Impact of Heterogeneous Spatial Structure on Regional Innovation—From the Perspectives of Efficiency and Gap

Reasonable spatial system distribution is the prerequisite for the optimization of resource and spatial allocation and the coordinated development of the regional economy. Therefore, correctly identifying the impact of different types of spatial structures on scientific and technological innovation is an important way to promote the rational layout of regional spatial structures and enhance the strength of regional scientific and technological innovation. Based on the theory of regional spatial structure and panel data of 26 provinces and autonomous regions in China from 2005 to 2019, this paper tested the impact of regional spatial structure on innovation efficiency and gap by constructing the regional spatial structure index, the innovation efficiency index, and the innovation gap index. The research results show that: First, the agglomeration effect produced by a single-center spatial structure is conducive to improving the efficiency of scientific and technological innovation, whereas the spillover effect generated by a multi-center spatial structure is more favorable for narrowing the gap in scientific and technological innovation. Second, the single-center spatial structure is more suitable for provinces and cities in the western region with relatively low levels of economic development, whereas the multi-center spatial structure is more beneficial to the achievement of innovative and high-quality development in the eastern region. Third, the moderating effect analysis shows that with an increase in cultural diversity and inter-city distance, the partial effects of the single-center spatial structure on innovation efficiency present an “N” shape and an “inverted-U” shape, respectively, whereas the partial effects of the multi-center spatial structure on the innovation gap exhibit “inverted-U” shapes. This research not only provides theoretical support for the impact of regional spatial structure on innovation efficiency and gap but also offers empirical evidence for future regional development path choices