Growth characteristics and national role identification of China-ASEAN trade flow network

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2024.05.20222177

Abstract

Abstract:

Taking China and the 10 ASEAN countries as the research objects, the social network analysis method was used to construct the China-ASEAN trade flow network, we analyzed the growth characteristics of the overall network, revealed the relationship and distribution rules of trade nodes, identified core-periphery roles, peer roles, and intermediary roles. The results show that: ①Singapore, Thailand, and China in the core circle have frequent interactions, and China gradually gain dominating status; countries in the semi-peripheral circle have frequent turnover and are not stable; Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, and Brunei are always in the peripheral circle. ②The actors in the same trade flow network are redundant with each other in national resources, forming a strong competitive economic relationship. Brunei, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Laos have never acted as intermediaries. China, Singapore, and Thailand have acted as intermediaries far more often than other countries, and have more resources to control. Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines act as intermediaries less often and lack the ability to utilize resources. ③China, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam can use redundant resources to explore existing trade gaps in the trade flow network, so as to gain more opportunities to explore new trade markets, and retain multiple options to avoid risks in a timely manner. Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Cambodia, Brunei and Laos lack redundant resources to diversify risks, lack trade intermediary capacity, and lack the ability to participate in the operation of trade flow networks. In order to narrow the partial development gap of China-ASEAN trade flow network and decentralize the power centers of China and Thailand; attach importance to the construction of trade flow sub-networks, connect Myanmar and Laos to the southwestern provinces of China, and shorten the distance between peripheral countries and key intermediary countries; With China and Singapore as strongholds, adjust the national trade layout and use the intermediary role to connect core and peripheral countries.

Key words: China-ASEAN, trade flows, network growth, role recognition, social network analysis

摘要：

以中国和东盟10国为研究对象，应用社会网络分析法构建中国-东盟贸易流网络，分析整体网络生长特征，揭示贸易节点关联与集散规律，进行核心-边缘角色、对等角色、中介角色识别。结果表明：①核心圈层新加坡、泰国、中国互动明显，中国逐渐占优；半边缘圈层国家周转频繁；柬埔寨、缅甸、老挝、文莱始终处于边缘圈层。②同一贸易流网络的行动者对等国家资源相互冗余，形成较强的竞争经济关系。文莱、柬埔寨、缅甸、老挝未曾担任中间人，中国、新加坡和泰国扮演中间人次数远超他国，更具资源把控话语权。印尼、马来西亚、越南、菲律宾充当中间人次数较少，运转资源能力欠缺。③中国、新加坡、泰国、越南可利用冗余资源探查贸易流网络中现存贸易缺口，以获更多机会发掘贸易新市场，保留多元选择及时规避风险。印尼、马来西亚、菲律宾、柬埔寨、文莱和老挝缺少冗余资源用以分散风险，缺乏贸易中介能力，参与贸易流网络运行能力匮乏。为缩小中国-东盟贸易流网络局部发育差距，分散中国、泰国权力中心；重视贸易流子网络的建设，缅甸、老挝对接中国西南省域，拉近边缘国家与关键中介国的距离；以中国、新加坡为据点，调整国别贸易布局，运用中介角色连接核心与边缘国家。

关键词: 中国-东盟, 贸易流, 网络生长, 角色识别, 社会网络分析

Cheng CHENG, Yaqi HU, Yunlong WANG. Growth characteristics and national role identification of China-ASEAN trade flow network[J]. World Regional Studies, 2024, 33(5): 1-17.

程成, 胡亚琪, 王云龙. 中国-东盟贸易流网络生长特征与国别角色识别[J]. 世界地理研究, 2024, 33(5): 1-17.

Figures/Tables 12

Tab.1 Growth measurement index and role identification index of China-ASEAN trade flow network

类别	指标		计算公式	含义
整体网络生长特征	网络密度		$A = L / n (n - 1)$	指网络中国家间联系疏密程度，通过国家间的联系程度表示网络的连通与分散程度。L为国家间存在的连接数，n为国家数量
	网络中心势	度数中心势	$C A D = ∑ i = 1 n C A D m a x - C A D i n - 2$	测算整体网络生长是否更趋向于中心化， $C A D$ 为度数中心势， $C A D i$ 为i国的度数中心度，n表示国家数量
	网络中心势	中介中心势	$C B = ∑ i = 1 n C B m a x - C B i n - 1$	测算整体网络生长过程中部分国家对贸易资源的中转、分流能力。 $C B$ 为中介中心势， $C B i$ 为i国的中介中心度，n为国家数量
贸易节点生长特征	度数中心度		$C A D i = ∑ j = 1 n r i j$	计算的是某一国家与其他国家直接联系的数量，分为入度数中心度和出度数中心度，代表一国与他国进口、出口贸易联系。 $C A D i$ 为i国的度数中心度， $r i j$ 为i国与j国之间存在的直接联系，n为国家数量
	中介中心度		$C A B i = ∑ j n ∑ k n b j k$ （i）	测度某个国家作为中介国的程度大小， $C A B i$ 为i国的中介中心度，i国作为j国、k国的中间人， $b j k i$ 为i国作为中间人的概率
	接近中心度		$C A P i - 1 = ∑ j = 1 n d i j$	衡量两国之间的捷径路径。 $C A P i - 1$ 为i国的接近中心度， $d i j$ 为i国与j国之间的捷径距离，n为国家数量。i国与其他国家的捷径距离较长，表示i国不是网络生长的中心国家
结构洞	冗余度		$γ = 2 t / n$	$t$ 为一国在网络中的连线数，n为国家数目
结构洞	限制度		$C i j = (p i j + ∑ q p i q p q j) 2$	$p i j$ 为行动者i投入j的直接关系总量， $∑ q p i q p q j$ 为行动者i投入j的间接关系总量；行动者i与j的间接关系通过中间人q传递， $p i q$ 为国家i全部关系投入q的关系占总关系的比例， $p q j$ 为中间人q的全部关系投入j的关系占总关系的比例； $C i j$ 最小值为 $p i j$ 的平方（j与其他国家均不相连）

Tab.1 Growth measurement index and role identification index of China-ASEAN trade flow network

类别	指标		计算公式	含义
整体网络生长特征	网络密度		$A = L / n (n - 1)$	指网络中国家间联系疏密程度，通过国家间的联系程度表示网络的连通与分散程度。L为国家间存在的连接数，n为国家数量
	网络中心势	度数中心势	$C A D = ∑ i = 1 n C A D m a x - C A D i n - 2$	测算整体网络生长是否更趋向于中心化， $C A D$ 为度数中心势， $C A D i$ 为i国的度数中心度，n表示国家数量
	网络中心势	中介中心势	$C B = ∑ i = 1 n C B m a x - C B i n - 1$	测算整体网络生长过程中部分国家对贸易资源的中转、分流能力。 $C B$ 为中介中心势， $C B i$ 为i国的中介中心度，n为国家数量
贸易节点生长特征	度数中心度		$C A D i = ∑ j = 1 n r i j$	计算的是某一国家与其他国家直接联系的数量，分为入度数中心度和出度数中心度，代表一国与他国进口、出口贸易联系。 $C A D i$ 为i国的度数中心度， $r i j$ 为i国与j国之间存在的直接联系，n为国家数量
	中介中心度		$C A B i = ∑ j n ∑ k n b j k$ （i）	测度某个国家作为中介国的程度大小， $C A B i$ 为i国的中介中心度，i国作为j国、k国的中间人， $b j k i$ 为i国作为中间人的概率
	接近中心度		$C A P i - 1 = ∑ j = 1 n d i j$	衡量两国之间的捷径路径。 $C A P i - 1$ 为i国的接近中心度， $d i j$ 为i国与j国之间的捷径距离，n为国家数量。i国与其他国家的捷径距离较长，表示i国不是网络生长的中心国家
结构洞	冗余度		$γ = 2 t / n$	$t$ 为一国在网络中的连线数，n为国家数目
结构洞	限制度		$C i j = (p i j + ∑ q p i q p q j) 2$	$p i j$ 为行动者i投入j的直接关系总量， $∑ q p i q p q j$ 为行动者i投入j的间接关系总量；行动者i与j的间接关系通过中间人q传递， $p i q$ 为国家i全部关系投入q的关系占总关系的比例， $p q j$ 为中间人q的全部关系投入j的关系占总关系的比例； $C i j$ 最小值为 $p i j$ 的平方（j与其他国家均不相连）

Fig.1 Growth and evolution of the overall network of China-ASEAN trade flows from 1992 to 2020

Tab.2 Network density and connections of China-ASEAN trade flows from 1992 to 2020

年份	网络密度	连接数	年份	网络密度	连接数
1992	0.37	41	2007	0.50	55
1993	0.36	40	2008	0.50	55
1994	0.36	40	2009	0.51	56
1995	0.35	38	2010	0.51	56
1996	0.40	44	2011	0.50	55
1997	0.42	46	2012	0.52	57
1998	0.44	48	2013	0.51	56
1999	0.40	44	2014	0.52	57
2000	0.46	51	2015	0.52	57
2001	0.49	54	2016	0.52	57
2002	0.49	54	2017	0.51	56
2003	0.51	56	2018	0.53	58
2004	0.50	55	2019	0.53	58
2005	0.49	54	2020	0.52	57
2006	0.49	54

Tab.3 Center trend of China-ASEAN trade flow network from 1992 to 2020

年份	中心势（%）		年份	中心势（%）
年份	度数	中介	年份	度数	中介
1992	53.33	10.82	2007	38.89	12.98
1993	55.56	11.32	2008	41.11	20.98
1994	55.56	11.32	2009	38.89	21.45
1995	45.56	6.10	2010	48.89	16.74
1996	43.33	7.69	2011	38.89	22.50
1997	53.33	12.79	2012	38.89	16.74
1998	53.33	11.55	2013	48.89	17.34
1999	43.33	6.72	2014	46.67	16.74
2000	38.89	7.65	2015	48.89	15.52
2001	46.67	10.74	2016	38.89	10.11
2002	46.67	10.74	2017	38.89	10.54
2003	46.67	16.11	2018	46.67	14.11
2004	48.89	23.60	2019	38.89	19.18
2005	38.89	18.37	2020	46.67	16.74
2006	38.89	18.37

Tab.4 Node centrality of China-ASEAN trade flow network from 1992 to 2020

国别	度数中心度		中介中心度		接近中心度
国别	1992	2020	1992	2020	1992	2020
泰国	10.00	9.00	14.62	4.90	10.00	11.00
新加坡	9.00	9.00	5.62	4.90	11.00	11.00
中国	7.00	10.00	0.95	9.40	13.00	10.00
马来西亚	8.00	6.00	2.12	0.00	12.00	14.00
越南	5.00	8.00	0.00	1.40	15.00	12.00
印尼	6.00	7.00	0.20	0.40	14.00	13.00
菲律宾	6.00	6.00	0.50	0.00	14.00	14.00
缅甸	4.00	5.00	0.00	0.00	16.00	15.00
柬埔寨	2.00	4.00	0.00	0.00	18.00	16.00
文莱	4.00	2.00	0.00	0.00	16.00	18.00
老挝	1.00	2.00	0.00	0.00	19.00	18.00
均值	5.64	6.18	2.18	4.90	14.36	13.82

Fig.2 Classification of country types based on out-degree centrality and in-degree centrality

Fig.3 "Core-semiperiphery-periphery" circle division of China-ASEAN trade flow network

Tab.5 Actor peer fit "α"

年份	$α$	年份	$α$	年份	$α$	年份	$α$	年份	$α$
1992	1.045	1998	1.045	2004	1.045	2010	1.045	2016	1.044
1993	1.042	1999	1.044	2005	1.045	2011	1.045	2017	1.043
1994	1.042	2000	1.045	2006	1.045	2012	1.047	2018	1.046
1995	1.039	2001	1.046	2007	1.045	2013	1.047	2019	1.043
1996	1.042	2002	1.046	2008	1.044	2014	1.047	2020	1.050
1997	1.044	2003	1.045	2009	1.045	2015	1.046

Tab.5 Actor peer fit "α"

年份	$α$	年份	$α$	年份	$α$	年份	$α$	年份	$α$
1992	1.045	1998	1.045	2004	1.045	2010	1.045	2016	1.044
1993	1.042	1999	1.044	2005	1.045	2011	1.045	2017	1.043
1994	1.042	2000	1.045	2006	1.045	2012	1.047	2018	1.046
1995	1.039	2001	1.046	2007	1.045	2013	1.047	2019	1.043
1996	1.042	2002	1.046	2008	1.044	2014	1.047	2020	1.050
1997	1.044	2003	1.045	2009	1.045	2015	1.046

Fig.4 Peer-to-peer structure of actors from 1992 to 2020

Tab.6 China-ASEAN trade flow network rules peer group in 1992-2020

年份	群组Ⅰ	群组Ⅱ	群组Ⅲ
1992	中国、印尼、马来西亚、新加坡、泰国、文莱	柬埔寨、老挝、缅甸、菲律宾、越南
1995	中国、印尼、马来西亚、新加坡、泰国	文莱、柬埔寨、老挝、缅甸、菲律宾、越南
1996	中国、印尼、马来西亚、新加坡、泰国、菲律宾	文莱、柬埔寨、老挝、缅甸、越南
1997	中国、印尼、马来西亚、新加坡、泰国	文莱、菲律宾	柬埔寨、老挝、缅甸、越南
1999	中国、印尼、马来西亚、新加坡、泰国	菲律宾	文莱、柬埔寨、老挝、缅甸、越南
2000	中国、马来西亚、新加坡、越南、泰国	印尼、菲律宾	文莱、柬埔寨、老挝、缅甸、越南
2019	中国、菲律宾、新加坡、越南、泰国、印尼	文莱、柬埔寨、老挝、马来西亚、缅甸

Tab.7 Redundancy and restriction of trade flow network (country) in 2020

冗余度	文莱	柬埔寨	中国	印尼	老挝	马来西亚	缅甸	菲律宾	新加坡	越南	泰国	限制度
文莱	0	0	0.5	0	0	0	0	0	0.5	0	0	0.63
柬埔寨	0	0	0.67	0	0	0	0	0	0.67	0.83	0.83	0.50
中国	0.11	0.22	0	0.56	0.11	0.56	0.22	0.5	0.75	0.67	0.69	0.36
印尼	0	0	0.83	0	0	0.75	0.42	0.83	0.79	0.79	0.79	0.47
老挝	0	0	0.5	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.5	0.63
马来西亚	0	0	0.83	0.75	0	0	0	0.75	0.83	0.83	0.833	0.48
缅甸	0	0	0.67	0.83	0	0	0	0	0.83	0.83	0.83	0.49
菲律宾	0	0	0.82	0.91	0	0.82	0	0	0.82	0.82	0.82	0.48
新加坡	0.13	0.25	0.84	0.59	0	0.66	0.31	0.56	0	0.72	0.72	0.40
越南	0	0.36	0.86	0.68	0	0.71	0.36	0.64	0.82	0	0.79	0.45
泰国	0	0.33	0.83	0.63	0.13	0.67	0.33	0.6	0.77	0.73	0	0.42

Tab.8 Functional role of intermediaries from 1992 to 2020

国别	协调人	守门人	代理人	顾问	联络人	均值
中国	0	2	2	1	12	17
印尼	0	3	1	0	2	6
马来西亚	1	1	2	0	2	6
新加坡	1	2	3	1	10	17
越南	0	1	1	1	3	6
泰国	1	4	7	1	11	24
菲律宾	0	1	0	0	0	1

References 33

1	范祚军.中国—东盟自由贸易区全面建成十周年回顾与展望.人民论坛,2020(34):90-93.
	FAN Z. Review and prospect of the 10th anniversary of China-ASEAN Free Trade Area. People's Forum, 2020 (34): 90-93.
2	吕延方,方若楠,王冬.全球数字服务贸易网络的拓扑结构特征及影响机制.数量经济技术经济研究,2021,38(10):128-147.
	LV Y, FANG R, WANG D. The topological structure characteristics and influence mechanism of the global digital service trade network. Quantitative Economics and Technical Economics Research, 2021, 38 (10): 128-147.
3	姚星,王博,蒲岳."一带一路"沿线国家服务中间投入的网络结构特征及其影响因素.世界经济研究,2018(1):122-133.
	YAO X, WANG B, PU Y. Network structure characteristics and influencing factors of national service intermediate investment in countries along the Belt and Road. World Economic Research, 2018(1): 122-133.
4	周英,张宇馨,刘智丽."东盟10+6"经济体制造业贸易网络研究.区域与全球发展,2019,3(1):76-99.
	ZHOU Y, ZHANG Y, LIU Z. "ASEAN 10+6" Economies manufacturing trade network research. Regional and Global Development, 2019, 3(1): 76-99.
5	王博,陈诺,林桂军."一带一路"沿线国家制造业增加值贸易网络及其影响因素.国际贸易问题,2019(3):85-100.
	WANG B, CHEN N, LIN G. Manufacturing value-added trade network and its influencing factors of countries along the "Belt and Road". International Trade Issues, 2019(3): 85-100.
6	徐步.中国—东盟合作:机制、成果与前景.亚太安全与海洋研究,2017(3):1-17.
	XU B. China-ASEAN cooperation: Mechanism, achievements and prospects. Asia-Pacific Security and Ocean Research, 2017(3): 1-17.
7	王鹏飞."一带一路"引领下中国-东盟贸易结构演进及发展策略.商业经济研究,2019(6):128-131.
	WANG P. The evolution and development strategy of China-ASEAN trade structure under the guidance of "One Belt and One Road". Commercial Economic Research, 2019(6): 128-131.
8	公峰涛.中国-东盟贸易结构研究.南开经济研究,2003(3):51-54.
	GONG F. Research on China-ASEAN trade structure . Nankai Economic Research, 2003(3): 51-54.
9	DAY-YIN T, MUI-YIN C. ASEAN-China Trade Flow: A study on intra-industry trade in manufacturing sector. Advanced Science Letters, 2017, 23 (4): 2691-2694.
10	张晓燕,孙乾坤."一带一路"建设背景的中国与东盟地区的贸易往来.改革,2017(9):57-65.
	ZHANG X, SUN Q. Trade between China and ASEAN under the background of the "Belt and Road" construction. Reform, 2017(9): 57-65.
11	HSU L. ASEAN and the Belt and Road initiative: Trust-building in Trade and Investment. China and the World: Ancient and Modern Silk Road, 2020, 3(1): 1-43.
12	YANG S, MARTINEZ-ZARZOSO I. A paneldata analysis of trade creation and trade diversion effects: The case of ASEAN-China Free Trade Area. China Economic Review, 2014, 29(4): 138-151.
13	LI Q, SCOLLAY R, MAANI S. Effects on China and ASEAN of the ASEAN-China FTA: The FDI perspective. Journal of Asian Economics, 2016, 44(5): 1-19.
14	ARIYASAJJAKORN D, GANDER J, RATANAKOMUT S, et al. ASEAN FTA, distribution of income of income, and globalization. Journal of Asian Economics, 2009, 20(3): 327-335.
15	张建中.后危机时代中国与东盟的外贸发展趋势及贸易政策选择.国际贸易问题,2011(5):60-68.
	ZHANG J. The foreign trade development trend and trade policy choice between China and ASEAN in the post-crisis era. International Trade Issues, 2011(5): 60-68.
16	VAHALIK B. Regional bilateral trade analysis of the european union, China and ASEAN. Procedia Economics and Finance, 2014, 12: 709-717.
17	SHEPHERD B, WILSON J S. Trade facilitation in ASEAN member countries: Measuring progress and assessing priorities. Journal of Asian Economics, 2009, 20(4): 367-383.
18	申韬,曹梦真.中国对东盟出口贸易动态波动影响因素研究——基于产能合作重点行业数据.广西社会科学,2020(1):67-74.
	SHEN T, CAO M. Research on factors influencing dynamic fluctuations of China's export trade to ASEAN--Based on the data of key industries for capacity cooperation. Guangxi Social Sciences, 2020 (1): 67-74.
19	SNYDER D, KICK E L. Structural position in the world system and economic growth, 1955-1970: A multiple-network analysis of transnational interactions. American Journal of Sociology, 1979, 84(5): 1096-1126.
20	FAGIOLO G, REYES J, SCHIAVO S. On the topological properties of the world trade web: A weighted network analysis. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 2008, 387(15): 3868-3873.
21	杨宏昌.中国与东盟国家区域经济增长的空间溢出效应研究.南宁: 广西大学,2017.
	YANG H. Research on the spatial spillover effect of regional economic growth between China and ASEAN countries. Nanning: Guangxi University, 2017.
22	TORREGGIANI S, MANGIONI G, PUMA M J, et al. Identifying the community structure of the food-trade international multi-network. Environmental Research Letters, 2018, 13(5): 054026.
23	唐晓彬,崔茂生."一带一路"货物贸易网络结构动态变化及其影响机制.财经研究,2020,46(7):138-153.
	TANG X, CUI M. Dynamic changes in the network structure of the "Belt and Road" trade in goods and its impact mechanism. Finance and Economics Research, 2020, 46 (7): 138-153.
24	姚星,吴怡,吴钢.金融危机冲击下中国服务贸易网络结构动态演化研究.国际贸易问题,2016(9):84-95.
	YAO X, WU Y, WU G. Research on the dynamic evolution of china's service trade network structure under the impact of the financial crisis. International Trade Issues, 2016(9): 84-95.
25	蒋小荣,杨永春,刘清,等.多重贸易网络的空间演化特征及其影响因素——基于货物、服务和增加值贸易的比较.地理科学,2021,41(8):1419-1427.
	JIANG X, YANG Y, LIU Q, et al. The spatial evolution characteristics of multiple trade networks and their influencing factors--Based on the comparison of goods, services and value-added trade. Geographical Science, 2021, 41 (8): 1419-1427.
26	梁双陆,郭甜.中国与环印度洋地区制造业贸易网络结构特征分析.国际商务(对外经济贸易大学学报),2021(5):17-30.
	LIANG S, GUO T. Analysis on the structure characteristics of manufacturing trade network between China and the Indian ocean rim. International Business (Journal of University of International Business and Economics), 2021(5): 17-30.
27	李优树,冉丹.石油产业链贸易网络及其影响因素研究——以"一带一路"沿线国家为例.经济问题,2021(9):111-118.
	LI Y, RAN D. Research on the trade network of petroleum industry Chain and Its influencing factors--A case study of countries along the "Belt and Road". Economic Issues, 2021(9): 111-118.
28	刘军.整体网分析 UCINET软件使用指南.上海:上海人民出版社,2014.
	LIU J. Overall Network Nnalysis UCINET Software User Guide. Shanghai: Shanghai People's Publishing House, 2014.
29	刘湘南,黄方,王平.GIS空间分析.北京:科学出版社,2017.
	LIU X, HUANG F, WANG P. GIS Spatial Analysis. Beijing: Science Press, 2017.
30	刘星南,吴志峰,骆仁波,等.基于多源数据和深度学习的城市边缘区判定.地理研究,2020,39(2):243-256.
	LIU X, WU Z, LUO R, et al. Determination of urban fringe areas based on multi-source data and deep learning. Geographical Research, 2020, 39(2): 243-256.
31	张应进.新冠疫情影响下的东南亚经济.东南亚研究,2021(1):64-84.
	ZHANG Y. Southeast Asian economy under the impact of the new crown epidemic. Southeast Asian Studies, 2021(1): 64-84.
32	姚梦汝,陈焱明,周桢津,等.中国-东盟旅游流网络特征与重心轨迹演变.经济地理,2018,38(7):181-189.
	YAO M, CHEN Y, ZHOU Z, et al. The characteristics of China-ASEAN tourism flow network and the evolution of the center of gravity. Economic Geography, 2018, 38(7): 181-189.
33	程成,周泽奇,李雪,等.中国-东盟旅游与贸易互动关系研究.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2021.
	CHENG C, ZHOU Z, LI X, et al. Research on the Interactive Relationship between China-ASEAN Tourism and Trade. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press, 2021.

[1]	Yubin OU, Gengzhi HUANG, Desheng XUE. Structure of world city network based on sports events: Case study of Tennis World Tours [J]. World Regional Studies, 2023, 32(9): 1-16.
[2]	Yaowei CHANG, Jing ZHANG, Zhijun HAN, Junwei WANG, Daihong TANG, Shukun DU. The evolution of geo-military relations network of Indo-Pacific countries based on cooperation perspective [J]. World Regional Studies, 2023, 32(8): 1-15.
[3]	Fengjiao ZHANG, Jun LI, Zhongli LIU. Research on urban innovation network based on unicorn entrepreneur growth path [J]. World Regional Studies, 2023, 32(8): 103-111.
[4]	Ziling YU, Lili MA, Mengcheng REN. Large network groups: A study on the China-ASEAN electricity interconnection network construction [J]. World Regional Studies, 2023, 32(8): 25-36.
[5]	Changqiang FENG, Lili WU, Guozhong ZHOU, Xiaofei QI, Peng DU. Spatio-temporal evolution of arms trade pattern in Southeast Asia [J]. World Regional Studies, 2023, 32(7): 13-23.
[6]	Zhenfu LI, Zijing WANG. Research on the characteristics of Pan Arctic comprehensive transportation network under different transportation mode [J]. World Regional Studies, 2023, 32(7): 24-35.
[7]	Zezhou SHEN, Chengyun WANG. Shanghai's position in global science and technology innovation network: [J]. World Regional Studies, 2023, 32(2): 93-103.
[8]	Chenhui HU, Haining JIANG. Analysis of regional spatial network structure based on the cooperation of Stephen Chow film creators [J]. World Regional Studies, 2023, 32(10): 173-184.
[9]	Ruili WANG, Yu LIU, Chengxin WANG, Mengcheng LI, Yongchao TANG, Mingyue XUE. Study on the economic connection and network structure evolution of the Yellow River Basin [J]. World Regional Studies, 2022, 31(3): 527-537.
[10]	Yu YANG, Kerong SHENG. Evolution and influencing factors of urban network linkage patterns in China: From the perspective of enterprise network [J]. World Regional Studies, 2021, 30(6): 1208-1218.
[11]	Jianlei HAN, Qingzhong MING, Pengfei SHI, Dengshan LUO. Analysis on structural characteristics of regional tourism network and its influence mechanism from the perspective of multi-dimensional flow ——Taking Yunnan Province as an example [J]. World Regional Studies, 2021, 30(3): 645-656.
[12]	Dawei MEI, Chunliang XIU, Xinghua FENG. Analysis on the evolution characteristics and driving factors of urban information network structure in China [J]. World Regional Studies, 2020, 29(4): 717-727.
[13]	Shiguang XIE. Evolution of the structure of economic linkage network of cities and counties in Zhejiang Province [J]. World Regional Studies, 2020, 29(4): 738-749.
[14]	Junying CHEN, Junzhi FANG. Evolution of global manufacturing production networks from the perspective of intra-product specialization [J]. World Regional Studies, 2020, 29(4): 792-803.
[15]	Chanjuan LIU, Zhihua HU, Zhengxuan YANG. Hierarchical structures and cliques of the global container shipping network based on social network analysis [J]. World Regional Studies, 2019, 28(6): 68-76.