城市规模、人口结构与不可贸易品多样性——基于“大众点评网”的大数据分析
|
摘要
本文利用"大众点评网"2015年餐饮类商铺的信息,结合全国城市层面的人口与土地等数据,实证检验了城市规模和人口结构多样性对于一个城市的不可贸易品多样性的影响。本文发现,人口数量增加1%,菜品种类会增加0.528%—0.623%;而人口结构,即"流动人口"比重上升一个百分点,菜品种类会增加2.19%—2.49%。也就是说,"流动人口"不仅为城市带来了家乡的特色菜品,还促使城市创造了新的菜品。本文支持了有关城市规模和人口结构多样性对城市不可贸易品多样性的促进作用。在此基础上,本文用菜品多样性作为消费者福利的代理指标,在中国城市规模服从不同参数的对数正态分布的条件下,通过数值模拟估算出整体的福利变化情况,以及每一个城市的福利变化,结果显示限制大城市人口规模的政策意味着巨大的整体福利损失,尤其是对大城市的损害更大,但是对中小城市具有保护作用。
As one of the most representative traits of Chinese culture, Chinese cuisines are world famous and a reflection of soft power. However, the literature on the Chinese cuisine industry is significantly insufficient, and few papers have considered variety welfare across the whole country.We attempt to determine the distribution rule of non-tradable goods in China. Modern economics, especially new trade theory, pays more attention to the distribution rule, as preference for variety is a basic assumption of modern economic theory(Armington, 1969). Studies from Krugman until now have gradually determined that the scale economy, which comes from the agglomeration effect of supply, can increase the number of varieties in production and promote variety welfare(Krugman, 1979, 1980, 199 la; Broda & Weinstein, 2006). In contrast, the rule of consumption and non-tradable goods remain misunderstood.According to the urban economy, all location-based services or goods that are differentiated and patronized by consumers with a specific set of preferences can be regarded as non-tradable goods. Due to the two main characteristics of non-tradable good, including transport cost heterogeneity and low substitution, more scholars have recognized that varieties of non-tradable goods can better proxy for a city's non-tradable goods welfare than other indexes. In addition, scholars have determined that non-tradable goods are among the major sources of a city's amenities(Glaeser et al., 2001) and one of the most important factors attracting people to live in a city(Chen & Rosenthal, 2008; Lee, 2010). Therefore, it is important to study the distribution rule of non-tradable goods for urban development.China's huge population and unique population mobility pattern also motivate our research. The 12 th and 13 th Five-Year Plans insist that big cities should limit population inflow, which has made China's population uniquely fluid. Recent empirical work has shown that industrial composition varies systematically with population size(Mori et al., 2008; Mori & Smith, 2011; Hsu, 2012; Schiff, 2015). However, there is an extreme spatial mismatch between the economy and population that weakens the urban population agglomeration effect and scale economy effect(Lu, 2013). Thus, we research the potential loss of non-tradable goods variety welfare against the background of limiting population mobility policy.We acquire the cuisines data from Meituan-Dianping(dianping.com)There are two classification standards for cuisines, including categories and dishes, which can proxy for the varieties of a local city. Compared with other studies, ours makes three main contributions. First, we first use big data to proxy for the varieties of non-tradable goods in a Chinese city; second, we discuss the relationships between China's population size, population structure, and varieties of non-tradable goods; third, we estimate the loss of non-tradable goods variety welfare in a Chinese city under the population mobility restriction policy. We combine the cuisines data from dianping.com in 2015 and consider the sixth census and land data at the city level to empirically test the causal relationship between population size and structure and the variety welfare of non-tradable goods. We find that the elasticity of variety in terms of population is between 0.528 and 0.696, while that in terms of fluid population is between 2.19 and 3.56. That is, the "fluid population" not only serves as a special category for the city, but also encourages the city to create new categories.This paper supports the positive promoting effect of population scale and structure diversity on the variety welfare of non-tradable goods. Based on our estimation of the instrumental variables, we use varieties of non-tradable goods as welfare indicators through numerical simulations to estimate the potential losses of Chinese cities under different parameters of logarithmic normal distribution. The results show that the current limits on population mobility result in a huge variety welfare loss especially for big cities, but have a protective effect on small and medium-sized cities.
As one of the most representative traits of Chinese culture, Chinese cuisines are world famous and a reflection of soft power. However, the literature on the Chinese cuisine industry is significantly insufficient, and few papers have considered variety welfare across the whole country.We attempt to determine the distribution rule of non-tradable goods in China. Modern economics, especially new trade theory, pays more attention to the distribution rule, as preference for variety is a basic assumption of modern economic theory(Armington, 1969). Studies from Krugman until now have gradually determined that the scale economy, which comes from the agglomeration effect of supply, can increase the number of varieties in production and promote variety welfare(Krugman, 1979, 1980, 199 la; Broda & Weinstein, 2006). In contrast, the rule of consumption and non-tradable goods remain misunderstood.According to the urban economy, all location-based services or goods that are differentiated and patronized by consumers with a specific set of preferences can be regarded as non-tradable goods. Due to the two main characteristics of non-tradable good, including transport cost heterogeneity and low substitution, more scholars have recognized that varieties of non-tradable goods can better proxy for a city's non-tradable goods welfare than other indexes. In addition, scholars have determined that non-tradable goods are among the major sources of a city's amenities(Glaeser et al., 2001) and one of the most important factors attracting people to live in a city(Chen & Rosenthal, 2008; Lee, 2010). Therefore, it is important to study the distribution rule of non-tradable goods for urban development.China's huge population and unique population mobility pattern also motivate our research. The 12 th and 13 th Five-Year Plans insist that big cities should limit population inflow, which has made China's population uniquely fluid. Recent empirical work has shown that industrial composition varies systematically with population size(Mori et al., 2008; Mori & Smith, 2011; Hsu, 2012; Schiff, 2015). However, there is an extreme spatial mismatch between the economy and population that weakens the urban population agglomeration effect and scale economy effect(Lu, 2013). Thus, we research the potential loss of non-tradable goods variety welfare against the background of limiting population mobility policy.We acquire the cuisines data from Meituan-Dianping(dianping.com)There are two classification standards for cuisines, including categories and dishes, which can proxy for the varieties of a local city. Compared with other studies, ours makes three main contributions. First, we first use big data to proxy for the varieties of non-tradable goods in a Chinese city; second, we discuss the relationships between China's population size, population structure, and varieties of non-tradable goods; third, we estimate the loss of non-tradable goods variety welfare in a Chinese city under the population mobility restriction policy. We combine the cuisines data from dianping.com in 2015 and consider the sixth census and land data at the city level to empirically test the causal relationship between population size and structure and the variety welfare of non-tradable goods. We find that the elasticity of variety in terms of population is between 0.528 and 0.696, while that in terms of fluid population is between 2.19 and 3.56. That is, the "fluid population" not only serves as a special category for the city, but also encourages the city to create new categories.This paper supports the positive promoting effect of population scale and structure diversity on the variety welfare of non-tradable goods. Based on our estimation of the instrumental variables, we use varieties of non-tradable goods as welfare indicators through numerical simulations to estimate the potential losses of Chinese cities under different parameters of logarithmic normal distribution. The results show that the current limits on population mobility result in a huge variety welfare loss especially for big cities, but have a protective effect on small and medium-sized cities.
引文
陈斌开、陆铭、钟宁桦,2010:《户籍制约下的居民消费经济研究》,《经济研究》第1期。
陈强远、钱学锋、李敬子,2016:《中国大城市的企业生产率溢价之谜》,《经济研究》第3期。
龚强、张一林、余建宇,2013:《激励、信息与食品安全规制》,《经济研究》第3期。
郭熙保、周强,2016:《长期多维贫困、不平等与致贫因素》,《经济研究》第6期。
韩其恒、李俊青,2014:《劳动力市场分割、金融市场约束与迁移人口的结构变迁》,《数量经济技术经济研究》第1期。
李飞、米卜、刘会,2013:《中国零售企业商业模式成功创新的路径——基于海底捞餐饮公司的案例研究》,《中国软科学》第9期。
梁平汉,2016:《要素禀赋变化与关键性技术创新:现代川菜味型何以形成》,《产业经济评论》第4期。
梁琦、陈强远、王如玉,2013:《户籍改革、劳动力流动与城市层级体系优化》,《中国社会科学》第12期。
刘海洋、刘玉海、袁鹏,2015:《集群地区生产率优势的来源识别:集聚效应抑或选择效应? 》,《经济学(季刊)》第3期。
刘修岩、李松林,2017:《房价、迁移摩擦与中国城市的规模分布——理论模型与结构式估计》,《经济研究》第7期。
刘修岩、李松林、秦蒙,2016:《开发时滞、市场不确定性与城市蔓延》,《经济研究》第8期。
刘修岩、李松林,秦蒙,2017:《城市空间结构与地区经济效率——兼论中国城镇化发展道路的模式选择》,《管理世界》第1期。
陆铭、高虹、佐藤宏,2012:《城市规模与包容性就业》,《中国社会科学》第10期。
陆铭,2013:《空间的力量》,格致出版社。
陆铭、欧海军、陈斌开,2014:《理性还是泡沫:对城市化、移民和房价的经验研究》,《世界经济》第1期。
陆铭,2016:《大国大城》,上海人民出版社。
彭小辉, 史清华, 朱喜,2013:《城乡二元户籍制度的认知、现实影响与改革取向——基于上海的实证调查》,《中国软科学》第5期,第27—44页。
孙文凯、白重恩、谢沛初,2011:《户籍制度改革对中国农村劳动力流动的影响》,《经济研究》第1期。
余壮雄、杨扬,2014:《大城市的生产率优势:集聚与选择》,《世界经济》第10期。
张国峰、李强、王永进,2017:《大城市生产率优势:集聚、选择还是群分效应》,《世界经济》第8期。
Armington, P.S., 1969, “A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production”, International Monetary Fund Staff Papers, vol.16, 159—76.
Au, C.,and J.Henderson, 2006, “Are Chinese Cities Too Small?”, Review of Economic Studies, Vol.73(3), 549—576.
Berry, S., and J.Waldfogel, 2010, “Product Quality and Market Size”, Journal of Industrial Economics, Vol.58(1), 1—31.
Bresnahan, T.F., and P.C.Reiss, 1991, “Entry and Competition in Concentrated Markets”,Journal of Political Economy, Vol.99 (5), 977—1009.
Campbell, J.R., and H.A.Hopenhayn, 2005, “Market Size Matters”, Journal of Industrial Economics, 53.
Chen, Z. Lu, M. Lu, 2015, “Urban System and Urban Development in the People’s Republic of China”, Working Paper of Asian Development Bank.
Combes, P.P., G.Duranton, L.Gobillon, D.Puga, and S.Roux, 2012, “The Productivity Advantages of Large Cities: Distinguishing Agglomeration from Firm Selection”, Econometrica, Vol.80(6), 2543—2594.
Combes,P.P.,G.Duranton,and L.Gobillon,2018,“The Costs of Agglomeration: Land Prices in French Cities”, Review of Economic Studies, forthcoming.
Costa, D.L.,and M.E. Kahn, 2003,“The Rising Price of Nonmarket Goods”, American Economic Review, Vol.93 (2), 227—232.
Couture, V., 2016, “Valuing the Consumption Benefits of Urban Density”, Working Paper.
Eeckhout,J., 2004, “Gibrat’s Law for (All) Cities”, American Economic Review, Vol.94(5), 1429—1451.
Eeckhout,J., 2009, “Gibrat’s Law for (All) Cities: Reply”,American Economic Review, Vol.99(4), 1676—1683.
Feenstra, R.C., M. Xu, and A.Antoniades, 2017, “What is the Price of Tea in China? Towards the Relative Cost of Living in Chinese and U.S.Cities”, NBER working paper.
Gabaix, X., 1999, “Zipf’s Law for Cities: An Explanation”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.114(3), 739—767.
Glaeser, E.L., J.Kolko, and A.Saiz, 2001, “Consumer City”, Journal of Economic Geography, Vol.1, 27—50.
Greenstone, M.,R. Hornbeck,and E.Moretti, 2010, “Identifying Agglomeration Spillovers: Evidence from Winners and Losers of Large Plant Openings”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol.118(3),536.
Handbury,J.,and D.E.Weinstein, 2015, “Goods Prices and Availability in Cities”, Review of Economic Studies, Vol.82, 258—296.
Lee, S., 2010, “Ability Sorting and Consumer City,” Journal of Urban Economics, Vol.68(1), 20—33.
Levy,M., 2009, “Gibrat’s Law for (All) Cities: Comment”, American Economic Review, Vol.99(4), 1672—1675.
Long,Y.,and C.C.Huang, 2017, “Does Block Size Matter? The Impact of Urban Design on Economic Vitality for Chinese Cities”, Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science.
Luckstead,J.,and S. Devadoss, 2014, “A Comparison of City Size Distributions for China and India from 1950 to 2010”, Economics Letters, Vol.124(2), 290—295.
Luckstead,J.,and S.Devadoss, 2014, “Do the World’s Largest Cities Follow Zipf’s and Gibrat’s Laws?”, Economics Letters, Vol.125(2), 182—186.
Melo, P.C., D.J.Graham, and R.B.Noland, 2009, “A Meta-analysis of Estimates of Urban Agglomeration Economies”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol.39(3), 332—342.
Moretti, E.,2010, “Local Multipliers”, American Economic Review, Vol.100(2), 373—77.
Puga, D., 2010, “The Magnitude and Causes of Agglomeration Economies”, Journal of Regional Science, Vol.50(1), 203—219B
Rosen, K.,and M.Resnick, 1980, “The Size Distribution of Cities: An Examination of the Pareto Law and Primacy”, Journal of Urban Economics, Vol.8(2), 165—186.
Saito, H.,and M.Gopinath, 2009,“Plant’s Self-selection, Agglomeration Economies and Regional Productivity in Chile”, Journal of Economic Geography, Vol.9, 539—558.
Schiff,N.,“Cities and Product Variety: Evidence from Restaurants”, Journal of Economic Geography, Vol.15(6), 1085—1123.
Waldfogel, J., 2008, “The Median Voter and the Median Consumer: Local Private Goods and Population Composition,” Journal of Urban Economics, Vol.63(2), 567—582.
Zheng, S., R.Wang, E.Glaeser, and M.Kahn, 2010, “The Greenness of China: Household Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Urban Development”, Journal of Economic Geography, Vol.11(5), 761—792.
Zheng,S.,W. Sun, and J. Wu, 2017, “The Birth of Edge Cities in China: Measuring the Effects of Industrial Parks Policy,” Journal of Urban Economics, Vol.100, 80—103.
(1)2017年9月27日,中共中央、国务院关于对《北京城市总体规划(2016—2035年)》的批复向社会公开,该规划正式进入实施阶段。
(2)根据2009年4月29日国务院第60次常务会议通过的《流动人口计划生育工作条例》。流动人口主要指离开户籍所在地的县、市或者市辖区,以工作、生活为目的异地居住的成年育龄人员。
(3)出自《汉书·郦生陆贾列传》。
(4)出自《论语·乡党第十》。
(5)根据“大众点评网”数据研究院发布的《2016中国外卖O2O行业洞察报告》,截至2016年,“大众点评网”总体外卖业务月活跃用户数超过8018万人。这一数据虽然不能等同于其所有用户数,但可以从一个侧面反映其用数规模已经很大。另外,“大众点评网”与美团于2015年10月8日宣布合并,成为业内最大的一家公司,其用户规模也使得其数据有很强的代表性。
(6)由于我们关注的是整体情况,必须采用整体的人口数据,而符合需求的常驻人口数据只能从2010年的人口普查数据中找到,2015年的1%人口抽样数据的详细信息还不可得,虽然2010年人口普查数据与“大众点评网”数据在时间上不能完全匹配,但已经是最好的可行选择了。另一个可能的好处是,由于时间上的间隔较长,可以不用担心反向因果关系。
(7)目前只有经济普查数据能够覆盖所有餐饮企业的信息,而我们只有2008年全国经济普查的微观企业数据。虽然这两个数据在时间上差异很大,但在分布上应该具有很强的相关性。
(8)由于因变量是计数变量(count variable),其分布特性特殊,通常需要采用一些特殊的模型来处理,为此本文也采用了泊松回归(poisson)和负二项回归(negative binomial)估计,得到的结果与OLS的结果一致。
(9)为了排除外国菜品的影响,在稳健性检验中将所有外国菜品去掉,系数略有减小,但总体来看影响不大。
(10)这里特别感谢匿名审稿人,建议我们使用这个工具变量。
(11)数据来源:国家气象信息中心,中国气象数据网提供的中国地面气候资料日值数据集(V3.0)。
(12)数据来源:国家气象信息中心,中国气象数据网提供的中国地面气候资料日值数据集(V3.0)。
(13)这里直接使用菜品种类来测量多样性福利,等于假定不同种类的菜品之间的替代性弹性为零,这显然不符合事实。但是在缺乏餐馆的成本和菜品价格信息的情况下,无法准确估计菜品之间的替代弹性,这样的假定是一个不得已的选择,同时也可以将种类所代表的多样性福利看作是真实福利的一个上限。
(14)关于城市人口集聚的成本与收益分析所产生的均衡结果的研究中,通常会将城市提供的舒适性作为一个重要因素。如果将菜品多样性福利看作是舒适性,显然会反过来影响城市人口分布,在前面实证部分估计出来的系数就可能不适用了。但是,我们认为,在城市居民中,食品开支在总体开支中比重不高,外出用餐的比重会更低。这也意味着居民选择居住地时,菜品多样性福利的影响不会很大,或者说,城市人口分布对于菜品多样性而言是相对比较外生的。
(15)由于长期以来的计划生育政策,我国的人口增长率较低,同时近年来各地生育率屡创新低,短时间内人口数量不太可能发生剧烈的变化,因此这一假设较为合理。
(16)最新的研究中,也有通过结构式估计的方法来构造反事实的中国城市人口在消除了人口迁移摩擦之后的最优分布(刘修岩和李松林,2017),并发现人口迁移摩擦确实是中国城市人口分布扁平化的最关键原因。本文利用美国的参数作为参照构造的反事实也发现,中国城市人口分布会更加集中,虽然有细节上的差别,从大方向上看是一致的。
(17)由于正文篇幅所限,第二种假设下的模拟结果做了删减。如感兴趣,欢迎向作者索取。
(18)本文也利用2010年人口普查数据进行了一系列检验,发现结果确实支持结论,因此本文认为中国的城市人口规模分布尚未达到最优状态。如对具体检验及结果感兴趣,欢迎向作者索取。
(19)Eeckhout说明了places是美国国家统计局的一种统计单位,包括城市、乡镇和村庄。
陈强远、钱学锋、李敬子,2016:《中国大城市的企业生产率溢价之谜》,《经济研究》第3期。
龚强、张一林、余建宇,2013:《激励、信息与食品安全规制》,《经济研究》第3期。
郭熙保、周强,2016:《长期多维贫困、不平等与致贫因素》,《经济研究》第6期。
韩其恒、李俊青,2014:《劳动力市场分割、金融市场约束与迁移人口的结构变迁》,《数量经济技术经济研究》第1期。
李飞、米卜、刘会,2013:《中国零售企业商业模式成功创新的路径——基于海底捞餐饮公司的案例研究》,《中国软科学》第9期。
梁平汉,2016:《要素禀赋变化与关键性技术创新:现代川菜味型何以形成》,《产业经济评论》第4期。
梁琦、陈强远、王如玉,2013:《户籍改革、劳动力流动与城市层级体系优化》,《中国社会科学》第12期。
刘海洋、刘玉海、袁鹏,2015:《集群地区生产率优势的来源识别:集聚效应抑或选择效应? 》,《经济学(季刊)》第3期。
刘修岩、李松林,2017:《房价、迁移摩擦与中国城市的规模分布——理论模型与结构式估计》,《经济研究》第7期。
刘修岩、李松林、秦蒙,2016:《开发时滞、市场不确定性与城市蔓延》,《经济研究》第8期。
刘修岩、李松林,秦蒙,2017:《城市空间结构与地区经济效率——兼论中国城镇化发展道路的模式选择》,《管理世界》第1期。
陆铭、高虹、佐藤宏,2012:《城市规模与包容性就业》,《中国社会科学》第10期。
陆铭,2013:《空间的力量》,格致出版社。
陆铭、欧海军、陈斌开,2014:《理性还是泡沫:对城市化、移民和房价的经验研究》,《世界经济》第1期。
陆铭,2016:《大国大城》,上海人民出版社。
彭小辉, 史清华, 朱喜,2013:《城乡二元户籍制度的认知、现实影响与改革取向——基于上海的实证调查》,《中国软科学》第5期,第27—44页。
孙文凯、白重恩、谢沛初,2011:《户籍制度改革对中国农村劳动力流动的影响》,《经济研究》第1期。
余壮雄、杨扬,2014:《大城市的生产率优势:集聚与选择》,《世界经济》第10期。
张国峰、李强、王永进,2017:《大城市生产率优势:集聚、选择还是群分效应》,《世界经济》第8期。
Armington, P.S., 1969, “A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production”, International Monetary Fund Staff Papers, vol.16, 159—76.
Au, C.,and J.Henderson, 2006, “Are Chinese Cities Too Small?”, Review of Economic Studies, Vol.73(3), 549—576.
Berry, S., and J.Waldfogel, 2010, “Product Quality and Market Size”, Journal of Industrial Economics, Vol.58(1), 1—31.
Bresnahan, T.F., and P.C.Reiss, 1991, “Entry and Competition in Concentrated Markets”,Journal of Political Economy, Vol.99 (5), 977—1009.
Campbell, J.R., and H.A.Hopenhayn, 2005, “Market Size Matters”, Journal of Industrial Economics, 53.
Chen, Z. Lu, M. Lu, 2015, “Urban System and Urban Development in the People’s Republic of China”, Working Paper of Asian Development Bank.
Combes, P.P., G.Duranton, L.Gobillon, D.Puga, and S.Roux, 2012, “The Productivity Advantages of Large Cities: Distinguishing Agglomeration from Firm Selection”, Econometrica, Vol.80(6), 2543—2594.
Combes,P.P.,G.Duranton,and L.Gobillon,2018,“The Costs of Agglomeration: Land Prices in French Cities”, Review of Economic Studies, forthcoming.
Costa, D.L.,and M.E. Kahn, 2003,“The Rising Price of Nonmarket Goods”, American Economic Review, Vol.93 (2), 227—232.
Couture, V., 2016, “Valuing the Consumption Benefits of Urban Density”, Working Paper.
Eeckhout,J., 2004, “Gibrat’s Law for (All) Cities”, American Economic Review, Vol.94(5), 1429—1451.
Eeckhout,J., 2009, “Gibrat’s Law for (All) Cities: Reply”,American Economic Review, Vol.99(4), 1676—1683.
Feenstra, R.C., M. Xu, and A.Antoniades, 2017, “What is the Price of Tea in China? Towards the Relative Cost of Living in Chinese and U.S.Cities”, NBER working paper.
Gabaix, X., 1999, “Zipf’s Law for Cities: An Explanation”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.114(3), 739—767.
Glaeser, E.L., J.Kolko, and A.Saiz, 2001, “Consumer City”, Journal of Economic Geography, Vol.1, 27—50.
Greenstone, M.,R. Hornbeck,and E.Moretti, 2010, “Identifying Agglomeration Spillovers: Evidence from Winners and Losers of Large Plant Openings”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol.118(3),536.
Handbury,J.,and D.E.Weinstein, 2015, “Goods Prices and Availability in Cities”, Review of Economic Studies, Vol.82, 258—296.
Lee, S., 2010, “Ability Sorting and Consumer City,” Journal of Urban Economics, Vol.68(1), 20—33.
Levy,M., 2009, “Gibrat’s Law for (All) Cities: Comment”, American Economic Review, Vol.99(4), 1672—1675.
Long,Y.,and C.C.Huang, 2017, “Does Block Size Matter? The Impact of Urban Design on Economic Vitality for Chinese Cities”, Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science.
Luckstead,J.,and S. Devadoss, 2014, “A Comparison of City Size Distributions for China and India from 1950 to 2010”, Economics Letters, Vol.124(2), 290—295.
Luckstead,J.,and S.Devadoss, 2014, “Do the World’s Largest Cities Follow Zipf’s and Gibrat’s Laws?”, Economics Letters, Vol.125(2), 182—186.
Melo, P.C., D.J.Graham, and R.B.Noland, 2009, “A Meta-analysis of Estimates of Urban Agglomeration Economies”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol.39(3), 332—342.
Moretti, E.,2010, “Local Multipliers”, American Economic Review, Vol.100(2), 373—77.
Puga, D., 2010, “The Magnitude and Causes of Agglomeration Economies”, Journal of Regional Science, Vol.50(1), 203—219B
Rosen, K.,and M.Resnick, 1980, “The Size Distribution of Cities: An Examination of the Pareto Law and Primacy”, Journal of Urban Economics, Vol.8(2), 165—186.
Saito, H.,and M.Gopinath, 2009,“Plant’s Self-selection, Agglomeration Economies and Regional Productivity in Chile”, Journal of Economic Geography, Vol.9, 539—558.
Schiff,N.,“Cities and Product Variety: Evidence from Restaurants”, Journal of Economic Geography, Vol.15(6), 1085—1123.
Waldfogel, J., 2008, “The Median Voter and the Median Consumer: Local Private Goods and Population Composition,” Journal of Urban Economics, Vol.63(2), 567—582.
Zheng, S., R.Wang, E.Glaeser, and M.Kahn, 2010, “The Greenness of China: Household Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Urban Development”, Journal of Economic Geography, Vol.11(5), 761—792.
Zheng,S.,W. Sun, and J. Wu, 2017, “The Birth of Edge Cities in China: Measuring the Effects of Industrial Parks Policy,” Journal of Urban Economics, Vol.100, 80—103.
(1)2017年9月27日,中共中央、国务院关于对《北京城市总体规划(2016—2035年)》的批复向社会公开,该规划正式进入实施阶段。
(2)根据2009年4月29日国务院第60次常务会议通过的《流动人口计划生育工作条例》。流动人口主要指离开户籍所在地的县、市或者市辖区,以工作、生活为目的异地居住的成年育龄人员。
(3)出自《汉书·郦生陆贾列传》。
(4)出自《论语·乡党第十》。
(5)根据“大众点评网”数据研究院发布的《2016中国外卖O2O行业洞察报告》,截至2016年,“大众点评网”总体外卖业务月活跃用户数超过8018万人。这一数据虽然不能等同于其所有用户数,但可以从一个侧面反映其用数规模已经很大。另外,“大众点评网”与美团于2015年10月8日宣布合并,成为业内最大的一家公司,其用户规模也使得其数据有很强的代表性。
(6)由于我们关注的是整体情况,必须采用整体的人口数据,而符合需求的常驻人口数据只能从2010年的人口普查数据中找到,2015年的1%人口抽样数据的详细信息还不可得,虽然2010年人口普查数据与“大众点评网”数据在时间上不能完全匹配,但已经是最好的可行选择了。另一个可能的好处是,由于时间上的间隔较长,可以不用担心反向因果关系。
(7)目前只有经济普查数据能够覆盖所有餐饮企业的信息,而我们只有2008年全国经济普查的微观企业数据。虽然这两个数据在时间上差异很大,但在分布上应该具有很强的相关性。
(8)由于因变量是计数变量(count variable),其分布特性特殊,通常需要采用一些特殊的模型来处理,为此本文也采用了泊松回归(poisson)和负二项回归(negative binomial)估计,得到的结果与OLS的结果一致。
(9)为了排除外国菜品的影响,在稳健性检验中将所有外国菜品去掉,系数略有减小,但总体来看影响不大。
(10)这里特别感谢匿名审稿人,建议我们使用这个工具变量。
(11)数据来源:国家气象信息中心,中国气象数据网提供的中国地面气候资料日值数据集(V3.0)。
(12)数据来源:国家气象信息中心,中国气象数据网提供的中国地面气候资料日值数据集(V3.0)。
(13)这里直接使用菜品种类来测量多样性福利,等于假定不同种类的菜品之间的替代性弹性为零,这显然不符合事实。但是在缺乏餐馆的成本和菜品价格信息的情况下,无法准确估计菜品之间的替代弹性,这样的假定是一个不得已的选择,同时也可以将种类所代表的多样性福利看作是真实福利的一个上限。
(14)关于城市人口集聚的成本与收益分析所产生的均衡结果的研究中,通常会将城市提供的舒适性作为一个重要因素。如果将菜品多样性福利看作是舒适性,显然会反过来影响城市人口分布,在前面实证部分估计出来的系数就可能不适用了。但是,我们认为,在城市居民中,食品开支在总体开支中比重不高,外出用餐的比重会更低。这也意味着居民选择居住地时,菜品多样性福利的影响不会很大,或者说,城市人口分布对于菜品多样性而言是相对比较外生的。
(15)由于长期以来的计划生育政策,我国的人口增长率较低,同时近年来各地生育率屡创新低,短时间内人口数量不太可能发生剧烈的变化,因此这一假设较为合理。
(16)最新的研究中,也有通过结构式估计的方法来构造反事实的中国城市人口在消除了人口迁移摩擦之后的最优分布(刘修岩和李松林,2017),并发现人口迁移摩擦确实是中国城市人口分布扁平化的最关键原因。本文利用美国的参数作为参照构造的反事实也发现,中国城市人口分布会更加集中,虽然有细节上的差别,从大方向上看是一致的。
(17)由于正文篇幅所限,第二种假设下的模拟结果做了删减。如感兴趣,欢迎向作者索取。
(18)本文也利用2010年人口普查数据进行了一系列检验,发现结果确实支持结论,因此本文认为中国的城市人口规模分布尚未达到最优状态。如对具体检验及结果感兴趣,欢迎向作者索取。
(19)Eeckhout说明了places是美国国家统计局的一种统计单位,包括城市、乡镇和村庄。
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |