Inequality, Bi-Polarization and Mobility of Urban Infrastructure Investment in China’s Urban System
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Conceptualization and Methodological Framework
2.1. Conceptual Framework
2.1.1. The Relationship between Urban Infrastructure and Urban Sustainability
2.1.2. The Relationship between Inequality, Bi-Polarization, Equity, and Urban Sustainability
2.2. Methodological Framework
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Indicators and Data
3.2. Methods
3.2.1. Measuring Inequality
3.2.2. Decomposing the Overall Inequality According to Various Cities
3.2.3. Measuring Bi-Polarization
3.2.4. Measuring Mobility
4. Results
4.1. The Overall Inequality of UII in China’s Urban System
4.2. The Contributions of Various Cities to the Overall Inequality
4.2.1. The Contributions of Different Administrative Level Cities to the Overall Inequality
4.2.2. The Contributions of Different Regional Cities to the Overall Inequality
4.3. The Bi-Polarization of UII in China’s Urban System
4.4. The Mobility of UII in China’s Urban System
5. Discussion and Policy Suggestions
5.1. The Evolution and Effects of the Overall UII Inequality
5.2. The Impact of Cities’ Administrative Levels and Regions on the Overall UII Inequality
5.3. Dynamics of the UII Bi-Polarization
5.4. UII Mobility and Its Impact on Inequality and Bi-Polarization
5.5. Policy Suggestions
- (1)
- For the coordinated development of cities and the equalization of basic public services in China, importance should be attached to the unbalance of UII between Chinese cities; necessary measures such as transfer payments, tax returns and project support should also be undertaken to reduce UII inequality and bi-polarization between cities.
- (2)
- Implementing more accurate and targeted UII allocation policies. The empirical results showed that the inequality of UII between various cities can only partially stand for the overall inequality of China’s urban system. Namely, if governments implement the UII allocation policies just based on the cities’ regional location or administrative levels, it would miss some of the complete information. Hence, it is necessary to adopt more accurate and targeted UII allocation policies based on each city’s specific condition.
- (3)
- To break institutional resistance, the private sector should be encouraged to take part in urban infrastructure construction, and promote the effective flow of urban infrastructure construction funds between cities. It is necessary to let the market decide the allocation of resources and better play the role of government in UII.
- (4)
- China’s UII should not only ensure the equalization of urban basic public services between cities and realize the coordinated development of cities, but also support and encourage China’s national and regional central cities to carry out major infrastructure projects and allow central cities to take the lead in development. Consequently, basic urban infrastructure should be distinguished from non-basic urban infrastructure and a list of basic urban infrastructure should be made.
6. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Mangone, G. Constructing hybrid infrastructure: Exploring the potential ecological, social, and economic benefits of integrating municipal infrastructure into constructed environments. Cities 2016, 55, 165–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, L.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, X. Key Assessment Indicators for the Sustainability of Infrastructure Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2011, 137, 441–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Wu, Y.; Skitmore, M.; Jiang, S. Sustainable infrastructure projects in balancing urban–rural development: Towards the goal of efficiency and equity. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 107, 445–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Narayanan, S.; Rajan, A.T.; Jebaraj, P.; Elayaraja, M.S. Delivering basic infrastructure services to the urban poor: A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bottom-up approaches. Util. Policy 2017, 44, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rana, I.A.; Bhatti, S.S.; e Saqib, S. The spatial and temporal dynamics of infrastructure development disparity—From assessment to analyses. Cities 2017, 63, 20–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, D.Q.; Martini, C.A. Difficulties in Infrastructure Financing. J. Appl. Financ. Investig. 1996, 1, 24–27. [Google Scholar]
- World Bank. World Development Report 1994: Infrastructure for Development; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Heymans, C.; Thome-Erasmus, J. Infrastructure: A foundation for development—Key points from the DBSA Development Report 1998. Dev. S. Afr. 1998, 15, 661–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogbole, O.F.; Amadi, S.N.; Essi, I.D. Fiscal policy: Its impact on economic growth in Nigeria 1970 to 2006. J. Econ. Int. Financ. 2011, 3, 407–417. [Google Scholar]
- Artmann, M.; Kohler, M.; Meinel, G.; Gan, J.; Ioja, I.-C. How smart growth and green infrastructure can mutually support each other—A conceptual framework for compact and green cities. Ecol. Indic. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fourie, J. Economic Infrastructure: A Review of Definitions, Theory and Empirics. S. Afr. J. Econ. 2006, 74, 530–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, K.W.; Wan, G. The size distribution and growth pattern of cities in China, 1982–2010: Analysis and policy implications. J. Asia Pac. Econ. 2017, 22, 136–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, B.; Huang, Q.; He, C.; Dou, Y. Similarities and differences of city-size distributions in three main urban agglomerations of China from 1992 to 2015: A comparative study based on nighttime light data. J. Geogr. Sci. 2017, 27, 533–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, X.; Wang, Y.; Wang, S.; Wang, D. Spatial differences and driving forces of land urbanization in China. J. Geogr. Sci. 2015, 25, 545–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, L.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, F.; Zhao, X.; Wang, X.; Liu, B.; Hu, S.; Wen, Q.; Zuo, L.; Yi, L.; et al. City size distribution and its spatiotemporal evolution in China. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2016, 26, 703–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. World Urbanization Prospects (The 2011 Revision); Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Q.; Wang, S.; Zhang, W.; Li, J.; Zhao, Y.; Li, W. China’s municipal public infrastructure: Estimating construction levels and investment efficiency using the entropy method and a DEA model. Habitat Int. 2017, 64, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Zhu, J. Evolution of China’s City-Size Distribution. Chin. Econ. 2013, 46, 38–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, G.; Ge, Y. The size distribution of Chinese cities. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2005, 35, 756–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, K.W. China’s urbanization 2020: A new blueprint and direction. Eurasian Geogr. Econ. 2014, 55, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Wei, Y.; Ning, Y. Spatial and Temporal Evolution of Urban Systems in China during Rapid Urbanization. Sustainability 2016, 8, 651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, L.; Xie, Q.; Shi, S.; Ye, X.; Zhao, A. Regional Maldistribution of China’s Hospitals Based on Their Structural System. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, L. The Scale and Stracture of Urban Infrastructure. Macroecon. Manag. 2013, 49–50. Available online: http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFQ&dbname=CJFD2013&filename=HGJG201310019&v=MDg2NjBlWDFMdXhZUzdEaDFUM3FUcldNMUZyQ1VSTDJmYnVab0Z5bm5VN3JOTFNyQmFiRzRIOUxOcjQ5RWJZUjg= (accesed on 6 September 2017). (In Chinese).
- Teng, M.; Han, C.; Liu, X. Index System for Social Impact Assessment of Large Scale Infrastructure Projects in China. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2014, 24, 170–176. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Fang, C.; Luo, K.; Wu, K. Regional Differences and Efficiency Evaluation of Urban Municipal Public Facilities in China. Sci. Geogr. Sin. 2014, 34, 788–793. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Hong, X. Regional Inequality, Polarization and Mobility in China. J. Econ. Res. 2010, 12, 82–96. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Foster, J.E.; Wolfson, M.C. Polarization and the decline of the middle class: Canada and the U.S. J. Econ. Inequal. 2009, 8, 247–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, L.; Zhou, J. Examining the effectiveness of indicators for guiding sustainable urbanization in China. Habitat Int. 2014, 44, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiao, L.; Shen, L.; Shuai, C.; He, B. A Novel Approach for Assessing the Performance of Sustainable Urbanization Based on Structural Equation Modeling: A China Case Study. Sustainability 2016, 8, 910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, J.; Shen, L.; Song, X.; Zhang, X. Selection and modeling sustainable urbanization indicators: A responsibility-based method. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 56, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Bureau of Statistics of China. China Statistical Yearbook 2016; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2016. (In Chinese)
- Wang, D.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Z.; Zhao, S.X. Urban Infrastructure Financing in Reform-era China. Urban Stud. 2011, 48, 2975–2998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, W. Urban Infrastructure Financing and Economic Performance in China. Urban Geogr. 2013, 31, 648–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, Y. China’s Urban Infrastructure Challenges. Enginering 2016, 2, 29–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, Z.; OuYang, R.; Yang, Z.; Cai, J. Spatiotemporal patterns and characteristics of urban infrastructure investment and financing during China’s urbanization. Prog. Geogr. 2016, 35, 440–449. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zheng, X.; Li, F.; Song, S.; Yu, Y. Central government’s infrastructure investment across Chinese regions: A dynamic spatial panel data approach. China Econ. Rev. 2013, 27, 264–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, H.; Wei, Y.D.; Liao, F.H.; Huang, Z. Administrative hierarchy and urban land expansion in transitional China. Appl. Geogr. 2015, 56, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, K.W. Fundamentals of China’s Urbanization and Policy. China Rev. 2010, 10, 63–94. [Google Scholar]
- Yan, Y.; Shan, P.; Wang, C.; Quan, Y.; Wu, D.; Zhao, C.; Wu, G.; Deng, H. Assessment of urban sustainability efficiency based on general data envelopment analysis: A case study of two cities in western and eastern China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2017, 189, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gu, C.; Li, Y.; Han, S.S. Development and transition of small towns in rural China. Habitat Int. 2015, 50, 110–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Shen, L.; Shuai, C.; Jiao, L.; Tan, Y.; Song, X. A Global Perspective on the Sustainable Performance of Urbanization. Sustainability 2016, 8, 783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, L.; Kyllo, J.; Guo, X. An Integrated Model Based on a Hierarchical Indices System for Monitoring and Evaluating Urban Sustainability. Sustainability 2013, 5, 524–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, H.; Shen, L.; Tan, Y.; Hao, J. Simulating the impacts of policy scenarios on the sustainability performance of infrastructure projects. Autom. Constr. 2011, 20, 1060–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duggal, R.; Millar, J.A. Institutional ownership and firm performance: The case of bidder returns. J. Corp. Financ. 1999, 5, 103–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hulten, C.R. Intangible Capital and Economic Growth; National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Bronzini, R.; Piselli, P. Determinants of long-run regional productivity with geographical spillovers: The role of R&D, human capital and public infrastructure. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2009, 39, 187–199. [Google Scholar]
- Bom, P.R.D.; Ligthart, J.E. What Have We Learned From Three Decades of Research on the Productivity of Public Capital? J. Econ. Surv. 2014, 28, 889–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, J.P.; Paul, C.J.M. Public Infrastructure Investment, Interstate Spatlal Spillovers, and Manufacturing Costs. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2004, 86, 551–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliveira, F.L.; Oliveira Junior, A.D.R.; Bessa Rebelo, L.M. Adapting transport modes to supply chains classified by the uncertainty supply chain model: A case study at Manaus Industrial Pole. Int. J. Prod. Manag. Eng. 2017, 5, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Padmore, T.; Gibson, H. Modelling systems of innovation: H. A framework for industrial cluster analysis in regions. Res. Policy 1998, 26, 625–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, B.; Dunford, M.; Norcliffe, G.; Liu, Z. Capturing gains by relocating global production networks the rise of Chongqing s notebook computer industry, 2008–2014. Eurasian Geogr. Econ. 2017, 58, 231–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J. The impact of water quality on health: Evidence from the drinking water infrastructure program in rural China. J. Health Econ. 2012, 31, 122–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hsiao, M.; Malhotra, A.; Thakur, J.S.; Sheth, J.K.; Nathens, A.B.; Dhingra, N.; Jha, P. Road traffic injury mortality and its mechanisms in India: Nationally representative mortality survey of 1.1 million homes. BMJ Open 2013, 3, e002621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mueller, N.; Rojas-Rueda, D.; Basagana, X.; Cirach, M.; Cole-Hunter, T.; Dadvand, P.; Donaire-Gonzalez, D.; Foraster, M.; Gascon, M.; Martinez, D.; et al. Urban and Transport Planning Related Exposures and Mortality: A Health Impact Assessment for Cities. Environ. Health Perspect. 2017, 125, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lenz, L.; Munyehirwe, A.; Peters, J.; Sievert, M. Does Large-Scale Infrastructure Investment Alleviate Poverty? Impacts of Rwanda’s Electricity Access Roll-Out Program. World Dev. 2017, 89, 88–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Behrens, K. Agglomeration without trade: How non-traded goods shape the space-economy. J. Urban Econ. 2004, 55, 68–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiwattanakulpaisarn, P.; Noland, R.B.; Graham, D.J.; Polak, J.W. Highway infrastructure and state-level employment: A causal spatial analysis. Pap. Reg. Sci. 2009, 88, 133–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tzoulas, K.; Korpela, K.; Venn, S.; Yli-Pelkonen, V.; Kaźmierczak, A.; Niemela, J.; James, P. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 81, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, L.; Jiao, L.; He, B.; Li, L. Evaluation on the utility efficiency of metro infrastructure projects in China from sustainable development perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 528–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Žuvela-Aloise, M.; Koch, R.; Buchholz, S.; Früh, B. Modelling the potential of green and blue infrastructure to reduce urban heat load in the city of Vienna. Clim. Chang. 2016, 135, 425–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, F.H.; Wei, Y.D. Space, scale, and regional inequality in provincial China: A spatial filtering approach. Appl. Geogr. 2015, 61, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berg, A.; Ostry, J.D.; Zettelmeyer, J. What makes growth sustained? J. Dev. Econ. 2012, 98, 149–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyhagen, J.; Rickne, J. Income inequality between Chinese regions: Newfound harmony or continued discord? Empir. Econ. 2014, 47, 93–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jorgenson, A.K.; Schor, J.B.; Knight, K.W.; Huang, X. Domestic Inequality and Carbon Emissions in Comparative Perspective. Sociol. Forum 2016, 31, 770–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graham, M.; Ernstson, H. Comanagement at the Fringes: Examining Stakeholder Perspectives at Macassar Dunes, Cape Town, South Africa—At the Intersection of High Biodiversity, Urban Poverty, and Inequality. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 1571–1582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilkinson, R.G. Income distribution and life expectancy. Br. Med. J. 1992, 304, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayrhofer, T.; Schmitz, H. Testing the relationship between income inequality and life expectancy: A simple correction for the aggregation effect when using aggregated data. J. Popul. Econ. 2013, 27, 841–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Field, G. Distribution and Development: A New Look at the Developing World; The MIT Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Lindner, I.; Strulik, H. Distributive politics and economic growth: The Markovian Stackelberg solution. Econ. Theory 2004, 23, 439–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Persson, T.; Tabellini, G. Is Inequality Harmful for Growth? Am. Econ. Rev. 1994, 84, 600–621. [Google Scholar]
- Haggard, S.; Kaufman, R.R. Inequality and Regime Change: Democratic Transitions and the Stability of Democratic Rule. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 2012, 106, 495–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solt, F. Does Economic Inequality Depress Electoral Participation? Testing the Schattschneider Hypothesis. Polit. Behav. 2010, 32, 285–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikkelson, G.M.; Gonzalez, A.; Peterson, G.D. Economic Inequality Predicts Biodiversity Loss. PLoS ONE 2007, 2, e444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hersperger, A.M.; Ioja, C.; Steiner, F.; Tudor, C.A. Comprehensive consideration of conflicts in the land-use planning process: A conceptual contribution. Carpath. J. Earth Environ. Sci. 2015, 10, 5–13. [Google Scholar]
- Shen, L.; Jiang, S.; Yuan, H. Critical indicators for assessing the contribution of infrastructure projects to coordinated urban–rural development in China. Habitat Int. 2012, 36, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez-Pose, A.; Psycharis, Y.; Tselios, V. Politics and Investment: Examining the Territorial Allocation of Public Investment in Greece. Reg. Stud. 2015, 50, 1097–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sen, A. On Economic Inequality; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Wolfson, M. When Inequalities Diverge. Am. Econ. Rev. 1994, 84, 353–358. [Google Scholar]
- Ye, X.; Ma, L.; Ye, K.; Chen, J.; Xie, Q. Analysis of Regional Inequality from Sectoral Structure, Spatial Policy and Economic Development: A Case Study of Chongqing, China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacharya, N.; Mahalanobis, B. Regional Disparities in Household Consumption in India. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1967, 62, 143–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rao, V. Two Decompositions of Concentration Ratio. J. R. Stat. Soc. 1969, 132, 418–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Das, T.; Parikh, A. Decomposition of inequality measures and a comparative analysis. Empir. Econ. 1982, 7, 23–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cowell, F.A. Measurement of Inequality in Handbook of Income Distribution; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, J.; Chen, J.; Miao, Y.; Song, M.; Fan, Y. Unbalanced development of inter-provincial high-grade highway in China: Decomposing the Gini coefficient. Transport. Res. Part D Transport. Environ. 2016, 48, 499–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Liu, Z.; Sun, W.; Hu, Q. Is it fair for Chinese Residents to Get the Opportunity of Income: Based On the Microscopic Measurement of Income Mobility? J. World Econ. 2012, 35, 114–143. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Shi, L.; Liu, F.; Zhang, Z.; Zhao, X.; Liu, B.; Xu, J.; Wen, Q.; Yi, L.; Hu, S. Spatial differences of coastal urban expansion in China from 1970s to 2013. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2015, 25, 389–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, R.H.M.; Schwanen, T.; Banister, D. Distributive justice and equity in transportation. Transp. Rev. 2016, 37, 170–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castells, A.; Solé-Ollé, A. The regional allocation of infrastructure investment: The role of equity, efficiency and political factors. Eur. Econ. Rev. 2005, 49, 1165–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lambrinidis, M.; Psycharis, Y.; Rovolis, A. Regional allocation of public infrastructure investment: The case of Greece. Reg. Stud. 2005, 39, 1231–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, A.P.C.; Lam, P.T.I.; Wen, Y.; Ameyaw, E.E.; Wang, S.; Ke, Y. Cross-Sectional Analysis of Critical Risk Factors for PPP Water Projects in China. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2015, 21, 04014031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Livert, F.; Gainza, X. Distributive politics and spatial equity the allocation of public investment in Chile. Reg. Stud. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kemmerling, A.; Stephan, A. Comparative political economy of regional transport infrastructure investment in Europe. J. Comp. Econ. 2015, 43, 227–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, S.; Kanbur, R.; Zhang, X. China’s regional disparities: Experience and policy. Rev. Dev. Financ. 2011, 1, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Items | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GC | Absolute value | 0.4467 | 0.4624 | 0.4384 | 0.4154 | 0.4549 | 0.4350 | 0.4472 | 0.4504 | 0.4535 |
Relative value | 100 | 104 | 98 | 93 | 102 | 97 | 100 | 101 | 102 |
Year | Centrally-Administered | Sub-Provincial | Prefecture-Level | County-Level | Between Them | Crosses | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GC | CR | GC | CR | GC | CR | GC | CR | GC | CR | GC | CR | |
2006 | 0.1139 | 0.73% | 0.2741 | 2.54% | 0.4828 | 23.94% | 0.4658 | 1.92% | 0.2223 | 49.76% | 0.0943 | 21.12% |
2007 | 0.1356 | 0.83% | 0.3096 | 2.89% | 0.4990 | 24.05% | 0.5283 | 2.05% | 0.2044 | 44.20% | 0.1202 | 25.98% |
2008 | 0.0463 | 0.31% | 0.3000 | 2.90% | 0.4662 | 23.30% | 0.4749 | 1.95% | 0.2125 | 48.47% | 0.1012 | 23.07% |
2009 | 0.0955 | 0.64% | 0.2105 | 2.19% | 0.4619 | 25.29% | 0.4563 | 1.81% | 0.2070 | 49.83% | 0.0841 | 20.23% |
2010 | 0.2751 | 1.52% | 0.2342 | 2.16% | 0.5023 | 27.39% | 0.4550 | 1.51% | 0.1698 | 37.33% | 0.1369 | 30.09% |
2011 | 0.3157 | 1.90% | 0.3273 | 3.04% | 0.4489 | 25.42% | 0.4372 | 1.68% | 0.1513 | 34.78% | 0.1444 | 33.19% |
2012 | 0.3593 | 1.97% | 0.3184 | 2.98% | 0.4579 | 24.77% | 0.4754 | 1.98% | 0.1496 | 33.45% | 0.1558 | 34.84% |
2013 | 0.3549 | 1.70% | 0.3378 | 3.20% | 0.4587 | 25.81% | 0.4870 | 1.94% | 0.1385 | 30.75% | 0.1649 | 36.61% |
2014 | 0.3111 | 1.70% | 0.3372 | 3.07% | 0.4728 | 25.98% | 0.4854 | 1.79% | 0.1502 | 33.12% | 0.1557 | 34.34% |
Items | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bi-polarization Index | Absolute value | 0.5112 | 0.5194 | 0.5429 | 0.4611 | 0.5969 | 0.5031 | 0.5205 | 0.5120 | 0.5008 |
Relative value | 100 | 102 | 106 | 90 | 117 | 98 | 102 | 100 | 98 |
Period | M (G) | M (P) | |
---|---|---|---|
2006–2014 | 0.4857 | 0.0813 | 0.1523 |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ma, L.; Li, D.; Tao, X.; Dong, H.; He, B.; Ye, X. Inequality, Bi-Polarization and Mobility of Urban Infrastructure Investment in China’s Urban System. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1600. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091600
Ma L, Li D, Tao X, Dong H, He B, Ye X. Inequality, Bi-Polarization and Mobility of Urban Infrastructure Investment in China’s Urban System. Sustainability. 2017; 9(9):1600. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091600
Chicago/Turabian StyleMa, Lie, Dandan Li, Xiaobo Tao, Haifeng Dong, Bei He, and Xiaosu Ye. 2017. "Inequality, Bi-Polarization and Mobility of Urban Infrastructure Investment in China’s Urban System" Sustainability 9, no. 9: 1600. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091600