Different arguments on the relationship between railway construction and economic development exist in literature. As the railway construction of Henan in the period of late Qing Dynasty （1644-1911） and early Republ...Different arguments on the relationship between railway construction and economic development exist in literature. As the railway construction of Henan in the period of late Qing Dynasty （1644-1911） and early Republic of China （1912-1949）provides a nearly natural experiment to throw new light on this topic, this paper creates county-level panel data for this period and conducts a further test with a difference-in-difference strategy. While the effect of railway is demonstrated to be positive in some literature yet negative in others, this paper identifies some major intergroup differences： railway lines put into service after the 1910s and connecting central cities promoted population growth in regions along the railway lines, enhanced their capaci（v to cope with external market shocks, yet they did not improve integration with the intra-provincial market. By contrast, the railway lines put into operation in the 1930s and connecting hinterland areas not only improved regional market integration but contributed to higher living standards as well. The implication is that the effects of railway are subject to the economic relations of various localities along the railway lines and the economic attributes of various sectors, thus railways cannot be generally defined to be positive or negative. This conclusion helps explain the disagreements in empirical studies and highlight the impact of railways on the regional economic structure.展开更多
文摘Different arguments on the relationship between railway construction and economic development exist in literature. As the railway construction of Henan in the period of late Qing Dynasty （1644-1911） and early Republic of China （1912-1949）provides a nearly natural experiment to throw new light on this topic, this paper creates county-level panel data for this period and conducts a further test with a difference-in-difference strategy. While the effect of railway is demonstrated to be positive in some literature yet negative in others, this paper identifies some major intergroup differences： railway lines put into service after the 1910s and connecting central cities promoted population growth in regions along the railway lines, enhanced their capaci（v to cope with external market shocks, yet they did not improve integration with the intra-provincial market. By contrast, the railway lines put into operation in the 1930s and connecting hinterland areas not only improved regional market integration but contributed to higher living standards as well. The implication is that the effects of railway are subject to the economic relations of various localities along the railway lines and the economic attributes of various sectors, thus railways cannot be generally defined to be positive or negative. This conclusion helps explain the disagreements in empirical studies and highlight the impact of railways on the regional economic structure.
