国家自主创新示范区中的地方政府合作治理

Intergovernmental collaborative governance in National Innovation Demonstration Zone

随着城市群的崛起和创新的扩散,城市群规模的创新系统开始不断涌现。由此,城市群中的地方政府如何围绕创新展开合作治理的问题也对区域创新等相关理论提出了新的挑战。对此,十余家国家自主创新示范区进行了极具现实意义和学术价值的独特中国实践。本文以府际协议为数据基础,结合合作网络分析和内容分析,尝试总结示范区中地方政府合作治理的模式及其特征。研究发现:地方政府之间基于合作规模、合作基础、上级介入和功能安排等,形成了行政型(NAO)、领导型(NLO)和共享型(SG)三类治理模式;基于不同的资源禀赋和创新条件,则存在着科技和产业两种不同的合作导向;而不同的合作模式亦在竞合关系、合作深度和密度等方面具有不同的优势和不足。国家自主创新示范区在地方政府合作治理方面的实践,丰富和拓展了既有的区域创新理论,而未来进一步促进创新一体化,则还需要平衡科技与产业,政策目标与政策工具,竞争与合作,以及功能与协作等四重张力。

With the rise of urban agglomerations and the diffusion of innovation, city cluster-scale innovation systems have recently emerged. As a result, how local governments achieve effective collaborative governance around innovation also poses new challenges to theories on regional innovation. A total of 12 National Innovation Demonstration Zones(NIDZs) have conducted unique Chinese practices of great relevance and academic value to those challenges. This paper attempts to summarize the model of intergovernmental collaborative governance and its characteristics in the NIDZs based on interlocal agreements, combined with collaborative network analysis and content analysis. It is found that three types of network governance models, Network Administration Organization(NAO), Network Lead Organization(NLO) and Shared Governance(SG), which have been formed among local governments based on the scale of collaboration, basis of collaboration, superior involvement and functional arrangement, etc. Based on different resource endowments and innovation conditions, there are two different collaboration orientations of science or industry. And different collaboration models have different advantages and shortcomings in terms of competition, depth and density of collaboration. Specifically, firstly, the NAO model has a medium number of collaborative participants, a deeper involvement at the upper level, a more equal rights pattern, and closer collaboration between them. In terms of structural function, the collaboration is synergized and precisely arranged through the involvement of the higher level government for each region. In terms of collaboration, collaboration is formed either based on science and technology or based on the planning of the industry, and although the higher government will encourage collaboration to avoid competition, various hidden competitions still exist in reality. Secondly, in the NLO model, the number of collaborative participants is high, and the collaborative network has obvious centralized characteristics and core-peripheral structure. In terms of structural functions, the involvement of higher-level governments is relatively weak, and the functional boundaries between regions are more vaguely defined. In terms of collaboration, the collaboration revolves around the diffusion of science or industrial centers, and there is a more obvious competition among them because of the more overlap between science and industry in each region. Finally, the NIDZs of the SG model are generally built by two high-tech zones, and their cooperation is a loose equal rights structure due to the differentiation of geographical distance and resource base. In terms of structural functions, the involvement and planning of higher-level governments still have some influence on the functional arrangements in the equal rights structure, but the degree of higher-level involvement is much less than in the NAO model. And in terms of collaboration, its equal rights tend to be based on different technological or industrial bases, and the competition in cooperation is the weakest. The practice of NIDZs in intergovernmental collaborative governance has enriched and expanded the existing regional innovation theory. And further promoting innovation integration in the future will also require balancing the following quadruple tension: Firstly, balance the tension between science and industry, and promote the flow and marketization of technology and other factors to achieve the arrangement and upgrading of industry. Secondly, balance the tension between policy goals and policy tools, and achieve policy goals through the renovation and combination of policy instruments in a better way. Thirdly, balance the tension between competition and collaboration, overcome hidden competition, and promote a healthy co-opetition relationship. Finally, balance the tension between function and coordination, avoid isolation between functions, and promote coordination between functions.