]Fallah and Ibrahim.Knowledge Spillover and Innovation in Technological Clusters. http://www.stevens.edu.2004
[41]Feldman, M.P. Geography and Regional Economic Development:The Role of Technology-Based Small and Medium Sized Firms[J]. Small Business Economics, 1996(8):71-74
[42]Feldman.The Geography of Innovation[M].Dordrecht:Kluwer,1994
[43]Felsenstein D. Do high technology agglomerations encourage urban sprawl? [J]. The Annals of Regional Science,2002,4:663-682
[44]Fischer and Varga.Spatial Knowledge Spillovers and University Research:Evidence from Austria[J]. Annals of Regional Science,2003,37(2):303-322
[45]Gerben Van der Panne. Agglomeration externalities:Marshall versus Jacobs[J]. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,2004,14:593-604
[46]Gordon I R, McCann P, Industrial clusters:complexes, agglomeration and/or social networks? [J].Urban Studies,2000,37:513-532
[47]Greif. Contract Enforceability and Economic Institutions in Early Trade:the Maghribi Traders'Coalition[J]. American Economic Review,1993,83(3):525-548
[48]Griliches,Z. The Research for R&D Spillovers[J]. Scandinavian Journal of Economics,1992,94:29-47
[49]Guangcai Sun. The qualitative analysis of symbiosis model of two populations [J]. Mathematical theory and applications,2003,23(3):64-69
[50]Haland J,Kind H, Midelfart-Knarvik K,et al.What determines the economic geography of Europe[J]. CEPR Discution Paper,1999,No.2072
[51]Hanson G H.North American economic integration and industry location[J]. Oxford Review of Economic Policy,1998,14:30-44
[52]Head, Ries and Swenson.Agglomeration Benefits and Location Choice:Evidence from Japanese Manufacturing Investments in the United States [J]. Journal of International Economics,1995,38:223-247
[53]Hendry C, Brown J. Organizational networking in UK biotechnology clusters[J]. British Journal of Management,2006(1):55-73
[54]Hirschman, A.O. The Strategy of Economic Development[M]. New York:Free Press.1958
[55]Hoover E M. Location Theory and the Shoe and Leather Industries[M]. Cambridge MA:Harvard University Press,1937
[56]Houstein H.D. and Neuwirth E. Long Waves in World Industrial Production, Energy Consumption, Innovations Inventions, and Patents and Their Identification by Spectral Analysis [J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,1982,22:53-89
[57]Howells. Tacit Knowledge, Innovation and Economic Geography[J]. Urban Studies, 2002,39(5):871-884
[58]Hsien-Chun Meng. Innovation Clusters as the National Competitiveness Tool in the Innovation Drivern Economy[J]. NIS International Symposisium,2003,28:121-150
[59]Jacobs J. The Economy of Cities[M].New York:Random House,1969
[60]Jaffe A B. Real affects of academic research[J].American Economics Review, 1989,79:957-970
[61]Jaffe and Trajtenberg. International Knowledge Flows:Evidence from Patent Citations[J].Economics of Innovation and New Technology,1999,8:105-136
[62]Jaffe, Trajtenberg and Henderson. Geographic Localization and Knowledge Spillovers as Evidencde by Patent Citations[J].Quarterly Journal of Economics,1993,108:577-598
[63]Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh & Giorgos Kallis. Evolutionary policy [J].Papers on Economics&Evolution,2009,5:1-42
[64]John C, Pouder R. Technology clusters versus industry clusters:resources, networks, and regional advantages[J]. Growth & Change,2006,2:141-171
[65]Knudsen, T.. Economic selection theory[J]. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 2002,12:443-470
[66]Kongraf Lee. Promoting Innovative Clusters Through the Regional Research Center(RRC) Policy Programme in the Korea[J].European Planning Studies,2003,11(1)
[67]Krugman P. Geography and Trade[M].Cambridge (USA):MIT Press,1991
[68]Krugman P. Increasing Returns and Economic Geography [J].Journal of Political Economy,1991,99:483-499
[69]Krugman P and Venables A. Lobalization and the Inequality of Nations [J].The Quarterly Journal of Economics,1995, CX:857-880
[70]Kun Chen and Martin Kenney. Universities/Research Institute and Regional Innovation Systems:The Case of Beijing and Shenzhen[J]. World Development, 2007,35(6):1056-1074
[71]Marina van Geenhuizen and Leonardo Reyes-Gonzalez. Does a Clustered Location Matter for High-technology Companies Performance? The Case of Biotechnology in the Netherlands[J]. Technological Forecasting & Social Change,2007,74:1681-1696
[72]Manfred Fischer and Attila Varga. Spatial knowledge spillovers and university research:Evidence from Austria[M].Ann Reg Sci,2003,37:303-322
[73]Marshall A. Principles of Economics:An Introductory[M]. London:Macmillan,1890
[74]Marshall. Alfred. Principles of economics [M].(9th Edition)Variorum, London Macmillan,1961:32-39
[75]Martin, P. and C. Rogers. Industrial location and public infrastructure [J]. Journal of International Economics,1995,39:335-351
[76]Martin, P. Can Regional Policies Affect Growth and Geography in Europe? [J]. World Economy,1998,6:757-774
[77]Martin, P. Public Policies, Regional Inequalities and Growth[J]. Journal of Public Economics,1999,73:85-105
[78]Maryann Feldman, Johanna Francis and Janet Bercovitz. Creating a Cluster While Building a Firm:Entrepreneurs and the Formation of Industrial Clusters[J].Regional Studies,2005,39(1):129-141
[79]Murmann, J.P.. Knowledge and Competitive Advantage:The Coevolution of Firms, Technology and National Institutions[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2003 (2006,2ed)
[80]Paci R and Usai S. Externalities, Knowledge Spillovers and the Spatial distribution of Innovation[J].GeoJournal,1999,49:381-390
[81]Park.International R&D Spillovers and OECD Economic Growth[J]. Journal of Urban Economics,1997,42:422-448
[82]Persson and Tabellini. The Economic Effects of Constitutions:What do the Data Say?[J].MIT Press, Cambridge,2003
[83]Philippe Martin, Gianmarco, Ottaviano. Growing Locations:Industry Location in a Model of Endogenous Growth[J]. European Economic Review,1999,43:281-302
[84]Polanyi,M. Tacit Knowing[J].Review of Mordern Physics,1962,34:601-616
[85]Porter M, The Competitive Advantage of Nations, New York:Free Press,1990
[86]Porter,M.E.Location,Competition and Economic Development:Local Clusters in a Global Economy [J].Economic Development Quarterly,2000,14(1)
[87]Porter. Michael E. Competitive Strategy [M]. New York:The Free Press, 1999:165-178
[88]Pouder, R. and St. John,C.H. Geographical clusters of firms and innovation[J]. The Academy of Management Review,2003,21(4):192-225
[89]Rees K. International Collaboration and Innovation in Vancouver's Emerging High-tech Cluster[J]. Journal of Economic & Social Geography,2005,3:298-312
[90]Rosenthal S, Strange C, Evidence on the Nature and Sources of Agglomeration Economics, In:Handbook of Urban and Regional Economics,2003,4
[91]Rosenthal S and Strange W.The determinants of agglomeration [J].Journal of Urban Economics,2001,50:191-229
[92]Saxenian, A. Regional Advantage:Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128[M]. Harvard University Press,1994
[93]Saxenian. A Regional Advantage:Culture and Competition in Silicon and Route 128[M].Harvard University Press. Cambridge,MA.1994
[94]Scott A, Industrial Organization and Location:Division of Labor, the Firm and Spatial Process [J]. Economic Geography,1986,63:215-231
[95]Shantha Liyanage. Breeding Innovation Clusters Through Collaborative Research Networks[J].Technovation,2005:15(9)
[96]Sjoberg O, Sjoholm F, Trade Liberalization and the Geography of Production: Agglomeration, Concentration and Dispersal in Indonesia's Manufacturing Industry [J].Economic Geography,2004,80:287-310
[97]Solomous. Innovation Clusters and Kondratieff long Waves in Economic Growth [J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics,1986,10:101-112
[98]Sorenson O, Audia P G.The social structure of entrepreneurial activity:geographic concentration of footwear production in the United States,1940-1989 [J]. AJS,2000,106:424-462
[99]Steven Casper. How do Technology Clusters Emerge and Become Sustainable? Social Network Formation and Inter-firm Mobility within the San Diego Biotechnology Cluster [J]. Research Policy,2007,36:438-455
[100]Steven Klepper. The Origin and Growth of Industry Clusters:The Making of Silicon Valley and Detroit [J]. Journal of Urban Economics,2009,9:1-18
[101]Sturgeon T. What Really goes on in Silicon Valley? Spatial Clustering and Dispersal in Modular Production Networks[J]. Journal of Economic Geography,2003,2: 199-225
[102]Swann.A Comparison of the Dynamics of Industrial Clustering in Computing and Biotechnology[J]. Research Policy,1996,25(7):1139-1157
[103]Tichy. Clusters:Less Dispensable and More Risky than Ever, Clusters and Regional Specialisation[M].Published by Pion Limited,207 Brondesbury Park, London NW25JM,1998
[104]Tropeano J.P..Information Symmetry as a Source of Spatial Agglomeration[J]. Economics Letters,2001,6:73-81
[105]Van Ort F. Innovation and Agglomeration Economies in the Netherlands[J]. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geograe,2002,93(3):344-360
[106]Veblen. Preconceptions of Economic Science[J].Quart Journal of Economics,1899, 13:396-426
[107]Venables A, Equilibrium location of vertically linked industries [J]. International Economic Review,1996,37:341-359
[108]Volberda, H.W and Lewin, A.Y. Co-evolutionary Dynamics Within and Between Firms:From Evolution to Co-evolution[J]. Journal of Management Studies,2003,40:8
[109]Wallsten S. High-tech cluster Bombs[J]. Nature,2004,69:121-122
[110]Webber M J. The Impact of Uncertainty of Location[M].Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press,1972
[111]Weilin Zhao, Chihiro Watanabe and Charla Griffy-Brown. Competitive Advantage in an Industry Cluster:The Case of Dalian Software Park in China[J]. Technology in Society,2009,31:139-149
[112]Wolfe D A and Gertler M S. Policies for Cluster Creation:Lessons from the ISRN Research Initiative[Z]. Toronto:University of Toronto, The Conferrence on Innovation Systems Research Network,2002
[113]Yamamoto K. Agglomeration and Growth with Innovation in the Intermediate Goods Sector[J]. Regional Science and Urban Economics,2003,33:335-360
[114]Yoshiyuki Takeda, Yuya Kajikawa and Ichiro Sakata, Katsumori Matsushima. An Analysis of Geographical Agglomeration and Modularized Industrial Networks in a Regional Cluster:A Case Study at Yamagata Prefecture in Japan [J]. Technovation, 2008,28:531-539
[115]Zhang J. Growing Silicon Valley on a Landscape:an Agent-based Approach to High-tech Industrial Clusters[J]. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,2003,5: 529-548
[116]Zucker and Darby. Star Scientists and Institutional Transformation:Patterns of Invention and Innovation in the Formation of the Biotechnology Industry[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science,1996,93:12709-12716
[117]阿兰·斯密德著.刘璨,吴水荣译.制度与行为经济学[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004
[118]巴泽尔.产业集群研究的新视角[J].世界地理研究,2005(3)：1-8
[119]白义霞.我国产业集群兴起与发展的理论研究——基于制度变迁、社会资本的分析[J].技术经济与管理研究,2008(2)：114-116
[120]蔡宁,杨闩柱.企业集群竞争优势的演进：从“聚集经济”到“创新网络”[J].科研管理,2004(4)：104-109
[121]陈国宏等.基于CA的产业集群生命周期模拟分析[J].中国管理科学,2008(10)：397-403
[122]陈柳钦,黄坡.产业集群成长的制度原因、绩效、风险和创新分析[J].学习与实践,2007(1)：34-43
[123]陈柳钦.高新技术产业发展的制度环境分析[J].科技与经济,2007(4)：3-6
[124]陈颖,李强.我国高新区产业集聚测度方法研究[J].科学学研究,2007(25)：11-15
[125]丹尼尔·W.布罗姆利著.陈郁等译.经济利益与经济制度——公共政策的理论基础[M].上海：上海三联书店,上海人民出版社,2006
[126]丹尼斯·卡尔顿,杰弗里·佩罗夫著.黄亚钧等译.现代产业组织(上下册)[M].上海：上海三联书店、上海人民出版社,1998
[127]单豪杰,沈坤荣.制度与增长：文献综述及中国的经验[J].工作论文
[128]单元媛,赵玉林.德国高技术产业发展的集聚效应及其启示[J].特区经济,2007(4)：89-92
[129]道格拉斯.诺思.制度、制度变迁与经济绩效[M].格致出版社,上海三联书店.2004
[130]邓丽君.我国高技术产业空间集聚及其影响因素分析[D].硕士学位论文,合肥工业大学,2006
[131]丁伟等.基于地域化与全球化双向互动的产业集群发展与升级[J].科学学研究,2005(12)：779-782
[132]多纳德·海,德理克·莫瑞斯.产业经济学与组织(上、下)[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2001
[133]范丽娜.中国内地专利的空间分布及其影响因素分析[J].北京师范大学学报,2005(2)：138—145
[134]樊纲、王小鲁,朱恒鹏.《中国市场化指数——各地区市场化相对进程2009年报告》[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2010
[135]盖文启等.国际典型高技术产业集群的比较分析与经验启示[J].中国软科学,2004(2)：102-108
[136]同崎哲二著.何平译.经济发展中的制度与组织[M].北京：中信出版社,2010年6月
[137]顾慧君,王文平.产业集群与社会网络的协同演化[J].经济问题探索,2007(4)：103-106
[138]韩宇.美国高技术城市研究[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2009(11)：20-27
[139]贺灿飞.中国制造业地理集中与集聚[M].北京：科学出版社,2009
[140]胡汉辉,汪朗峰.我国高技术产业和制造业种群演化规律的生态研究[J].科学学研究,2009,27,(10)：1523-1527
[141]胡珑瑛,叶元煦.高技术产业集群的动因分析[J].技术经济,2002(8)：50-52
[142]黄凯南.共同演化理论述评[J].中国地质大学学报(社科版),2008,8(4)：97-101
[143]霍丽,惠宁.制度优势与产业集群的形成[J].经济学家,2007(4)：71-75
[144]姜启源.数学模型[M].北京：高等教育出版社,1998
[145]姜锡东.科学技术资源的转化过程与地理分布研究[D].博士学位论文,东北师范大学,2004
[146]蒋金荷.我国高技术产业同构性与集聚的实证分析[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2005(12)：91-98
[147]蒋学伟.持续竞争优势[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2002
[148]蒋昭侠.产业结构问题研究[M].北京：中国经济出版社,2005
[149]金祥荣,叶建亮.知识溢出与企业网络组织的溢出效应[J].数量经济与技术经济 研究,2001(10)
[150]靳辉.高技术产业集聚[D].西北大学,2006
[151]李大元,项保华.组织与环境共同演化理论研究述评[J].外国经济与管理,2007(11)：9-17
[152]李建德,程芸.经济与文化的协同演化[J].经济管理,2007(14)： 9-12
[153]李俊杰.大学推动高技术产业集群发展的区域比较研究[J].特区经济,2009(4)：298-300
[154]李琳.高新技术产业集群中的知识流动分析框架[J].科技管理研究,2006(6)：90-93
[155]李强,韩伯棠.我国高新区产业集聚测度体系研究[J].中国管理科学,2007(8)：130-137
[156]李拓晨.中国高新技术产业竞争力研究[M].北京：知识产权出版社,2009
[157]李新.经济转型中的制度移植与非正式制度约束[J].财经研究,2008(9)：38-48
[158]李永刚.中小企业群落式生成演化研究的文献综述[J].上海经济研究,2004(8)
[159]李勇等.企业集群竞争协同演进模型研究[J].科技管理研究,2007(6)：208-211
[160]林竞君.网络、嵌入性与集群生命周期研究[D].博士学位论文,复旦大学,2005
[161]梁琦.分工、集聚与增长[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009
[162]梁琦.中国工业的区位基尼系数：兼论外商直接投资对制造业集聚的影响[J].统计研究,2003(9)：21—25
[163]梁琦,詹亦军.地方专业化、技术进步和产业升级：来自长三角的证据[J].经济理论与经济管理,2006(1)：56-62
[164]梁琦.产业集聚论[M].北京：商务印书馆,2004
[165]梁晓艳等.我国高技术产业的空间聚集现象研究——基于省际高技术产业产值的空间计量分析[J].科学学研究,2007(6)：453-460
[166]刘斌.产业集聚竞争优势的经济分析[M].北京：中国发展出版社,2004
[167]刘冰,高闯.组织信息体制、制度化关联与高技术企业集群治理效率[J].中国工业经济,2006(3)：21-28
[168]刘恒江,陈继祥.国外产业集群政策研究综述[J].外国经济与管理,2004,(11)：36-43
[169]刘恒江,陈继祥.基于动力机制的我国产业集群发展研究[J].经济地理,2005(5)：607-611
[170]刘力,程华强.产业集群生命周期演化的动力机制研究[J].上海经济研究,2006(6)：63-69
[171]刘少杰,姚伟.论企业集群的网络、制度结构与双重绩效[J].财经研究,2007(3)：62-66
[172]刘筱等.政府在高技术产业集群中的作用——以深圳为例[J].科研管理,2006,27(4)：36-43
[173]刘志高,王缉慈.共同演化及其空间隐喻[J].中国地质大学学报(社科版),2008(4)：85-91
[174]刘志高,尹贻梅.经济地理学与经济学关系的历史考察[J].经济地理,2006(5)：353-358
[175]刘志迎等著.高新技术及其产业的十大特性[M].深圳：海天出版社,2002
[176]芦彩梅,梁嘉骅.产业集群协同演化模型及案例分析——以中山小榄镇五金集群为例[J].中国软科学,2009(2)：142-151
[177]陆芳.制度分割、产业集群和加快我国高新技术产业集群发展的建议[J].经济纵横,2005(8)：56-58
[178]罗勇.中国制造业集聚程度变动趋势实证研究[J].经济研究,2005(8)：106-115
[179]骆建文等.政府采购促进高技术产业自主创新策略研究[J].科技管理研究,2009(7)：17-19
[180]迈克尔·波特.国家竞争优势[M].北京：华夏出版社,2002
[181]毛军.人力资本与高技术产业集聚——以京津、长三角、珠三角为例的分析[J].北京社会科学,2006(5)：82-86
[182]毛宽等.知识溢出与高技术产业集群的演化——以上海市张江高科园区IC产业集群为例[J].改革与战略,2008(6)：25-28
[183]纳尔逊.温特.胡世凯译.经济变迁的演化理论[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997
[184]倪钢.技术结构概念的观点评析与解释[J].科学技术与辩证法,2005(4)：68-70
[185]潘慧明.产业集群创新研究[J].武汉科技学院学报,2006(5)：25-28
[186]潘雄锋等.中国区域高技术产业竞争力的时空演化特征分析[J].科学学研究,2009(1)：52-58
[187]庞之栋.产业集群生命周期分析[J].现代管理科学,2007(8)：87-88
[188]彭澎,蔡莉.基于协同学理论的高技术产业集群生成主要影响因素研究[J].山东大学学报,2007(1)：72-78
[189]彭澎,刘倩.政府扶持型高技术产业集群生成分析[J].山东社会科学,2006(11)：116-119
[190]彭中文,颜长春.人力资本、R&D溢出与高技术产业聚集[J].科技管理研究,2007(3)：147-148
[191]荣健,刘西林.基于网络特性分析的产业集群生命周期研究[J].情报杂志,2006,(5)：100-102
[192]阮平南,王晓琦.产业集群生命周期演化机理研究[J].煤炭经济研究,2008(4)：37-40
[193]沈宁宁等.世界高技术产业发展模式及其对我国的启示[J].生产力研究,2009(2)：117-121
[194]盛昭翰,蒋德鹏.演化经济学[M].上海：上海三联书店,2002
[195]史丹,李晓斌.高技术产业发展的影响因素及其数据检验[J].中国工业经济,2004(12)：32-39
[196]疏礼兵.组织知识、知识分类和知识特性[J].情报杂志,2008(1)：76-79
[197]隋广军,申明浩.产业集群生命周期演进的动态分析[J].经济学动态,2004(11)：23-27
[198]孙静娟,戴忻.对中国高技术产业发展评价分析[J].特区经济,2007(12)：32-34
[199]孙静娟等.对我国高技术产业统计界定的思考[J].统计与决策,2008(4)：4-6
[200]孙晓华,张国峰.基于“三重螺旋”模型产业集聚能力的培育途径[J],科技进步与对策,2008(7)：82-85
[201]谭小平,林东泓.区域创新推动产业集群升级——以东莞为例[J].江苏商论,2009(2)：150-152
[202]唐根年,徐维祥.中国高技术产业成长的时空演变特征及其空间布局研究[J].经济地理,2004(5)：604-608
[203]唐华.高技术产业集群创新系统的构建[J].财经科学,2004(6)：70-73
[204]唐凯江.基于产业集群生命周期的政府分层定位[J].经济问题探索,2008(11)：1-7
[205]汪丁丁.知识沿时间和空间的互补性以及相关的经济学[J].经济研究,1997(6)：70-78
[206]汪芳.高技术产业区域集聚模式及动因[J].商业时代,2008(10)：93-94
[207]王奋.中国科技人力资源区域集聚的理论与实证研究[M].北京：北京理工大学出 版社,2008
[208]王国锋.我国高技术产业发展现状、问题及其发展思路[J].中国科技论坛,2005(5)：8-12
[209]王宏起,王雪原.基于高新技术产业集群生命周期的科技计划支持策略[J].科研管理,2008,29(3)：53-59
[210]王立平.我国高校R&D知识溢出的实证研究——以高技术产业为例[J].中国软科学,2005(12)：54-59
[211]王珊珊.高新技术企业集群综合优势研究[D].博士学位论文,哈尔滨工业大学,2008
[212]王晓婧.我国各省(市、自治区)高技术产业发展水平因子分析与综合评价[J].数学的实践与认识,2007(9)：17-28
[213]王业强,魏后凯.产业特征、空间竞争与制造业地理集中[J].管理世界,2007(4)：68-77
[214]王铮等.高技术产业聚集区形成的区位因子分析[J].地理学报,2006(4)：567-576
[215]王铮等.高技术产业空间格局演变规律及相关因素分析[J].科学学研究,2006(2)：227-232
[216]王子龙等.高技术产业集聚水平测度方法及实证研究[J].科学学研究,2006(5)：706-714
[217]王子龙等.区域企业集群共生模型及演化机制研究[J].南京航空航天大学学报(社科版),2006(1)：30-34
[218]魏剑锋.搜寻成本、制度安排与产业集群的形成机制[J].产业经济研究,2010(1)：24-31
[219]魏江,朱海燕.高技术产业集群创新过程模式演化及发展研究——以杭州软件产业集为例[J].研究与发展管理,2006(6)：116-122
[220]魏守华.集群竞争力的动力机制以及实证分析[J].中国工业经济,2002(10)：27-34
[221]魏心镇,王缉慈.新的产业空间[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1993：25-35
[222]文玫.中国工业在区域上的重新定位和聚集[J].经济研究,2004(2)：84-94
[223]吴敬琏.发展中国高新技术产业制度重于技术[M].北京：中国发展出版社,2002
[224]武健.知识溢出对高技术企业集群集聚效应的影响研究——以杭州软件企业集群为例[J].特区经济,2009(4)：56-58
[225]武星星,苗维亚.我国高技术产业特征分析[J].科学学研究,2006(8)：115-119
[226]谢伟.技术和技术结构[J].科学管理研究,2000,18(5)：34-39
[227]徐建国.科技集聚区的界定及其战略意义[J].科技进步与对策,2005(4)：166-168
[228]徐维祥等.高技术产业集群资源整合提升区域创新系统竞争能力的对策研究[J].中国软科学,2005(4)：87-90
[229]徐现祥,李郇.中国省区经济差距的内生制度根源[J].经济学季刊,2005(10)：83-99
[230]薛白.区位决策视角下的集群生命周期分析[J].产业经济研究,2007(3)：44-50
[231]杨蕙馨,刘春玉.知识溢出效应与企业集聚定位决策[J].中国工业经济,2005(12)：41-48
[232]杨文举.适宜技术观演变的文献述评[J].科技进步与对策,2008(4)：197-200
[233]杨友才.引入制度因素的经济增长模型与实证研究[D].博士学位论文,山东大学,2009
[234]叶建亮.知识溢出与企业集群[J].经济科学,2001(3)：35-41
[235]殷广卫.新经济地理学视角下的产业集聚机制研究[D].博士学位论文,南开大学,2008
[236]尹建华,苏敬勤.高新技术产业集群化与协同管理研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2002(9)：13-16
[237]约瑟夫.阿罗斯.熊彼特.经济发展理论[M].北京：商务印书馆,1990
[238]翟慧娟,张梅青.高科技产业集群问题研究[J].内蒙古科技与经济,2004(3)：6-7
[239]张东志,杜伟锦.基于集群生命周期的产业集群技术创新扩散探析[J].商业研究,2008(11)：54-57
[240]张明龙,官仲章.产业集群突破生命周期拐点的关键[J].开发研究,2008,(6)：105-108
[241]张明倩.中国产业集聚现象统计模型及应用研究[M].北京：中国标准出版社,2007
[242]张昕,李廉水.生产地区性集中、知识溢出与我国创新的空间分布——以电子及通讯设备制造业为例[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2007(9)
[243]张涌,陈雪梅.基于制度视角产业集群的形成机理分析[J].暨南学报,2008(2)：36-40
[244]张嵎喆.2008年高技术产业回顾与展望[J].中国科技投资,2009(3)：61-63
[245]张志文.区域创新文化促进高技术产业集群发展机理研究[J].科技进步与对策,2009(7)：23-26
[246]章华.演化均衡与制度演化[J].浙江社会科学,2004(3)：85-90
[247]章华,金雪军.制度演化分析的两种范式比较——新制度经济学与演化经济学评析[J].经济学家,2005(5)：11-17
[248]赵夫增,穆荣平.全球价值链中落后国家的产业集群生命周期研究[J].中国科技论坛,2007(12)：55-59
[249]赵凯.演化经济学的结构-过程分析法及其启示[J].学术研究,2005(2)：44-48
[250]赵勇,白永秀.知识溢出：一个文献综述[J].经济研究,2009(1)：144-156
[251]赵玉林,李文超.主导性高技术产业成长的系统动力学研究[J].经济问题探索,2009(5)：65-72
[252]赵玉林,魏芳.高技术产业系统形成和演化机制研究[J].商业时代,2007(26)：92-93
[253]赵玉林.高技术产业经济学[M].北京：中国经济出版社,2004：4-5
[254]郑宏星.国外产业集群文献评论：制度的视角[J].沈阳师范大学学报,2008(3)：5-8
[255]郑凌云.产业集聚与高技术园区发展[J].中国科技论坛,2003(1)：57-59
[256]郑燕伟,朱晓玫.制度变迁与浙江产业集群发展[J].浙江经济,2009(19)：22-23
[257]周冰,靳涛.青木昌彦的制度观与制度演化的进化博弈思想评析[J].江苏社会科学,2004(3)：59-65
[258]周浩.企业集群的共生演化模型及稳定性分析[J].系统工程,2003(4)：32-37
[259]周寄中等.设计高技术产业集群[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2003(6)：44-47
[260]朱静芬,史占中.我国高科技园区企业集群发展模式探析[J].中国科技论坛,2003(6)：13-15
[261]朱启才.非正式制度、市场秩序优化与经济稳定增长[J].云南财贸学院学报,2006(4)： 4-10
[262]朱秀梅,蔡莉.基于高技术产业集群的社会资本对知识溢出影响的实证研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2007(4)：117-121
[263]朱有为,徐康宁.研发资本累积对生产率增长的影响——对中国高技术产业的检验(1996-2004)[J].中国软科学,2007(4)：57-66
②李拓晨.中国高新技术产业竞争力研究[M].北京：知识产权出版社,2009
③赵玉林.高技术产业经济学[M].北京：中国经济出版社,2004：4-5
④有一些研究在划分高技术产业时范围更广泛,既包括高技术制造业部门,也包括高技术服务业部门。一般的研究多是指代高技术制造业部门。
⑤李拓晨.中国高新技术产业竞争力研究[M].北京：知识产权出版社,2009
⑥即同时考虑了直接R&D经费和间接R&D经费,用R&D总经费占总产值的比例、直接R&D经费占总产值的比重和直接R&D经费占增加值的比重等三个指标重新定义高技术产业。
①孙静娟等.对我国高技术产业统计界定的思考[J].统计与决策,2008(4)：4-6
①转引自韩宇.美国高技术城市研究[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2009
①该定义选自"Douglass C. North. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press,1990"的2008中译本,杭行译,格致出版社、上海三联出版社、上海人民出版社出版
②正式制度三个层次的观点,源于"Douglass C. North. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press,1990"的2008中译本,杭行译,格致出版社、上海三联出版社、上海人民出版社出版
③ Boyd and Richerson(1985)认为,文化是指“由教育与模仿而代代相传,并能影响行为的那些知识、价值及其他因素。”
④关于制度变迁将在下节详细讨论。
①技术、制度的微小创新都可以看作是技术结构、制度结构的边际变化,技术、制度创新的长期积累就体现为技术结构、制度结构的显著变迁。
②核能作为一项新的技术,能否被采纳并应用于商业性发电,取决于制度的保障和支持,这产生了对制度创新的需求。当支持性保险政策产生后,进一步促进了技术的采纳、发展和经济性应用。两者之间的相互适应和促进,体现了技术结构与技术结构之间的共同演化过程。
①罗纳德·科斯(Coase R)1937年提出科斯定理后,市场和企业被视为是两种资源分配的方式,但现实经济世界中,有很多组织既不是市场也不是企业,
①朱启才(2006)提出了类似的概念“制度束”,是指“影响和约束人们交易行为的一切正式制度和非正式制度的统一”。
①制度是一个系统,结构决定了系统的功能。
②经济元指任何经济体,如个人、企业、家庭等。
①转引自阿兰·斯密德著.刘璨,吴水荣译.《制度与行为经济学》.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004：77
①单豪杰,沈坤荣.制度与增长：文献综述及中国的经验.工作论文
②诺斯提出三种交换形式,即人际关系化交换、非人际关系化交换和由第三方实施的非人际关系化交换。
③交易成本经济学是由罗纳德·科斯创立,并由奥利弗·威廉姆森等发展起来的一个经济学派。关于交易成本经济学,可参见Oliver E. Williamson. Economic Institutions of Capitalism:Firms, Markets and Relational Contracts, New York:Free Press,1985
④此定义出自道格拉斯·诺思,罗伯特·托马斯.《西方世界的兴起》,转引自同崎哲二著.何平译.经济发展中的制度与组织[M].北京：中信出版社,2010年6月第58页
①道格拉斯.诺思,《制度、制度变迁与经济绩效》,格致出版社,上海三联书店,上海人民出版社
②此处制度为制度系统,制度系统就代表了一个特定的制度结构,因此,本质上是制度结构的状况影响了交易成本的大小。
③冈崎哲二(2010)曾指出,交易成本经济学用于经济研究的视角是“经济主体的激励受到制度的影响。”出自同崎哲二著.何平译.经济发展中的制度与组织[M].北京：中信出版社,2010年6月：p64
[1]Acs, Audretsch and Feldman. Real Effects of Academic Research:Comment[J]. American Economic Review,1992,82:363-367
[2]Adams and Jaffe. Bounding the Effects of R&D:an Investigation Using Matched Establishment-firm Data[J].The Rand Journal of Economics,1996,94:700-721
[3]Alfred Spielkamp and Katrin Vopel. Mapping Innovative Clusters in National Innovation Systems. ZEW Center for European Economic Research[J]. Gerymany, 1998,8
[4]Almeida and Kogut. Localizatin of Knowledge and the Mobility of Engineers in Regional Networks[J]. Management Science,1999,45:905-916
[5]Anselin L, Varga A and Acs Z J. Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations [J].Journal of Urban Economics,1997,42: 422-448
[6]Aoki. Patent Licensing with Spillovers[J]. Economics Letters,2001,73(1):125-130
[7]Arbia et al. Does spatial concentration foster economic growth? Empirical evidence on EU regions[J]. Conference paper of First Seminar of Spatial Econometrics, 2004,12:136-175
[8]Audretsch and Stephan.Company Scientist Locational Links:the Case ofBiotechnology[J].American Economic Review,1996,86:641-652
[9]Audretsch. R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production[J]. American Economic Review,1996,86:630-640
[10]Baldwin, R. and P. Martin. Agglomeration and regional growth[J]. In Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics:cities and geography.2003
[11]Beaudry C, Breschi S. Are firms in clusters really more innovative? [J]. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,2003,4:325-342
[12]Best. Cluster Dynamics, Ch.3 in:The New Competitive Advantage:The Renewal of American Industry[M].Oxford University Press.2001
[13]Bezold B. Technology clusters in St. Louis[J]. Economic Development Journal, 2004,2:50-53
[14]Bischi,Dawid & Kopel.Spillover effects and the evolution of firm clusters. [J].Journal of Economic Behavior and Organazation,2003,50:47-75
[15]Braunerhjelm P, Johansson D.The determinants of spatial concentration:the manufacturing and service sentors in an international perspective[J]. Industry and Innovation,2003,10:41-63
[16]Brett Anitra Gilbert, Patricia P. McDougall, David B. Audretsch. Clusters, knowledge spillovers and new venture performance:An empirical examination[J]. Journal of Business Venturing,2008,23:405-422
[17]Brian Uzzi. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks:the paradox of embeddedness [J]. Administrative science quarterly,1997,42:35-67
[18]Brian Uzzi. The source and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations:the network effect[J]. American sociological review, 1996,61:674-698
[19]Brulhart M. and F. Trionfetti. Public expenditure, international specialization and agglomeration[J]. European Economic Review,2006,48:851-881
[20]Bruno, Amable. Institutional Complementarity and Diversity of Social Systems of Innovation and Production[J].Review of International Political Economy,2000(7): 645-687
[21]Burt, Ron. Structural holes:the social structure of competition. Cambridge [M]. MA: Harvard University,1992
[22]Caniels. Knowledge Spillovers and Economic Growth:Regional Growth Differentials across Europe[J]. Cheltenham and Northampton,MA:Edward.Elgar. 2000
[23]Chang-Yang Lee. Do firms in clusters invest in R&D more intensively? Theory and evidence from muluti-country data[J]. Research Policy,2009,38:1159-1171
[24]Christian R. Ostergaard. Knowledge flows through social networks in a cluster: Comparing university and industry links[J]. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,2009,20:196-210
[25]Christopher D. Rosin, Richard K. Belew. New methods for competitive coevolution[J]. Evolutionary Computation,1997,5 (1):1-29
[26]Chuan-Kai Lee. How does a cluster relocate across the border? The case of information technology cluster in the Taiwan-Suzhou region [J]. Technological Forecasting&Social Change,2009,76:371-381
[27]Coe and Helpman. International R&D Spillovers[J]. European Economic Review,1995,39:859-887
[28]Commons. Institutional Economics. Madison:University of Wisconsin Press,1934
[29]Cowan, R., David, P.A., Foray, D..The explicit economics of knowledge: codification and tacitness[J].Ind Corp Change,2000,9 (2):211-253
[30]Daniel Scholten MSc.The role of coherence in the coevolution between institutions and technologies[J]. Working Paper,2009,12
[31]Devereux M P, Griffith R, Simpson H.The geographic distribution of production activity in UK[J].Regional Science and Urban Economics,2004,34:533-564
[32]Dijk M. Government policies with respect to an information technology cluster in Bangalore, India[J]. Europe Journal of Development Research,2003,2:93-108
[33]Dong-Won Sohn, Martin Kenney. Universities, clusters and innovation systems:the case of Seoul, Korea [J]. World Development 2007,35(6):991-1004
[34]Douglas K.R.Robinson, Arie Rip, Vincent Mangematin. Techonological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechonology[J]. Research Policy,2007,36:871-879
[35]Douglass C. North. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance[M]. Cambridge University Press,1990
[36]Edward L. Glaeser. Growth in Cities [J].Journal of Political Economy,1992,100(6): 1126-1152
[37]Effie Kesidou, Henny Romijn. Do local knowledge spillovers matter for development? A empirical study of Uruguay's software cluster[J]. World Development,2008,36(10):2004-2028
[38]Ellision G, Glaeser E. L. Geographic Concentration in U.S. Manufacturing Industries:A Dartboard Approach[J].Joural of Political Economy,1998,105(5): 899-927
[39]Emilio J. Castilla. Social networks in silicion valley [R].2000
[40]Fallah and Ibrahim.Knowledge Spillover and Innovation in Technological Clusters. http://www.stevens.edu.2004
[41]Feldman, M.P. Geography and Regional Economic Development:The Role of Technology-Based Small and Medium Sized Firms[J]. Small Business Economics, 1996(8):71-74
[42]Feldman.The Geography of Innovation[M].Dordrecht:Kluwer,1994
[43]Felsenstein D. Do high technology agglomerations encourage urban sprawl? [J]. The Annals of Regional Science,2002,4:663-682
[44]Fischer and Varga.Spatial Knowledge Spillovers and University Research:Evidence from Austria[J]. Annals of Regional Science,2003,37(2):303-322
[45]Gerben Van der Panne. Agglomeration externalities:Marshall versus Jacobs[J]. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,2004,14:593-604
[46]Gordon I R, McCann P, Industrial clusters:complexes, agglomeration and/or social networks? [J].Urban Studies,2000,37:513-532
[47]Greif. Contract Enforceability and Economic Institutions in Early Trade:the Maghribi Traders'Coalition[J]. American Economic Review,1993,83(3):525-548
[48]Griliches,Z. The Research for R&D Spillovers[J]. Scandinavian Journal of Economics,1992,94:29-47
[49]Guangcai Sun. The qualitative analysis of symbiosis model of two populations [J]. Mathematical theory and applications,2003,23(3):64-69
[50]Haland J,Kind H, Midelfart-Knarvik K,et al.What determines the economic geography of Europe[J]. CEPR Discution Paper,1999,No.2072
[51]Hanson G H.North American economic integration and industry location[J]. Oxford Review of Economic Policy,1998,14:30-44
[52]Head, Ries and Swenson.Agglomeration Benefits and Location Choice:Evidence from Japanese Manufacturing Investments in the United States [J]. Journal of International Economics,1995,38:223-247
[53]Hendry C, Brown J. Organizational networking in UK biotechnology clusters[J]. British Journal of Management,2006(1):55-73
[54]Hirschman, A.O. The Strategy of Economic Development[M]. New York:Free Press.1958
[55]Hoover E M. Location Theory and the Shoe and Leather Industries[M]. Cambridge MA:Harvard University Press,1937
[56]Houstein H.D. and Neuwirth E. Long Waves in World Industrial Production, Energy Consumption, Innovations Inventions, and Patents and Their Identification by Spectral Analysis [J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,1982,22:53-89
[57]Howells. Tacit Knowledge, Innovation and Economic Geography[J]. Urban Studies, 2002,39(5):871-884
[58]Hsien-Chun Meng. Innovation Clusters as the National Competitiveness Tool in the Innovation Drivern Economy[J]. NIS International Symposisium,2003,28:121-150
[59]Jacobs J. The Economy of Cities[M].New York:Random House,1969
[60]Jaffe A B. Real affects of academic research[J].American Economics Review, 1989,79:957-970
[61]Jaffe and Trajtenberg. International Knowledge Flows:Evidence from Patent Citations[J].Economics of Innovation and New Technology,1999,8:105-136
[62]Jaffe, Trajtenberg and Henderson. Geographic Localization and Knowledge Spillovers as Evidencde by Patent Citations[J].Quarterly Journal of Economics,1993,108:577-598
[63]Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh & Giorgos Kallis. Evolutionary policy [J].Papers on Economics&Evolution,2009,5:1-42
[64]John C, Pouder R. Technology clusters versus industry clusters:resources, networks, and regional advantages[J]. Growth & Change,2006,2:141-171
[65]Knudsen, T.. Economic selection theory[J]. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 2002,12:443-470
[66]Kongraf Lee. Promoting Innovative Clusters Through the Regional Research Center(RRC) Policy Programme in the Korea[J].European Planning Studies,2003,11(1)
[67]Krugman P. Geography and Trade[M].Cambridge (USA):MIT Press,1991
[68]Krugman P. Increasing Returns and Economic Geography [J].Journal of Political Economy,1991,99:483-499
[69]Krugman P and Venables A. Lobalization and the Inequality of Nations [J].The Quarterly Journal of Economics,1995, CX:857-880
[70]Kun Chen and Martin Kenney. Universities/Research Institute and Regional Innovation Systems:The Case of Beijing and Shenzhen[J]. World Development, 2007,35(6):1056-1074
[71]Marina van Geenhuizen and Leonardo Reyes-Gonzalez. Does a Clustered Location Matter for High-technology Companies Performance? The Case of Biotechnology in the Netherlands[J]. Technological Forecasting & Social Change,2007,74:1681-1696
[72]Manfred Fischer and Attila Varga. Spatial knowledge spillovers and university research:Evidence from Austria[M].Ann Reg Sci,2003,37:303-322
[73]Marshall A. Principles of Economics:An Introductory[M]. London:Macmillan,1890
[74]Marshall. Alfred. Principles of economics [M].(9th Edition)Variorum, London Macmillan,1961:32-39
[75]Martin, P. and C. Rogers. Industrial location and public infrastructure [J]. Journal of International Economics,1995,39:335-351
[76]Martin, P. Can Regional Policies Affect Growth and Geography in Europe? [J]. World Economy,1998,6:757-774
[77]Martin, P. Public Policies, Regional Inequalities and Growth[J]. Journal of Public Economics,1999,73:85-105
[78]Maryann Feldman, Johanna Francis and Janet Bercovitz. Creating a Cluster While Building a Firm:Entrepreneurs and the Formation of Industrial Clusters[J].Regional Studies,2005,39(1):129-141
[79]Murmann, J.P.. Knowledge and Competitive Advantage:The Coevolution of Firms, Technology and National Institutions[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2003 (2006,2ed)
[80]Paci R and Usai S. Externalities, Knowledge Spillovers and the Spatial distribution of Innovation[J].GeoJournal,1999,49:381-390
[81]Park.International R&D Spillovers and OECD Economic Growth[J]. Journal of Urban Economics,1997,42:422-448
[82]Persson and Tabellini. The Economic Effects of Constitutions:What do the Data Say?[J].MIT Press, Cambridge,2003
[83]Philippe Martin, Gianmarco, Ottaviano. Growing Locations:Industry Location in a Model of Endogenous Growth[J]. European Economic Review,1999,43:281-302
[84]Polanyi,M. Tacit Knowing[J].Review of Mordern Physics,1962,34:601-616
[85]Porter M, The Competitive Advantage of Nations, New York:Free Press,1990
[86]Porter,M.E.Location,Competition and Economic Development:Local Clusters in a Global Economy [J].Economic Development Quarterly,2000,14(1)
[87]Porter. Michael E. Competitive Strategy [M]. New York:The Free Press, 1999:165-178
[88]Pouder, R. and St. John,C.H. Geographical clusters of firms and innovation[J]. The Academy of Management Review,2003,21(4):192-225
[89]Rees K. International Collaboration and Innovation in Vancouver's Emerging High-tech Cluster[J]. Journal of Economic & Social Geography,2005,3:298-312
[90]Rosenthal S, Strange C, Evidence on the Nature and Sources of Agglomeration Economics, In:Handbook of Urban and Regional Economics,2003,4
[91]Rosenthal S and Strange W.The determinants of agglomeration [J].Journal of Urban Economics,2001,50:191-229
[92]Saxenian, A. Regional Advantage:Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128[M]. Harvard University Press,1994
[93]Saxenian. A Regional Advantage:Culture and Competition in Silicon and Route 128[M].Harvard University Press. Cambridge,MA.1994
[94]Scott A, Industrial Organization and Location:Division of Labor, the Firm and Spatial Process [J]. Economic Geography,1986,63:215-231
[95]Shantha Liyanage. Breeding Innovation Clusters Through Collaborative Research Networks[J].Technovation,2005:15(9)
[96]Sjoberg O, Sjoholm F, Trade Liberalization and the Geography of Production: Agglomeration, Concentration and Dispersal in Indonesia's Manufacturing Industry [J].Economic Geography,2004,80:287-310
[97]Solomous. Innovation Clusters and Kondratieff long Waves in Economic Growth [J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics,1986,10:101-112
[98]Sorenson O, Audia P G.The social structure of entrepreneurial activity:geographic concentration of footwear production in the United States,1940-1989 [J]. AJS,2000,106:424-462
[99]Steven Casper. How do Technology Clusters Emerge and Become Sustainable? Social Network Formation and Inter-firm Mobility within the San Diego Biotechnology Cluster [J]. Research Policy,2007,36:438-455
[100]Steven Klepper. The Origin and Growth of Industry Clusters:The Making of Silicon Valley and Detroit [J]. Journal of Urban Economics,2009,9:1-18
[101]Sturgeon T. What Really goes on in Silicon Valley? Spatial Clustering and Dispersal in Modular Production Networks[J]. Journal of Economic Geography,2003,2: 199-225
[102]Swann.A Comparison of the Dynamics of Industrial Clustering in Computing and Biotechnology[J]. Research Policy,1996,25(7):1139-1157
[103]Tichy. Clusters:Less Dispensable and More Risky than Ever, Clusters and Regional Specialisation[M].Published by Pion Limited,207 Brondesbury Park, London NW25JM,1998
[104]Tropeano J.P..Information Symmetry as a Source of Spatial Agglomeration[J]. Economics Letters,2001,6:73-81
[105]Van Ort F. Innovation and Agglomeration Economies in the Netherlands[J]. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geograe,2002,93(3):344-360
[106]Veblen. Preconceptions of Economic Science[J].Quart Journal of Economics,1899, 13:396-426
[107]Venables A, Equilibrium location of vertically linked industries [J]. International Economic Review,1996,37:341-359
[108]Volberda, H.W and Lewin, A.Y. Co-evolutionary Dynamics Within and Between Firms:From Evolution to Co-evolution[J]. Journal of Management Studies,2003,40:8
[109]Wallsten S. High-tech cluster Bombs[J]. Nature,2004,69:121-122
[110]Webber M J. The Impact of Uncertainty of Location[M].Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press,1972
[111]Weilin Zhao, Chihiro Watanabe and Charla Griffy-Brown. Competitive Advantage in an Industry Cluster:The Case of Dalian Software Park in China[J]. Technology in Society,2009,31:139-149
[112]Wolfe D A and Gertler M S. Policies for Cluster Creation:Lessons from the ISRN Research Initiative[Z]. Toronto:University of Toronto, The Conferrence on Innovation Systems Research Network,2002
[113]Yamamoto K. Agglomeration and Growth with Innovation in the Intermediate Goods Sector[J]. Regional Science and Urban Economics,2003,33:335-360
[114]Yoshiyuki Takeda, Yuya Kajikawa and Ichiro Sakata, Katsumori Matsushima. An Analysis of Geographical Agglomeration and Modularized Industrial Networks in a Regional Cluster:A Case Study at Yamagata Prefecture in Japan [J]. Technovation, 2008,28:531-539
[115]Zhang J. Growing Silicon Valley on a Landscape:an Agent-based Approach to High-tech Industrial Clusters[J]. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,2003,5: 529-548
[116]Zucker and Darby. Star Scientists and Institutional Transformation:Patterns of Invention and Innovation in the Formation of the Biotechnology Industry[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science,1996,93:12709-12716
[117]阿兰·斯密德著.刘璨,吴水荣译.制度与行为经济学[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004
[118]巴泽尔.产业集群研究的新视角[J].世界地理研究,2005(3)：1-8
[119]白义霞.我国产业集群兴起与发展的理论研究——基于制度变迁、社会资本的分析[J].技术经济与管理研究,2008(2)：114-116
[120]蔡宁,杨闩柱.企业集群竞争优势的演进：从“聚集经济”到“创新网络”[J].科研管理,2004(4)：104-109
[121]陈国宏等.基于CA的产业集群生命周期模拟分析[J].中国管理科学,2008(10)：397-403
[122]陈柳钦,黄坡.产业集群成长的制度原因、绩效、风险和创新分析[J].学习与实践,2007(1)：34-43
[123]陈柳钦.高新技术产业发展的制度环境分析[J].科技与经济,2007(4)：3-6
[124]陈颖,李强.我国高新区产业集聚测度方法研究[J].科学学研究,2007(25)：11-15
[125]丹尼尔·W.布罗姆利著.陈郁等译.经济利益与经济制度——公共政策的理论基础[M].上海：上海三联书店,上海人民出版社,2006
[126]丹尼斯·卡尔顿,杰弗里·佩罗夫著.黄亚钧等译.现代产业组织(上下册)[M].上海：上海三联书店、上海人民出版社,1998
[127]单豪杰,沈坤荣.制度与增长：文献综述及中国的经验[J].工作论文
[128]单元媛,赵玉林.德国高技术产业发展的集聚效应及其启示[J].特区经济,2007(4)：89-92
[129]道格拉斯.诺思.制度、制度变迁与经济绩效[M].格致出版社,上海三联书店.2004
[130]邓丽君.我国高技术产业空间集聚及其影响因素分析[D].硕士学位论文,合肥工业大学,2006
[131]丁伟等.基于地域化与全球化双向互动的产业集群发展与升级[J].科学学研究,2005(12)：779-782
[132]多纳德·海,德理克·莫瑞斯.产业经济学与组织(上、下)[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2001
[133]范丽娜.中国内地专利的空间分布及其影响因素分析[J].北京师范大学学报,2005(2)：138—145
[134]樊纲、王小鲁,朱恒鹏.《中国市场化指数——各地区市场化相对进程2009年报告》[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2010
[135]盖文启等.国际典型高技术产业集群的比较分析与经验启示[J].中国软科学,2004(2)：102-108
[136]同崎哲二著.何平译.经济发展中的制度与组织[M].北京：中信出版社,2010年6月
[137]顾慧君,王文平.产业集群与社会网络的协同演化[J].经济问题探索,2007(4)：103-106
[138]韩宇.美国高技术城市研究[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2009(11)：20-27
[139]贺灿飞.中国制造业地理集中与集聚[M].北京：科学出版社,2009
[140]胡汉辉,汪朗峰.我国高技术产业和制造业种群演化规律的生态研究[J].科学学研究,2009,27,(10)：1523-1527
[141]胡珑瑛,叶元煦.高技术产业集群的动因分析[J].技术经济,2002(8)：50-52
[142]黄凯南.共同演化理论述评[J].中国地质大学学报(社科版),2008,8(4)：97-101
[143]霍丽,惠宁.制度优势与产业集群的形成[J].经济学家,2007(4)：71-75
[144]姜启源.数学模型[M].北京：高等教育出版社,1998
[145]姜锡东.科学技术资源的转化过程与地理分布研究[D].博士学位论文,东北师范大学,2004
[146]蒋金荷.我国高技术产业同构性与集聚的实证分析[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2005(12)：91-98
[147]蒋学伟.持续竞争优势[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2002
[148]蒋昭侠.产业结构问题研究[M].北京：中国经济出版社,2005
[149]金祥荣,叶建亮.知识溢出与企业网络组织的溢出效应[J].数量经济与技术经济 研究,2001(10)
[150]靳辉.高技术产业集聚[D].西北大学,2006
[151]李大元,项保华.组织与环境共同演化理论研究述评[J].外国经济与管理,2007(11)：9-17
[152]李建德,程芸.经济与文化的协同演化[J].经济管理,2007(14)： 9-12
[153]李俊杰.大学推动高技术产业集群发展的区域比较研究[J].特区经济,2009(4)：298-300
[154]李琳.高新技术产业集群中的知识流动分析框架[J].科技管理研究,2006(6)：90-93
[155]李强,韩伯棠.我国高新区产业集聚测度体系研究[J].中国管理科学,2007(8)：130-137
[156]李拓晨.中国高新技术产业竞争力研究[M].北京：知识产权出版社,2009
[157]李新.经济转型中的制度移植与非正式制度约束[J].财经研究,2008(9)：38-48
[158]李永刚.中小企业群落式生成演化研究的文献综述[J].上海经济研究,2004(8)
[159]李勇等.企业集群竞争协同演进模型研究[J].科技管理研究,2007(6)：208-211
[160]林竞君.网络、嵌入性与集群生命周期研究[D].博士学位论文,复旦大学,2005
[161]梁琦.分工、集聚与增长[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009
[162]梁琦.中国工业的区位基尼系数：兼论外商直接投资对制造业集聚的影响[J].统计研究,2003(9)：21—25
[163]梁琦,詹亦军.地方专业化、技术进步和产业升级：来自长三角的证据[J].经济理论与经济管理,2006(1)：56-62
[164]梁琦.产业集聚论[M].北京：商务印书馆,2004
[165]梁晓艳等.我国高技术产业的空间聚集现象研究——基于省际高技术产业产值的空间计量分析[J].科学学研究,2007(6)：453-460
[166]刘斌.产业集聚竞争优势的经济分析[M].北京：中国发展出版社,2004
[167]刘冰,高闯.组织信息体制、制度化关联与高技术企业集群治理效率[J].中国工业经济,2006(3)：21-28
[168]刘恒江,陈继祥.国外产业集群政策研究综述[J].外国经济与管理,2004,(11)：36-43
[169]刘恒江,陈继祥.基于动力机制的我国产业集群发展研究[J].经济地理,2005(5)：607-611
[170]刘力,程华强.产业集群生命周期演化的动力机制研究[J].上海经济研究,2006(6)：63-69
[171]刘少杰,姚伟.论企业集群的网络、制度结构与双重绩效[J].财经研究,2007(3)：62-66
[172]刘筱等.政府在高技术产业集群中的作用——以深圳为例[J].科研管理,2006,27(4)：36-43
[173]刘志高,王缉慈.共同演化及其空间隐喻[J].中国地质大学学报(社科版),2008(4)：85-91
[174]刘志高,尹贻梅.经济地理学与经济学关系的历史考察[J].经济地理,2006(5)：353-358
[175]刘志迎等著.高新技术及其产业的十大特性[M].深圳：海天出版社,2002
[176]芦彩梅,梁嘉骅.产业集群协同演化模型及案例分析——以中山小榄镇五金集群为例[J].中国软科学,2009(2)：142-151
[177]陆芳.制度分割、产业集群和加快我国高新技术产业集群发展的建议[J].经济纵横,2005(8)：56-58
[178]罗勇.中国制造业集聚程度变动趋势实证研究[J].经济研究,2005(8)：106-115
[179]骆建文等.政府采购促进高技术产业自主创新策略研究[J].科技管理研究,2009(7)：17-19
[180]迈克尔·波特.国家竞争优势[M].北京：华夏出版社,2002
[181]毛军.人力资本与高技术产业集聚——以京津、长三角、珠三角为例的分析[J].北京社会科学,2006(5)：82-86
[182]毛宽等.知识溢出与高技术产业集群的演化——以上海市张江高科园区IC产业集群为例[J].改革与战略,2008(6)：25-28
[183]纳尔逊.温特.胡世凯译.经济变迁的演化理论[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997
[184]倪钢.技术结构概念的观点评析与解释[J].科学技术与辩证法,2005(4)：68-70
[185]潘慧明.产业集群创新研究[J].武汉科技学院学报,2006(5)：25-28
[186]潘雄锋等.中国区域高技术产业竞争力的时空演化特征分析[J].科学学研究,2009(1)：52-58
[187]庞之栋.产业集群生命周期分析[J].现代管理科学,2007(8)：87-88
[188]彭澎,蔡莉.基于协同学理论的高技术产业集群生成主要影响因素研究[J].山东大学学报,2007(1)：72-78
[189]彭澎,刘倩.政府扶持型高技术产业集群生成分析[J].山东社会科学,2006(11)：116-119
[190]彭中文,颜长春.人力资本、R&D溢出与高技术产业聚集[J].科技管理研究,2007(3)：147-148
[191]荣健,刘西林.基于网络特性分析的产业集群生命周期研究[J].情报杂志,2006,(5)：100-102
[192]阮平南,王晓琦.产业集群生命周期演化机理研究[J].煤炭经济研究,2008(4)：37-40
[193]沈宁宁等.世界高技术产业发展模式及其对我国的启示[J].生产力研究,2009(2)：117-121
[194]盛昭翰,蒋德鹏.演化经济学[M].上海：上海三联书店,2002
[195]史丹,李晓斌.高技术产业发展的影响因素及其数据检验[J].中国工业经济,2004(12)：32-39
[196]疏礼兵.组织知识、知识分类和知识特性[J].情报杂志,2008(1)：76-79
[197]隋广军,申明浩.产业集群生命周期演进的动态分析[J].经济学动态,2004(11)：23-27
[198]孙静娟,戴忻.对中国高技术产业发展评价分析[J].特区经济,2007(12)：32-34
[199]孙静娟等.对我国高技术产业统计界定的思考[J].统计与决策,2008(4)：4-6
[200]孙晓华,张国峰.基于“三重螺旋”模型产业集聚能力的培育途径[J],科技进步与对策,2008(7)：82-85
[201]谭小平,林东泓.区域创新推动产业集群升级——以东莞为例[J].江苏商论,2009(2)：150-152
[202]唐根年,徐维祥.中国高技术产业成长的时空演变特征及其空间布局研究[J].经济地理,2004(5)：604-608
[203]唐华.高技术产业集群创新系统的构建[J].财经科学,2004(6)：70-73
[204]唐凯江.基于产业集群生命周期的政府分层定位[J].经济问题探索,2008(11)：1-7
[205]汪丁丁.知识沿时间和空间的互补性以及相关的经济学[J].经济研究,1997(6)：70-78
[206]汪芳.高技术产业区域集聚模式及动因[J].商业时代,2008(10)：93-94
[207]王奋.中国科技人力资源区域集聚的理论与实证研究[M].北京：北京理工大学出 版社,2008
[208]王国锋.我国高技术产业发展现状、问题及其发展思路[J].中国科技论坛,2005(5)：8-12
[209]王宏起,王雪原.基于高新技术产业集群生命周期的科技计划支持策略[J].科研管理,2008,29(3)：53-59
[210]王立平.我国高校R&D知识溢出的实证研究——以高技术产业为例[J].中国软科学,2005(12)：54-59
[211]王珊珊.高新技术企业集群综合优势研究[D].博士学位论文,哈尔滨工业大学,2008
[212]王晓婧.我国各省(市、自治区)高技术产业发展水平因子分析与综合评价[J].数学的实践与认识,2007(9)：17-28
[213]王业强,魏后凯.产业特征、空间竞争与制造业地理集中[J].管理世界,2007(4)：68-77
[214]王铮等.高技术产业聚集区形成的区位因子分析[J].地理学报,2006(4)：567-576
[215]王铮等.高技术产业空间格局演变规律及相关因素分析[J].科学学研究,2006(2)：227-232
[216]王子龙等.高技术产业集聚水平测度方法及实证研究[J].科学学研究,2006(5)：706-714
[217]王子龙等.区域企业集群共生模型及演化机制研究[J].南京航空航天大学学报(社科版),2006(1)：30-34
[218]魏剑锋.搜寻成本、制度安排与产业集群的形成机制[J].产业经济研究,2010(1)：24-31
[219]魏江,朱海燕.高技术产业集群创新过程模式演化及发展研究——以杭州软件产业集为例[J].研究与发展管理,2006(6)：116-122
[220]魏守华.集群竞争力的动力机制以及实证分析[J].中国工业经济,2002(10)：27-34
[221]魏心镇,王缉慈.新的产业空间[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1993：25-35
[222]文玫.中国工业在区域上的重新定位和聚集[J].经济研究,2004(2)：84-94
[223]吴敬琏.发展中国高新技术产业制度重于技术[M].北京：中国发展出版社,2002
[224]武健.知识溢出对高技术企业集群集聚效应的影响研究——以杭州软件企业集群为例[J].特区经济,2009(4)：56-58
[225]武星星,苗维亚.我国高技术产业特征分析[J].科学学研究,2006(8)：115-119
[226]谢伟.技术和技术结构[J].科学管理研究,2000,18(5)：34-39
[227]徐建国.科技集聚区的界定及其战略意义[J].科技进步与对策,2005(4)：166-168
[228]徐维祥等.高技术产业集群资源整合提升区域创新系统竞争能力的对策研究[J].中国软科学,2005(4)：87-90
[229]徐现祥,李郇.中国省区经济差距的内生制度根源[J].经济学季刊,2005(10)：83-99
[230]薛白.区位决策视角下的集群生命周期分析[J].产业经济研究,2007(3)：44-50
[231]杨蕙馨,刘春玉.知识溢出效应与企业集聚定位决策[J].中国工业经济,2005(12)：41-48
[232]杨文举.适宜技术观演变的文献述评[J].科技进步与对策,2008(4)：197-200
[233]杨友才.引入制度因素的经济增长模型与实证研究[D].博士学位论文,山东大学,2009
[234]叶建亮.知识溢出与企业集群[J].经济科学,2001(3)：35-41
[235]殷广卫.新经济地理学视角下的产业集聚机制研究[D].博士学位论文,南开大学,2008
[236]尹建华,苏敬勤.高新技术产业集群化与协同管理研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2002(9)：13-16
[237]约瑟夫.阿罗斯.熊彼特.经济发展理论[M].北京：商务印书馆,1990
[238]翟慧娟,张梅青.高科技产业集群问题研究[J].内蒙古科技与经济,2004(3)：6-7
[239]张东志,杜伟锦.基于集群生命周期的产业集群技术创新扩散探析[J].商业研究,2008(11)：54-57
[240]张明龙,官仲章.产业集群突破生命周期拐点的关键[J].开发研究,2008,(6)：105-108
[241]张明倩.中国产业集聚现象统计模型及应用研究[M].北京：中国标准出版社,2007
[242]张昕,李廉水.生产地区性集中、知识溢出与我国创新的空间分布——以电子及通讯设备制造业为例[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2007(9)
[243]张涌,陈雪梅.基于制度视角产业集群的形成机理分析[J].暨南学报,2008(2)：36-40
[244]张嵎喆.2008年高技术产业回顾与展望[J].中国科技投资,2009(3)：61-63
[245]张志文.区域创新文化促进高技术产业集群发展机理研究[J].科技进步与对策,2009(7)：23-26
[246]章华.演化均衡与制度演化[J].浙江社会科学,2004(3)：85-90
[247]章华,金雪军.制度演化分析的两种范式比较——新制度经济学与演化经济学评析[J].经济学家,2005(5)：11-17
[248]赵夫增,穆荣平.全球价值链中落后国家的产业集群生命周期研究[J].中国科技论坛,2007(12)：55-59
[249]赵凯.演化经济学的结构-过程分析法及其启示[J].学术研究,2005(2)：44-48
[250]赵勇,白永秀.知识溢出：一个文献综述[J].经济研究,2009(1)：144-156
[251]赵玉林,李文超.主导性高技术产业成长的系统动力学研究[J].经济问题探索,2009(5)：65-72
[252]赵玉林,魏芳.高技术产业系统形成和演化机制研究[J].商业时代,2007(26)：92-93
[253]赵玉林.高技术产业经济学[M].北京：中国经济出版社,2004：4-5
[254]郑宏星.国外产业集群文献评论：制度的视角[J].沈阳师范大学学报,2008(3)：5-8
[255]郑凌云.产业集聚与高技术园区发展[J].中国科技论坛,2003(1)：57-59
[256]郑燕伟,朱晓玫.制度变迁与浙江产业集群发展[J].浙江经济,2009(19)：22-23
[257]周冰,靳涛.青木昌彦的制度观与制度演化的进化博弈思想评析[J].江苏社会科学,2004(3)：59-65
[258]周浩.企业集群的共生演化模型及稳定性分析[J].系统工程,2003(4)：32-37
[259]周寄中等.设计高技术产业集群[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2003(6)：44-47
[260]朱静芬,史占中.我国高科技园区企业集群发展模式探析[J].中国科技论坛,2003(6)：13-15
[261]朱启才.非正式制度、市场秩序优化与经济稳定增长[J].云南财贸学院学报,2006(4)： 4-10
[262]朱秀梅,蔡莉.基于高技术产业集群的社会资本对知识溢出影响的实证研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2007(4)：117-121
[263]朱有为,徐康宁.研发资本累积对生产率增长的影响——对中国高技术产业的检验(1996-2004)[J].中国软科学,2007(4)：57-66