新质生产力形成中制造业新质化发展水平测度与时空演进

Measurement and Spatiotemporal Evolution of New Qualitative Development Level of Manufacturing during the Formation of New Quality Productivity

基于制造业新质化的理论逻辑,本文构建了一个包含制造业智能化、制造业绿色化、制造业创新化、制造业人本化、产业发展与安全、制度环境六个子系统的中国制造业新质化发展水平评价体系,测度分析了2013~2022年30个省份的制造业新质化发展水平、地区差异和时空演进规律。研究发现,制造业新质化发展水平综合指数和子系统指数整体呈上升趋势,综合指数仍处于较低水平。制造业新质化发展水平存在明显的地区差异,但差异程度较低,主要来源于地区间差异,且全域及各地区内差距趋于缩小。制造业新质化发展水平的动态演进具有稳定性、缓慢性和向上转移倾向。根据评价结果,为全面促进新质生产力形成中制造业新质化发展,需要因地制宜地制定措施,按照发展水平和时间演进趋势分类,走具有各地特色的制造业新质化道路,分门别类给予不同区域差异化政策强度。

New qualitative manufacturing is the formation of a new paradigm in manufacturing, guiding new normal science and objectively existing. As a new paradigm, new qualitative manufacturing has both historical and logical significance. It is a product of the fusion of hetero-organization and selforganization and possesses high robustness. The concept of new qualitative manufacturing refers to the comprehensive utilization of modern information technology, artificial intelligence, and other advanced technologies in the manufacturing industry. It involves the application of cutting-edge digital and intelligent technologies throughout the entire process of research and development(R&D), manufacturing, and marketing, achieving intelligent and automated production processes. This drives the advancement of foundational capabilities in the manufacturing sector, forming a new “techno-economic paradigm” in manufacturing and enhancing production efficiency and product quality. The scope of new qualitative manufacturing includes intelligent manufacturing, green manufacturing, innovative manufacturing, human-oriented manufacturing, industrial development and security, and institutional environment. New quality productivity and new relations of production, along with their interactions, deepen this paradigm.Based on the aforementioned connotations and characteristics, this article constructs an indicator system to reveal China's new qualitative development level of manufacturing, comprising six subsystemsintelligent manufacturing, green manufacturing, innovative manufacturing, human-oriented manufacturing, industrial development and security, and institutional environment. Using this evaluation system, 30 provinces in China were analyzed from 2013 to 2022, measuring and examining the development level, regional disparities, and spatiotemporal evolution of new qualitative manufacturing.The main findings are as follows:(1) From the perspective of the stylized facts, although the comprehensive index remains at a relatively low level, the comprehensive index and six subsystem indices of the development level of new qualitative manufacturing are on the rise steadily, significantly accelerating after the introduction of the “Made in China 2025” plan initiative in 2015. Most subsystem indices, except for the human-oriented manufacturing and institutional environment indices, are also on a steady rise.(2) Regarding regional disparities, there are significant regional differences in the development level of new qualitative manufacturing and primarily stem from inter-regional variations, although these differences are modest.(3) In terms of spatiotemporal evolution, the gap in the development level of new qualitative manufacturing across regions and within specific regions is narrowing. The dynamic evolution of the development level of new qualitative manufacturing is characterized by stability, graduality, and an upward transition tendency.Based on the evaluation results, to comprehensively enhance the development level of new qualitative manufacturing during the formation of new quality productivity, it is necessary to promote new qualitative manufacturing in accordance with local conditions. Regions should embark on distinct paths of new qualitative manufacturing and apply region-specific policy adjustments with differentiated intensity, guided by their development levels and spatiotemporal evolution trends. First, based on the characteristics of the subsystem measurement results, we should adhere to the “Made in China 2025” plan and focus on the core technology of intelligent transformation. Second, recognizing significant spatial disparities in the level of new qualitative manufacturing, we should categorize regions based on their development status and trends. Third, to fully unleash market vitality, the government must play a crucial role in top-level design, addressing distinct institutional deficiencies and demands across different economic zones with tailored policy interventions.