土地财政、土地融资与地方政府投向网络 基础设施的互动关系.

At present, China’s external demand growth has slowed down, and it is hard for domestic demand to replace its position. Therefore, increasing investment in network infrastructure has become an important choice for policymakers to stabilize growth. Based on this background, this article used the analytical framework of ‘Chinese‑style decentralization’ to theoretically analyze the interaction mechanisms of land finance, land financing, and local governments’ investment in network infrastructure. The study used the un‑ balanced panel data of 30 provinces in China from 2006 to 2019 to empirically examine the interactive relationship between the three and then reconsidered the ‘land‑driven development’ mode. The results showed that: ① There was a positive interaction between land finance, land financing, and local governments’ investment in network infrastructure, and the interaction between the three showed obvious spatial and temporal differences. ② At the temporal level, there was a positive interaction between industrial land investment, land financing, and local governments’ investment in network infrastructure before 2012. Industrial land investment and land financing promoted local governments’ investment in network infrastructure. ③ At the regional level, in the eastern regions, there was a positive interaction between land financing and local governments’ investment in network infrastructure. Land financing promoted local governments’ investment in network infrastructure. In the central regions, land financing pushed local governments’ investment in network infrastructure, and in the western region, there was a positive interaction between land finance, land financing, and local governments’ investment in network infrastructure. In addition to the promoting role of land financing, the blessing of land finance also affected local governments’ investment in network infrastructure. Based on the empirical results, this article puts forward the following policy suggestions: Before finding a suitable alternative, it is not appropriate to completely abandon the ‘land‑driven development’ mode. Under the strict control of debt risks and other issues, it is still necessary for this mode to play an active role in promoting network infrastructure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]