Spatiotemporal Evolution and Complexity of Urban Networks in China, 1978–2019: An Enterprise Linkages Perspective

• Published in: Complexity (New York, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2021, Vol.2021 (1)
• Main Authors: Lu, Jiayi, Sun, Dongqi
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Apexes; Cities; Complexity; Density; Diamonds; Evolution; Globalization; Investment strategy; Linkages; Multinational corporations; Networks; Regions; Social network analysis; Social networks; System theory; Time series
• ISSN: 1076-2787; 1099-0526
• DOI: 10.1155/2021/9931985

With the development of globalization and informatization, the relationships among cities have become closer, and a “network” paradigm in urban studies is gaining attention. To examine China’s urban network evolution in a long time series, we used flow-based data to measure enterprise linkages from 1978 to 2019. We investigated the spatiotemporal evolution and complexity characteristics of urban networks in China and arrived at the following conclusions. (1) Intercity enterprise linkages in China have been continuously strengthened. The scale and density of urban networks have increased rapidly. Although the distribution of node cities’ importance and influence has been significantly unbalanced, the degree of which has lessened over time. (2) Network density has significantly improved since 1978, gradually forming a monocentric (Beijing) radial pattern. From the beginning of the twenty-first century, the status of core nodes (e.g., Shanghai) has gradually become prominent. Finally, four vertices stood out in 2019, forming a stable diamond structure. The spatial connection flows of enterprises constituted the core networks with Beijing as the center, skeleton networks with trunk lines formed by subnodes, and regional networks covering a wide range of peripheral areas. (3) China’s urban networks were typically small-scale and scale-free. However, the scale-free characteristics were weakened after 2010. The overall scale gap of intercity enterprise linkages gradually narrowed, and the structure of urban networks became optimized. Meanwhile, the urban networks were heterogeneous. There were more cities with headquarter-branches and active investment behaviors, which had strong influence and control over networks, playing their functions of “broker” and “transfer.”