4.6 Article

The Impact of Government Competition on Regional R&D Efficiency: Does Legal Environment Matter in China's Innovation System?

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 10, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su10124401

关键词

government competition; R&D Efficiency; legal environment; spatial spillover

资金

  1. China Postdoctoral Foundation [2015M582683]
  2. Shaanxi Province Soft Science Research Key Project [2018KRZ013]
  3. Shaanxi University of Science and Technology Doctor Launch Fund Project [BJ15-08]
  4. Self-Optional Project of Shaanxi University of Science and Technology [ZX14-06]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Local governments are encouraged to compete in R&D investments and activities in China's innovation system. We aim to understand the influence of government competition on regional R&D efficiency. We are also interested in examining how the attributes of legal environment act as a moderating variable for the relationship between government competition and R&D efficiency. We developed Tobit spatial models with spatial panel data of 30 provinces of China in 2008-2016. The results show that: (1) There exists spatial dependence of R&D efficiency, and the regions with high efficiency have spillover effect on the surrounding areas. (2) Government competition has a significant promoting effect on R&D efficiency and/or R&D efficiency spillover. Specifically, government competition has both R&D efficiency promotion and R&D efficiency spillover promotion in Eastern China, only R&D efficiency positive spillover promotion in Middle-area and R&D efficiency promotion but negative spillover in Western China. (3) The impact of government competition on efficiency is affected by the legal environment, and the promotion effect of government competition only exists in good legal environment. The results of this study reveal an important way to improve R&D efficiency by establishing a new R&D competition mechanism for local government which is oriented by efficiency and ruled by the legal environment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据