合作与流动:基于两种城际风险投资关系的实证检验

Intercity relationships can be categorized into multiple types, with collaborative relationships and flow relationships being 2 of the main types. Collaborative relationships stem from cities with similar functions achieving economies of scale or with different functions achieving functional complementarity, while flow relationships arise from the potential differences between source and destination cities. This study, based on an analysis of the differences in the formation of collaborative and flow relationships, examines the structural and influencing factors of collaborative and flow networks from the perspective of venture capital relationships. The study finds that the differing mechanisms of these two types of network relationships lead to differences in the influence of distance and city size combinations. However, both types of networks exhibit a certain degree of similarity in reflecting the regional economic landscape, such as displaying similar hierarchical structures. Moreover, while two-way aggregated flow networks are relatively similar to collaborative networks, one-way flow networks can more accurately reveal the characteristics of flow relationships. By analyzing 20 311 venture capital events across 251 Chinese cities, we highlight that core cities like Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen dominate both networks, yet their roles diverge: Shanghai acts as a capital supplier, while Shenzhen exhibits stronger capital outflow. The gravity model reveals that city size significantly enhances collaboration and capital flow, whereas geographic distance inhibits only the latter. Notably, directional flow networks uncover asymmetric patterns, with 144 cities solely contributing capital outflows. These findings challenge the conventional aggregation of bidirectional flows in urban network studies, demonstrating that unidirectional analysis better captures power dynamics in resource allocation. The study underscores the necessity of integrating relational typologies —such as collaboration versus flow —into urban network frameworks to refine theoretical interpretations of intercity interactions. Practically, policymakers should tailor strategies for capital-attracting versus capital-exporting cities to optimize regional economic synergies. This study distinguishes the pattern differences between collaborative and flow relations, highlighting the importance of differentiating relationship types in urban network research.