Intercity coopetition—the dynamic interplay between cooperation and competition—is central to regional innovation, enabling knowledge exchange across cities. However, the spatial organization of these dynamics among functionally diverse cities and their implications for regional innovation outcomes remain underexplored. This study examines how urban polycentricity, captured through the balance of intercity coopetition relations, affects regional innovation performance. Methodologically, we develop an intercity coopetition index that incorporates both geographical overlap in collaboration networks and technological proximity. Empirically, we draw on longitudinal patent co-application data from nineteen Chinese urban regions between 1990 and 2022. Using fixed effect and instrumental variables models, we find that a balance in cooperation alone has a negative effect on regional innovation. In contrast, regional innovation performance is driven by the interaction between the strength of competitive ties and the balance of competition across cities. We conclude by discussing the policy implications of these findings for fostering spatially coordinated innovation systems.
AgarwalAGiulianoGRedfearnCL (2012) Strangers in our midst: The usefulness of exploring polycentricity. The Annals of Regional Science48: 433–450.
2.
BaoHXLiLLizieriC (2019) City profile: Chongqing (1997–2017). Cities94: 161–171.
3.
BoschmaR (2004) Competitiveness of regions from an evolutionary perspective. Regional Studies38(9): 1001–1014.
4.
BounckenRBGastJKrausS, et al. (2015) Coopetition: A systematic review, synthesis, and future research directions. Review of Managerial Science9: 577–601.
BreschiSLenziC (2015) The role of external linkages and gatekeepers for the renewal and expansion of US cities’ knowledge base, 1990–2004. Regional Studies49(5): 782–797.
7.
BreschiSLenziC (2016) Co-invention networks and inventive productivity in US cities. Journal of Urban Economics92: 66–75.
8.
BrezziMVeneriP (2015) Assessing polycentric urban systems in the OECD: Country, regional and metropolitan perspectives. European Planning Studies23(6): 1128–1145.
9.
BurgerMJMeijersEJHoogerbruggeMM, et al. (2015) Borrowed size, agglomeration shadows and cultural amenities in North-West Europe. European Planning Studies23(6): 1090–1109.
10.
CarnahanSAgarwalRCampbellB (2010) The effect of firm compensation structures on the mobility and entrepreneurship of extreme performers. Business920: 1–43.
11.
CasetFYangYDerudderB, et al. (2023) The productivity effects of polycentricity: A systematic analysis of urban regions in Europe. Papers in Regional Science102(6): 1193–1214.
12.
ChenWGolubchikovOLiuZ (2021) Measuring polycentric structures of megaregions in China: Linking morphological and functional dimensions. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science48(8): 2272–2288.
13.
CheshmehzangiATangT (2022) China’s City Cluster Development in the Race to Carbon Neutrality. Springer.
14.
CorboLKrausSVlačićB, et al. (2023) Coopetition and innovation: A review and research agenda. Technovation122: 102624.
15.
DagninoGB (2009) Coopetition strategy: A new kind of interfirm dynamics for value creation. In: DagninoGBRoccoE (eds) Coopetition Strategy. Routledge, pp.45–63.
16.
De NoniIGanzaroliA (2024) Enhancing the inventive capacity of European regions through interregional collaboration. Regional Studies58(7): 1425–1445.
17.
De NoniIGanzaroliAOrsiL (2017) The impact of intra-and inter-regional knowledge collaboration and technological variety on the knowledge productivity of European regions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change117: 108–118.
18.
DemuynckW (2022) Linking polycentricity, cooperation and competition in urban China. Master Thesis, Ghent University, Ghent.
19.
DemuynckWZhangWCasetF, et al. (2023) Urban co-opetition in megaregions: Measuring competition and cooperation within and beyond the Pearl River Delta. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems101: 101951.
20.
DerudderBLiuXWangM, et al. (2021) Measuring polycentric urban development: The importance of accurately determining the ‘balance’ between ‘centers’. Cities111: 103009.
21.
DerudderBMeijersEHarrisonJ, et al. (2022) Polycentric urban regions: Conceptualization, identification and implications. Regional Studies56(1): 1–6.
22.
FeserD (2023) To compete or cooperate? A case study of innovation and creativity labs in Berlin. Journal of the Knowledge Economy14(4): 4367–4392.
23.
FloridaRMellanderCStolarickK (2008) Inside the black box of regional development—Human capital, the creative class and tolerance. Journal of Economic Geography8(5): 615–649.
24.
FrenkenK (2006) Technological innovation and complexity theory. Economics of Innovation and New Technology15(2): 137–155.
25.
GalvinPBurtonNSinghPJ, et al. (2020) Network rivalry, competition and innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change161: 120253.
26.
GastJGundolfKHarmsR, et al. (2019) Knowledge management and coopetition: How do cooperating competitors balance the needs to share and protect their knowledge?Industrial Marketing Management77: 65–74.
27.
GiulianiE (2007) The selective nature of knowledge networks in clusters: Evidence from the wine industry. Journal of Economic Geography7(2): 139–168.
28.
GnyawaliDRParkBJR (2011) Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation. Research Policy40(5): 650–663.
29.
GreenN (2007) Functional polycentricity: A formal definition in terms of social network analysis. Urban Studies44(11): 2077–2103.
30.
HospersGJvan TuijlEBenneworthP (2012) Innovation by imitation? Benchmarking success stories of regional innovation. In: BasTGZhaoJ (eds) Comparing High Technology Firms in Developed and Developing Countries: Cluster Growth Initiatives. IGI Global Scientific Publishing, pp.14–25.
31.
KrammerSM (2016) The role of diversification profiles and dyadic characteristics in the formation of technological alliances: Differences between exploitation and exploration in a low-tech industry. Research Policy45(2): 517–532.
32.
LeydesdorffLKoglerDFYanB (2017) Mapping patent classifications: Portfolio and statistical analysis, and the comparison of strengths and weaknesses. Scientometrics112: 1573–1591.
33.
LiWSchmidtSSiedentopS (2024) Can polycentric urban development simultaneously achieve both economic growth and regional equity? A multi-scale analysis of German regions. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space56(2): 525–545.
34.
LiYDuR (2022) Polycentric urban structure and innovation: Evidence from a panel of Chinese cities. Regional Studies56(1): 113–127.
35.
LiuXDerudderBWangM (2018) Polycentric urban development in China: A multi-scale analysis. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science45(5): 953–972.
36.
LiuXYangYDerudderB, et al. (2025) Emerging synergies in polycentric cities? Exploring the impact of intercity cooperation on labour market integration in the Yangtze River Delta, 2014–2021. Regional Studies, Regional Science12(1): 162–184.
37.
LuongoSSepeFDel GaudioG (2023) Regional innovation systems in tourism: The role of collaboration and competition. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity9(4): 100148.
38.
MaHXuX (2023) The effects of proximities on the evolving structure of intercity innovation networks in the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area: Comparison between scientific and technology knowledge. International Journal of Urban Sciences27(3): 390–413.
39.
MeijersE (2005) Polycentric urban regions and the quest for synergy: Is a network of cities more than the sum of the parts?Urban Studies42(4): 765–781.
40.
MeijersERomeinA (2003) Realizing potential: Building regional organizing capacity in polycentric urban regions. European Urban and Regional Studies10(2): 173–186.
41.
MeijersEHoogerbruggeMCardosoR (2018) Beyond polycentricity: Does stronger integration between cities in polycentric urban regions improve performance?Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie109(1): 1–21.
42.
MeijersEJBurgerMJHoogerbruggeMM (2016) Borrowing size in networks of cities: City size, network connectivity and metropolitan functions in Europe. Papers in Regional Science95(1): 181–199.
43.
MiguelezEMorenoR (2017) Networks, diffusion of knowledge, and regional innovative performance. International Regional Science Review40(4): 331–336.
44.
MünterAVolgmannK (2021) Polycentric regions: Proposals for a new typology and terminology. Urban Studies58(4): 677–695.
45.
OuwehandWMvan OortFGCortinovisN (2022) Spatial structure and productivity in European regions. Regional Studies56(1): 48–62.
46.
PanHYaoYMingY, et al. (2024) Whither less is more? Understanding the contextual and configurational conditions of polycentricity to improve urban agglomeration efficiency. Cities149: 104884.
47.
ParkYYoonJ (2017) Application technology opportunity discovery from technology portfolios: Use of patent classification and collaborative filtering. Technological Forecasting and Social Change118: 170–183.
48.
ParrJB (2002) Agglomeration economies: Ambiguities and confusions. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space34(4): 717–731.
49.
QianMZhaoMYangJ, et al. (2024) A novel approach to enterprise technical collaboration: Recommending R&D partners through technological similarity and complementarity. Journal of Informetrics18(4): 101571.
50.
QinB (2015) City profile: Chengdu. Cities43: 18–27.
51.
RamanRGroverV (2020) Studying the multilevel impact of cohesion versus structural holes in knowledge networks on adaptation to IT-enabled patient-care practices. Information Systems Journal30(1): 6–47.
52.
RauhutD (2017) Polycentricity—One concept or many?European Planning Studies25(2): 332–348.
53.
Rodríguez-PoseAWilkieC (2016) Understanding and learning from an evolving geography of innovation. In: ShearmurRCarrincazeauxCDoloreuxD (eds) Handbook on the Geographies of Innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.63–87.
54.
SantoalhaA (2019) Technological diversification and smart specialisation: The role of cooperation. Regional Studies53(9): 1269–1283.
55.
SchillerDBurgerMJKarremanB (2015) The functional and sectoral division of labour between Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta: From complementarities in production to competition in producer services?Environment and Planning A47(1): 188–208.
56.
StuckJBroekelTRevilla DiezJ (2016) Network structures in regional innovation systems. European Planning Studies24(3): 423–442.
57.
SunBLiWZhangZ, et al. (2019) Is polycentricity a promising tool to reduce regional economic disparities? Evidence from China’s prefectural regions. Landscape and Urban Planning192: 103667.
58.
ThomasRSchmidtSSiedentopS (2022) Toward comparative polycentricity scores: Assessing variations in regional delineation and subcenter identification. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science49(6): 1597–1611.
59.
van der WoudenFRigbyDL (2019) Co-inventor networks and knowledge production in specialized and diversified cities. Papers in Regional Science98(4): 1833–1854.
60.
VasanenA (2013) Spatial integration and functional balance in polycentric urban systems: A multi-scalar approach. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie104(4): 410–425.
61.
WallR (2009) Netscape: Cities and Global Corporate Networks. Erasmus Research Institute of Management.
62.
WalleyK (2007) Coopetition: An introduction to the subject and an agenda for research. International Studies of Management and Organization37(2): 11–31.
63.
WangJDengK (2022) Impact and mechanism analysis of smart city policy on urban innovation: Evidence from China. Economic Analysis and Policy73: 574–587.
64.
WanzenböckIScherngellTBrennerT (2014) Embeddedness of regions in European knowledge networks: A comparative analysis of inter-regional R&D collaborations, co-patents and co-publications. The Annals of Regional Science53: 337–368.
65.
WuFZhangF (2022) Rethinking China’s urban governance: The role of the state in neighbourhoods, cities and regions. Progress in Human Geography46(3): 775–797.
66.
XueJHoylerMHarrisonJ (2025) Connecting geographies of innovation and polycentric urban regions through anchoring and mobility. Regional Studies59(1): 2525987.
67.
YangQZhuZWangJ, et al. (2025) A tale of two ties: The impact of a focal city’s direct and indirect collaboration networks on regional innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer50: 1947–1988.
68.
YangYCasetFDerudderB (2024) Does urban polycentricity contribute to regional economic growth? Empirical evidence from a panel of Chinese urban regions. Regional Studies58(5): 1018–1032.
69.
YaoLLiJ (2022) Intercity innovation collaboration and the role of high-speed rail connections: Evidence from Chinese co-patent data. Regional Studies56(11): 1845–1857.
70.
YuHYangJLiT, et al. (2022) Morphological and functional polycentric structure assessment of megacity: An integrated approach with spatial distribution and interaction. Sustainable Cities and Society80: 103800.
71.
YueHPanYGuanQ (2025) Measuring the spatial and size polycentricity: An empirical study of China’s urban agglomerations using population distribution data. Applied Geography176: 103529.
72.
ZhangFNingYLouX (2021) The evolutionary mechanism of China’s urban network from 1997 to 2015: An analysis of air passenger flows. Cities109: 103005.
73.
ZhangTSunBLiW (2017) The economic performance of urban structure: From the perspective of polycentricity and monocentricity. Cities68: 18–24.
74.
ZhangWDerudderB (2019) How sensitive are measures of polycentricity to the choice of ‘centres’? A methodological and empirical exploration. Urban Studies56(16): 3339–3357.
75.
ZhangWDerudderBLiuX, et al. (2022) Defining ‘centres’ in analyses of polycentric urban regions: The case of the Yangtze River Delta. Regional Studies56(1): 87–98.
76.
ZhangWQianYTangJ, et al. (2025) Exploring cooperative and competitive relations in a Chinese intercity innovation network. Applied Geography175: 103508.
77.
ZhaoMDerudderBHuangJ (2017) Examining the transition processes in the Pearl River Delta polycentric mega-city region through the lens of corporate networks. Cities60: 147–155.
78.
ZhaoYLyuJHuesigS (2024) The impact of innovative city cooperation network on city’s innovation efficiency: Evidence from China. Journal of the Knowledge Economy15(3): 10349–10383.
