改革开放30多年来，中国经济实现了持续快速增长，然而随着改革的深入和经济发展层级的提升，区域差距扩大、产业结构和区域经济结构失衡等一系列不容回避的严峻问题在拷问中国经济发展的前途；2008年全球金融危机使中国出口尤其是劳动密集型产品出口受到重创，之后的经济复苏阶段一些国家反复出现“无就业经济复苏”现象，受全球经济高度关联的影响，中国经济中也潜藏着一些导致“无就业复苏”的因素。而在危机前若干年，中国沿海地区外向型制造业就遭遇了劳动力短缺和工资快速增长的冲击。如果我们把这一现象看作中国劳动力比较优势处于逐渐减弱和丧失的变化中，那么，根据雁行模式理论和新经济地理（NEG）的相关文献，沿海劳动密集型出口产业是否将向劳动力成本更低的南亚国家转移？抑或依据蔡昉的观点，中国地区之间发展差距和资源禀赋差异较大，各地区之间的产业转移和承接将通过产业结构变化的雁阵模式使比较优势得以延续。关于区际产业转移的讨论，国内学术界也存在一些争议。争议之一是：国内区际产业转移是否能缩小我国区域间的经济发展差距。许多学者认为，产业转移是破解当前中国经济区域差距扩大和区域经济结构失衡问题的有效途径。也有学者认为，将中国东部地区承接国际产业转移的成功经验用于东部地区边际产业向中部、西部地区转移未必成立，其主要依据是：中部、西部地区相对于东部地区具有劳动力成本优势可能是伪命题；而通过地区间产业转移缩小地区间经济发展水平的差异也可能是伪命题；不能机械地照搬国际产业转移理论来分析中国东部、中部、西部区际产业转移，通过区际产业转移实现区域协调发展和解决产业结构调整与扩大就业之间的矛盾是困难重重的。据此，我们关注这样的问题：区际产业转移的绩效究竟怎样？对产业结构优化起到了什么作用？争议之二是：梯度推移与反梯度推移之争。梯度推移论认为，生产力的空间推移应从东部、中部、西部地区经济发展梯度差异的基本背景出发，让处于高梯度的东部沿海地区先引进先进技术和发展资金，然后依次逐步向处于第二、第三梯度的中部、西部地区转移，通过区域经济联动，逐步缩小地区差距，使区域经济均衡发展。反梯度推移论认为，在经济发展呈东部、中部、西部三级梯度态势的客观背景下，处于低梯度的落后地区也可以通过制定得当的政策措施，直接引进和采用世界先进技术，并充分消化吸收，实行跨越式发展，甚至在实现经济腾飞后向原先的高梯度地区进行反推移。还有学者认为，由于集群的根植性及自我强化机制等原因，区际产业转移不一定会发生。优惠政策的重要性在我国经济发展中的作用明显下降，而产业集聚起着更为重要的作用。东南沿海地区已经通过产业集聚形成了基于高度专业化分工的产业配套条件，这一优势已经形成并趋于成熟，再转向其他地区的成本将会大大提高。这一见解对产业梯度转移理论提出了挑战。据此，我们关注另一个问题：在中国，区际产业转移进程究竟怎样？哪些行业在转移？哪些区位在变化？是梯度转移？抑或反梯度转移？进而中部、西部地区有没有可能实现追赶战略发展更高层次的产业？在中国仍处于经济转型期的时代背景下，缩小地区差距、推动产业结构升级实现优势产业体系重塑，关系到经济增长方式的转变能否顺利实现，进而关系到中国经济能否保持可持续发展活力。对产业结构调整升级及相关问题的研究，是各层级政府和学术界共同关注的焦点，而区际产业转移作为生产要素受配置效率影响在区域间转移和聚集的动态过程，是对破解当前中国区域经济结构和产业结构失衡问题的一个探索。我们正是基于这一重要现实背景，在理论上梳理和分析区际产业转移与产业结构优化的互动关系，进而对1992年党的十四大明确提出发展社会主义市场经济以来20年间区际产业转移和总量经济产业结构优化的动态变化及两者之间的互动关系分别进行实证分析，从产业结构优化的视角评价区际产业转移的绩效，得出相应的结论，期望能为政府有关区域经济政策的制定和调整提供可靠实证基础。近年来，有关区际产业转移，国内较多文献对其动力机制、影响因素、效应、欠发达地区承接区域产业转移的对策等进行了研究，还有学者对我国制造业在区域上的重新定位和集中程度进行了实证分析。有关产业结构优化，也已形成大量文献。前人的已有研究成果在思路、方法、切入点等方面为本书的研究提供了坚实的基础和良好的借鉴。同时，我们也发现，国内对我国区域产业转移绩效的研究多为定性分析，使用实证方法进行具体衡量和评价的研究较少，从产业结构优化视角，通过对产业结构优化的定量测度来评价产业转移绩效的成果更少。我们试图在研究方法和理论研究的视角上填补这方面的不足。本书基于区域经济理论、经济增长理论、产业经济理论和新经济地理理论，首先，从理论上梳理归纳产业转移与产业结构优化的互动作用机理；其次，从我国经济发展现实入手构建要素流动传导下区际产业转移与总量经济产业结构优化理论模型；再次，基于构建的理论模型，采用数量分析法和比较分析方法对1992—2011年20年间我国区际产业转移的发展变化、总量经济产业结构优化的动态演进分别进行了实证分析；最后，使用上述实证分析获得的数据，建立区际产业转移与总量经济产业结构优化互动关系的时间序列模型，从产业结构优化的视角评价区际产业转移的绩效。通过分析论证，本书得出如下主要结论：（1）1992—2011年20年间，中国工业空间分布的地理集中度呈倒U形动态变化，以关键时点截面考察的产业空间分布结构具有显著的NEG“中心—外围”特征。八大区域中，东部沿海地区作为中国工业中心的地位仍未撼动，然而中部地区呈现发展成为工业“中心—外围”空间结构第二中心的趋势；西南、西北、东北地区在区际产业转移中受惠微小，并且区域内部工业差距扩大。（2）技术密集型工业和劳动密集型工业开始分散转移的时间早于资本密集型工业，而后者分散转移的速度和程度较前者更为迅速和显著。从区际产业分散转移的趋势看，基本符合NEG的观点。（3）区际产业转移的区位选择体现了“地理毗邻效应”和梯度转移原则。西部地区在地理位置、市场潜力上均不占优势，在承接区际产业转移的区域博弈中处于劣势。（4）1992—2011年20年间，总量经济产业结构合理化水平呈偏右U形动态变化，与区际产业转移的互动关系具有阶段性特征。1992—2004年，以中西部地区向东部地区产业集中为特征的区际产业转移与总量经济产业结构合理化演进没有显著线性关系；2005—2011年，以东部地区向中、西部地区产业分散为特征的区际产业转移对促进产业结构合理化的绩效非常明显；总量经济产业结构高度化水平20年总体呈现持续上升趋势，与区际产业转移互动关系较稳定和显著；20年间，总量经济产业结构合理化和高度化发展演进的趋势并不完全同步，产业结构高度化演进存在阶段性的虚高现象。（5）与区际产业转移密切相关的产业空间结构是影响我国总量经济产业结构合理化的重要因素，其作用仅次于第二产业就业—产值结构不协调因素。（6）1992—2011年20年间，三大区域中西部地区在不同阶段的产业转出和承接对总量经济产业结构优化的促进作用最为显著。而就产业转移的规模来讲，西部地区无论是在第一阶段的产业转出还是在第二阶段的产业承接中，都不是贡献最大的区域。因而西部地区产业份额变化对总量经济产业结构优化的弹性最大。基于以上主要结论，本书提出调整产业空间结构，进一步促进产业向西部地区转移的政策建议，并从五个方面进行了具体分析。在本书的写作过程中，我们参阅了大量国内外经典文献，力求尽可能把握相关领域研究的理论前沿，以使本书研究的逻辑严谨、内容丰富。但是，由于时间和能力有限，本书难免存在疏漏甚至失误之处，恳请读者谅解，并欢迎批评指正。李春梅2015年3月

Over the past 30 years of reform and opening up, China's economy has achieved sustained and rapid growth, but with the deepening of reform and the upgrading of economic development level, a series of unavoidable and severe problems such as the widening of regional gaps, the imbalance of industrial structure and regional economic structure are torturing the future of China's economic development. The 2008 global financial crisis hit China's exports, especially labor-intensive products, hard, and in the subsequent economic recovery stage, some countries repeatedly experienced the phenomenon of "jobless economic recovery". In the years before the crisis, export-oriented manufacturing in China's coastal areas suffered from labor shortages and rapid wage growth. If we see this phenomenon as a gradual weakening and loss of China's comparative advantage in labor, then, according to the theory of the geese pattern and the relevant literature of New Economic Geography (NEG), will coastal labor-intensive export industries shift to South Asian countries with lower labor costs? Or according to Cai Fang's view, the development gap and resource endowment between Chinese regions are quite different, and the industrial transfer and undertaking between regions will continue the comparative advantage through the geese array model of industrial structure change. There are also some controversies in the domestic academic circles about the discussion of interregional industrial transfer. One of the controversies is whether domestic interregional industrial transfer can narrow the economic development gap between regions in China. Many scholars believe that industrial transfer is an effective way to solve the current problems of widening regional gap and regional economic imbalance in China's economy. Some scholars believe that the successful experience of undertaking international industrial transfer in eastern China may not be established to apply the transfer of marginal industries in the eastern region to the central and western regions, and the main basis is that the labor cost advantage of the central and western regions over the eastern regions may be a false proposition; It may also be a false proposition to narrow the difference in economic development level between regions through interregional industrial transfer; It is difficult to mechanically copy the theory of international industrial transfer to analyze the interregional industrial transfer in the eastern, central and western parts of China, and it is difficult to achieve coordinated regional development and solve the contradiction between industrial restructuring and employment expansion through interregional industrial transfer. Accordingly, we focus on the question: What is the performance of interregional industrial transfer? What role has it played in the optimization of industrial structure? The second controversy is the dispute between gradient shift and anti-gradient shift. The gradient theory believes that the spatial shift of productive forces should start from the basic background of the difference in economic development gradients in the eastern, central and western regions, so that the eastern coastal areas with high gradients should first introduce advanced technology and development funds, and then gradually transfer to the central and western regions in the second and third gradients, and gradually narrow the regional gap through regional economic linkage, so that the regional economy can develop in a balanced manner. The anti-gradient theory believes that under the objective background of economic development showing a three-level gradient situation in the east, central and west, backward areas with low gradients can also directly introduce and adopt the world's advanced technology through properly formulated policies and measures, and fully digest and absorb them, implement leapfrog development, and even reverse the transition to the original high-gradient areas after achieving economic take-off. Some scholars believe that due to the rootedness of clusters and self-reinforcing mechanisms, interregional industrial transfer may not necessarily occur. The importance of preferential policies has significantly declined in China's economic development, while industrial agglomeration plays a more important role. The southeast coastal area has formed industrial supporting conditions based on a highly specialized division of labor through industrial agglomeration, and this advantage has been formed and matured, and the cost of turning to other regions will be greatly increased. This insight challenges the theory of industrial gradient transfer. Based on this, we are concerned about another question: what is the process of interregional industrial transfer in China? Which industries are shifting? Which locations are changing? Is it gradient transfer? Or inverse gradient shifting? In addition, is it possible for the central and western regions to achieve catch-up strategies and develop higher-level industries? In the context of China's economic transition, narrowing regional gaps, promoting industrial structure upgrading and reshaping the advantageous industrial system are related to whether the transformation of economic growth mode can be smoothly realized, and then whether China's economy can maintain sustainable development vitality. The study of industrial structure adjustment and upgrading and related issues is the focus of common attention of governments and academia at all levels, and interregional industrial transfer, as a dynamic process of interregional transfer and aggregation of production factors affected by allocation efficiency, is an exploration to solve the current imbalance of China's regional economic structure and industrial structure. It is based on this important practical background that we theoretically sort out and analyze the interaction between interregional industrial transfer and industrial structure optimization, and then conduct empirical analysis on the dynamic changes in interregional industrial transfer and industrial structure optimization of the aggregate economy in the 20 years since the 14th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in 1992 clearly proposed the development of socialist market economy, and evaluate the performance of interregional industrial transfer from the perspective of industrial structure optimization, and draw corresponding conclusions. It is expected to provide a reliable empirical basis for the formulation and adjustment of the government's relevant regional economic policies. In recent years, many domestic literature has studied its dynamic mechanism, influencing factors, effects, countermeasures for underdeveloped areas to undertake regional industrial transfer, etc., and scholars have conducted empirical analysis on the regional repositioning and concentration of China's manufacturing industry. A large number of literature has also been formed on the optimization of industrial structure. The existing research results of predecessors provide a solid foundation and good reference for the research of this book in terms of ideas, methods, and entry points. At the same time, we also found that most of the domestic research on China's regional industrial transfer performance is qualitative analysis, and there are fewer studies using empirical methods for specific measurement and evaluation, and fewer results in evaluating industrial transfer performance through quantitative measurement of industrial structure optimization from the perspective of industrial structure optimization. We try to fill this gap in terms of research methods and theoretical research perspectives. Based on regional economic theory, economic growth theory, industrial economic theory and new economic geography theory, this book firstly summarizes the interaction mechanism between industrial transfer and industrial structure optimization from a theoretical perspective. Secondly, starting from the reality of China's economic development, the theoretical model of interregional industrial transfer and industrial structure optimization of aggregate economy under the transmission of factor flow is constructed. Thirdly, based on the constructed theoretical model, the quantitative analysis method and the comparative analysis method were used to empirically analyze the development and changes of China's interregional industrial transfer and the dynamic evolution of the optimization of the industrial structure of the total economy in the 20 years from 1992 to 2011. Finally, using the data obtained from the above empirical analysis, a time series model of the interaction between interregional industrial transfer and aggregate economic industrial structure optimization is established, and the performance of interregional industrial transfer is evaluated from the perspective of industrial structure optimization. Through analysis and demonstration, this book draws the following main conclusions: (1) In the 20 years from 1992 to 2011, the geographical concentration of China's industrial spatial distribution showed an inverted U-shaped dynamic change, and the industrial spatial distribution structure examined by the key time point section had significant NEG "center-periphery" characteristics. Among the eight major regions, the status of the eastern coastal region as China's industrial center has not been shaken, but the central region has shown a trend of developing into the second center of industrial "center-periphery" spatial structure. The southwest, northwest and northeast regions have benefited little from the interregional industrial transfer, and the industrial gap within the region has widened. (2) Technology-intensive industries and labor-intensive industries began to disperse earlier than capital-intensive industries, and the speed and extent of the latter dispersion transfer was more rapid and significant than the former. Judging from the trend of dispersion and transfer of interregional industries, it is basically in line with NEG's point of view. (3) The location selection of interregional industrial transfer reflects the "geographical proximity effect" and the principle of gradient transfer. The western region does not have advantages in geographical location and market potential, and is at a disadvantage in the regional game of undertaking interregional industrial transfer. (4) In the 20 years from 1992 to 2011, the rationalization level of the industrial structure of the aggregate economy showed a right-hand U-shaped dynamic change, and the interaction relationship with interregional industrial transfer had phased characteristics. From 1992 to 2004, the interregional industrial transfer, characterized by industrial concentration from the central and western regions to the eastern region, did not have a significant linear relationship with the rationalization and evolution of the industrial structure of the total economy. From 2005 to 2011, the performance of interregional industrial transfer, characterized by industrial dispersion from the eastern region to the central and western regions, was very obvious in promoting the rationalization of industrial structure. The level of industrial structure of the total economy has shown a continuous upward trend in the past 20 years, and the interaction relationship with interregional industrial transfer is relatively stable and significant. In the past 20 years, the trend of rationalization and advanced development and evolution of the industrial structure of the aggregate economy has not been completely synchronized, and there is a phased phenomenon of false high in the evolution of the advanced industrial structure. (5) The industrial spatial structure closely related to interregional industrial transfer is an important factor affecting the rationalization of China's total economic industrial structure, and its role is second only to the secondary industry employment-output value structure incongruity. (6) In the 20 years from 1992 to 2011, the industrial transfer and undertaking of industrial transfer and undertaking in the three major regions at different stages played the most significant role in promoting the optimization of the industrial structure of the total economy. As far as the scale of industrial transfer is concerned, the western region is not the region that has contributed the most in the first stage of industrial transfer or in the second stage of industrial undertaking. Therefore, the change of industrial share in the western region has the greatest flexibility for the optimization of the industrial structure of the total economy. Based on the above main conclusions, this book puts forward policy suggestions for adjusting the industrial spatial structure and further promoting the transfer of industries to the western region, and makes specific analysis from five aspects. In the process of writing this book, we have consulted a large number of classic literature at home and abroad, and strive to grasp the theoretical frontiers of research in related fields as much as possible, so as to make the research of this book rigorous and rich in content. However, due to limited time and ability, it is inevitable that there will be omissions and even mistakes in this book, and readers are kindly requested to understand and welcome criticism and correction. Li Chunmei, March 2015（AI翻译）