Developing New Quality Productive Forces in Line with Local Conditions: Regional Disparities, Dynamic Evolution, and Influencing Factors —From the Perspective of Production Relations

Abstract

Developing new quality productive forces in accordance with local conditions requires establishing production relations frameworks that align with their unique characteristics. China’s vast territory encompasses significant regional disparities in geographical conditions and development levels. A critical challenge is establishing region-specific production relations that harmonize with local realities, essential for fostering new quality productive forces and achieving coordinated regional development. Existing studies predominantly focus on isolated factors influencing new quality productive forces, lacking comprehensive analysis of regional patterns and insufficient exploration of the synergistic role of production relations and spatial interaction mechanisms, undermining the ability to address “localized development” demands.

This study constructs a dual-dimensional (“new” and “quality”) indicator system based on Chinese city-level data from 2012 to 2021, systematically revealing the regional development patterns and dynamic evolution of new quality productive forces. By examining the heterogeneous impacts and spatial spillover effects of optimized production relations, as well as dissecting interaction mechanisms between central and peripheral regions, it provides a theoretical foundation for coordinated regional development. Key findings include:
(1) A pronounced “center-periphery” gradient differentiation in new quality productive forces, characterized by significant disparities in development levels and growth rates between eastern and central-western regions, economic clusters and non-cluster areas, and core versus peripheral cities.
(2) Strong path dependence and “club convergence” in the dynamic evolution of new quality productive forces, with upward mobility heavily dependent on spillover effects from neighboring regions.
(3) Spatial heterogeneity in the positive effects of optimized production relations; Central regions, characterized by high synergy between production relations and new quality productive forces, exhibit significant developmental benefits, while peripheral regions face constrained progress due to low institutional compatibility.
(4) Dual mechanisms governing center-periphery interactions: Production relations demonstrate asymmetric spatial spillovers—highly compatible central regions drive neighboring areas—yet regional barriers drastically reduce cross-regional spillover efficiency, hindering the diffusion of institutional dividends.

This study contributes theoretically by deepening the understanding of the contradictory movement between production relations and new quality productive forces, revealing that spatial heterogeneity in institutional effectiveness stems from differences in their synergy. It further examines spatial interaction mechanisms between central and peripheral regions from the perspectives of production relations-productive forces synergy and regional barriers.

Practically, to address the “dual dilemmas” in developing new quality productive forces, it proposes a four-path strategy (endogenous evolution, gradient transfer, institutional spillover, institutional learning) and four governance principles (compatibility, collaborative networks, multi-level diffusion, regional integration). These form a nested regional governance structure that balances local autonomy with cross-regional synergy.

In conclusion, this study provides a “production relations-new quality productive forces” synergistic analytical framework for understanding regional imbalances, revealing the micro-mechanisms of dynamic institutional adaptation and regional interaction. It offers both theoretical insights and policy tools to resolve challenges in the spatially coordinated development of new quality productive forces.