Spatial Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Intercity Innovative Competition Relations in China.

In the knowledge economy era, innovation has become a key emphasis for urban competitions. This paper constructs a theoretical research framework that integrates the basic understandings, influencing factors and ensuing results of intercity innovative competition relations. On the basis of data from the general programs of the National Natural Science Foundation of China from 2005 to 2019, this paper constructs intercity innovative competition relations in China, analyses their spatial distribution and quantitative characteristics, and quantitatively investigates the impact of urban innovation capacity and multidimensional proximity (e.g., geographical proximity, institutional proximity and cognitive proximity) on intercity innovative competition relations through a negative binomial model. The study obtained the following findings: (1) In terms of the overall intercity innovative competition relations, the intensity of China's intercity innovative competition relations gradually increased from 2005 to 2019, with a spatial clustering towards cities with high administrative ranks (e.g., municipalities directly under the central government, sub-provincial cities and provincial capitals); Beijing is always at the centre of innovative competition relations, but its standing has slightly slipped in recent years. (2) From the perspective of disciplines, cities can become benchmarks in particular fields of innovative competitions by competing according to their disciplinary strengths; intercity innovative competition relations in China vary across various academic disciplines. (3) In terms of influencing factors, urban innovation capacity has significant positive effects on intercity innovative competition relations; geographical proximity, institutional proximity and cognitive proximity all have significant positive effects on innovative competition relations; and interactions occur between multidimensional proximities, including a complementary effect between geographical proximity and institutional proximity, a substitutive effect between cognitive proximity and geographical proximity, and a substitutive effect between cognitive proximity and institutional proximity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]