图为：广州珠江新城 CBD 天际线。

放眼全球三大标杆湾区，纽约凭国际金融体系立身，旧金山依托顶尖高校与风投孵化原始创新，东京依靠龙头企业深耕精密制造，各自形成路径固定、边界清晰的发展模式。粤港澳大湾区跳出单一赛道的竞争逻辑，依托“一国两制”独一无二的复合禀赋，直面三地法律、关税、商事规则天然分野，不回避制度摩擦，反而以持续、体系化的机制革新打通要素流通堵点，把规则差异转化为协同红利，依靠软联通激活硬件互联互通，开辟出全球独一份以制度融合驱动增长的湾区发展路径，为国内跨区域协同、全域培育新质生产力提供可落地的实践参照。

从全球湾区发展范式划分来看，纽约、旧金山属于单极专业型湾区，东京为产业集群型湾区，三者均建立在单一主权、统一法律财税制度之上；雅加达、孟买等新兴湾区受基建与治理约束，国内杭州湾缺少多元制度弹性，唯有粤港澳大湾区是全球独有的一个国家、两种社会制度、三个单独关税区、三套法律经贸体系复合型湾区，天然形成区别于所有海外湾区的独特实践与研究样本。

这片土地以全国0.6%的国土面积，创造全国约12%的经济总量，PCT国际专利申请量占据全国近半份额，高新技术企业突破5万家。历经多年迭代进阶，大湾区完成从传统代工的“世界工厂”到科创与产业双轮驱动的国际科技创新中心的跨越，其以制度破局、以协同聚力的发展实践，为全球多法系、多关税区共存区域的一体化治理，交出专属中国的实践答卷。

阶梯式演进：区域发展的三阶段跃迁

纵观数十年发展，大湾区的转型升级并非简单的线性增长，而是循序渐进、层层跃升的动态过程，如同创新能量持续释放的“反应堆”，一步步完成发展形态的迭代升级。

第一阶段：要素集聚期（上世纪80年代—2010年）。依托改革开放先行一步的政策机遇，香港的资本、成熟技术、先进管理经验与内地充裕的土地、劳动力优势深度结合，“前店后厂”模式快速普及，珠三角逐步形成门类齐全、配套完善的制造业体系。依托完备产业链与综合成本优势，区域制造能力辐射全球，各类要素持续集聚。到2010年，区域制造业增加值突破2万亿元，稳稳立足全球制造业分工体系，成为名副其实的“世界工厂”，也为后续创新转型筑牢产业根基。

第二阶段：创新驱动期（2010年—2020年）。全球产业格局调整叠加国内要素成本变化，外部变局与内部压力形成双重倒逼，推动区域全面从要素驱动转向创新驱动。华为、大疆、比亚迪等龙头企业聚力攻坚核心技术，在通信、无人机、新能源汽车等赛道实现突破，带动上下游中小企业协同发展，形成产业集群式升级格局。十年间，大湾区研发投入持续加码，PCT国际专利申请量实现十倍增长，创新不再是单点零星突破，而是形成“一点突破、全域联动”的链式效应，区域创新实力实现质的跃升。

第三阶段：生态自洽期（2020年至今）。如今的大湾区，产业链、创新链、资金链、人才链深度融合，形成自我循环、迭代进化的创新生态。广深港澳科技走廊串联全域科创资源，前海、横琴、南沙、河套等重大合作区多点发力、错位发展，打通“基础研究—技术转化—产业应用”全链条。区域发展摆脱外部政策依赖，内生动力充分释放，正式迈入高质量、可持续发展的全新阶段。

制度熔炉：把差异转化为红利

“一国两制”是粤港澳大湾区最鲜明的标识，也造就了区域内一个国家、两种社会制度、三个单独关税区、三套法律经贸体系并存的特殊格局。外界也曾存在质疑：多重规则并行或将抬高协作成本，大湾区能否真正打破壁垒、实现深度一体化？

大湾区用扎实的实践给出清晰答案：制度差异从来不是发展的包袱，而是独一无二的发展财富。现有全球湾区发展理论均建立在制度均质假设之上，难以解释复合型多制度湾区的演化逻辑，本文所阐释的制度熔炉分析框架，恰好能够填补该领域研究空白。通过制度熔炉的持续锻造，区域主动消解摩擦、放大优势，稳步把制度差异转化为发展红利。

制度红利的释放，源于三大要素的协同作用：制度红利计算公式R=C×P/T，其中R代表制度多样性红利；C为制度互补性系数；P为政策催化系数；T为综合制度交易成本。制度互补性越强、政策催化力度越大、跨境交易成本越低，红利释放就越充分。香港普通法体系接轨国际商事规则，澳门深耕葡语国家合作网络，内地具备强大的产业配套与行政执行能力，三种制度各有优势、互为补充。再加上国家战略持续加码、区域互联互通不断深化，跨境协作的阻碍逐步消除，制度多样性的价值被充分释放。

从具体实践来看，制度互补的深层价值体现在三个维度：一是香港普通法体系下的合同自由、产权保护与判例法传统，为跨境商业活动提供了高度确定性的法律预期，使得国际资本与跨国企业愿意将区域总部或研发中心布局于此；二是澳门作为中国与葡语国家之间不可替代的桥梁，在商事调解、文化互通、人才交流等领域形成了独特的中介功能，这一功能在其余湾区中并无对应；三是内地强大的行政动员能力与产业政策执行力，能够在短时间内完成大规模基础设施建设和产业配套，为大湾区一体化提供了高效的组织保障。三者错位互补、缺一不可，共同构成了大湾区独有的制度竞争优势。

硬联通打破地理阻隔，筑牢协同发展的物理根基。港珠澳大桥、广深港高铁、深中通道等重大交通工程相继投用，大湾区全面建成“1小时交通圈”，三地人员、货物往来效率大幅提升，为产业联动、人才流动打下坚实硬件基础。

软联通消解规则壁垒，疏通要素流动的内在脉络。依托“湾区通”工程，三地持续推进职业资格互认、跨境资金流动、商事规则衔接，不断破除合作壁垒。科研资金跨境拨付、数据合规流动、跨境司法协作等一系列创新举措落地见效，三地规则实现从“不相通”到“相融通”的转变。

前海、横琴、南沙、河套四大合作区是制度创新的前沿阵地与试验田。前海聚焦现代服务业改革，累计推出800余项制度创新成果，近百项经验在全国复制推广；横琴依托“分线管理”创新模式，全力助力澳门经济适度多元发展；南沙聚焦航运金融与综合开放枢纽建设；河套深港科技创新合作区简化科研人员、物资、资金通关流程，成为跨境科创标杆。前海、横琴、南沙、河套作为制度熔炉的先行试验载体，持续降低全域综合制度交易成本T、放大制度互补性系数C，为全域规则衔接与制度融合提供可复制实践样本。四大平台并非各自为战，而是形成了梯次衔接、功能互补的制度创新矩阵。从“一区一策”到“四区联动”，大湾区制度创新的整体效能持续放大。如今，三地不再被制度边界割裂，而是形成分工协作、优势互补的有机整体。

对标全球：走差异化赶超之路

放眼全球，除纽约、旧金山、东京三大成熟湾区外，雅加达、孟买等新兴湾区发展约束突出，国内杭州湾亦不具备多制度协同禀赋，粤港澳复合型制度架构具备不可复制的比较优势。对标国际先进，大湾区既客观认清自身差距，也立足禀赋找准定位，走出一条特色鲜明的赶超之路。

大湾区优势十分突出：依托超完备的产业体系和全方位的开放基因，区域外贸活跃度、国际专利产出量遥遥领先，产业配套能力、市场响应速度位居全球前列，经济增长动能充沛。同时我们也要清醒看到短板：对比顶尖湾区，基础研究整体实力偏弱，顶尖原创科技成果不足，具备全球行业领导力的头部企业数量仍有提升空间，高端制造、前沿领域的积淀仍需持续补强。

全球成熟湾区有着相对固定的发展模式：旧金山湾区依靠“顶尖高校+风险资本”的组合，领跑前沿原始创新；东京湾区依托大型龙头企业，深耕高端精益制造。大湾区没有简单照搬外来模式，而是坚持扬长避短、换道领跑——充分发挥超大市场规模、全产业链配套、多元制度融合、国家战略统筹四大独有优势，形成“制度驱动型湾区”全新范式，区别于学术驱动、产业驱动、金融驱动的海外湾区路径。

下一步，大湾区应巩固应用创新、产业配套、对外开放优势，补齐基础研究与高端人才短板，做强广深港澳科技走廊，深化规则衔接，稳步向世界一流湾区迈进。

图为：深圳福田、南山连片城市天际线。

三点启示

粤港澳大湾区数十年的转型探索，不仅书写了自身的发展传奇，也为全国各类城市群、产业集聚区推进区域高质量发展，带来三点深刻启示。

第一，坚持战略引领。重大区域发展离不开顶层设计与统筹谋划，只有强化全局思维、加强协同联动，才能有效打破行政壁垒、理顺体制机制，推动各类生产要素自由流动、高效配置。

第二，敢于制度创新。面对客观存在的规则差异与体制壁垒，不能坐等观望、墨守成规，必须主动深化机制创新、大胆先行先试，把区域独有的禀赋特色转化为核心市场竞争力。大湾区最核心实践启示，正是将制度差异从发展障碍转化为发展红利。

第三，立足自身优势。不同地区的资源禀赋、产业基础、发展阶段各不相同，盲目照搬外部模式难以行稳致远，唯有找准自身定位、扬长避短、精准发力，才能走出符合实际的跨越式发展之路。

粤港澳大湾区的探索充分证明：制度创新是最深层的改革，也是最持久的红利。当“制度差异”不再是区域协同的障碍，而成为互补共赢的优势，区域发展便能释放源源不断的内生动力。长远来看，依托复合型制度禀赋与完备全产业链体系，大湾区可稳步补齐基础研究、顶尖科创主体短板，持续释放制度多样性红利，逐步成长为全球综合能级领先的国际一流湾区，形成可向全球同类跨制度城市群输出的中国式湾区发展路径（China's Approach）。这不仅是湾区发展留给全球的答案，更是中国式现代化在区域协调发展领域的生动注脚。

作者：谢云龙，世界创新大会（WIC）创始人、秘书长，全球创新战略资深研究学者。本文节选自世界创新大会创立十周年系列丛书——《创新逻辑：全球创新治理与中国方案》——世界创新大会十年理论与实践（即将出版）。

Photo: Night skyline of Victoria Harbour in Central, Hong Kong.

Among the world's three benchmark bay areas, New York stands on its international financial system, San Francisco nurtures original innovation through top-tier universities and venture capital, and Tokyo excels in precision manufacturing driven by flagship corporations — each having formed a fixed, well-defined development model. The Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA) has broken free from the logic of single-track competition. Leveraging the unique composite endowment of "One Country, Two Systems", it confronts natural divergences in legal systems, customs regimes and commercial rules across the three jurisdictions head-on. Rather than evading institutional frictions, it carries out systematic institutional reforms to unblock the circulation of production factors, turns regulatory disparities into collaborative dividends, and activates hardware interconnection via soft institutional alignment. It has pioneered a globally unique growth path driven by institutional integration, and provides replicable practical references for cross-regional coordination and the cultivation of new quality productive forces nationwide.From the perspective of global bay area typology, New York and San Francisco fall into the category of single-track specialized bay areas, while the Tokyo Bay Area represents the industrial cluster type; all of them operate under unified sovereignty, legal and fiscal systems. Emerging bay areas such as Jakarta and Mumbai are restricted by infrastructure and governance capacity, and the Hangzhou Bay Area lacks diversified institutional flexibility. The GBA is the world's sole composite bay area under the framework of One Country, Two Systems, three separate customs territories and three sets of legal and economic regimes, rendering it an unparalleled practical and research sample distinct from all overseas bay areas.

Covering less than 0.6% of China's land territory yet generating roughly 12% of the country's total economic output, the GBA accounts for nearly half of China's PCT international patent applications and hosts over 50,000 high-tech enterprises. After years of iterative upgrading, the GBA has transformed from a traditional "world factory" into an international hub for scientific and technological innovation driven by both R&D and industry. Its development practice of making breakthroughs via institutional reform and gathering strength through coordination delivers a distinctive Chinese solution for integrated governance of regions with multiple legal and customs regimes across the globe.

Progressive Evolution: Three Stages of Regional Upgrading

Over decades of development, the GBA's transformation is not a simple linear expansion, but a gradual, tiered dynamic evolution — analogous to a reactor releasing innovative energy in successive phases, driving iterative upgrades of its development model.

Phase 1: Factor Agglomeration (1980s – 2010). Taking advantage of early opening-up policies, Hong Kong's capital, mature technologies and advanced management were deeply integrated with the mainland's abundant land and labor. The "front shop, back factory" model gained widespread popularity, and the Pearl River Delta gradually built a complete, well-matched manufacturing cluster. Supported by full industrial chains and comprehensive cost advantages, regional manufacturing capacity radiated worldwide, attracting continuous agglomeration of all kinds of production factors. By 2010, regional manufacturing value-added output exceeded 2 trillion RMB, firmly establishing its position in the global manufacturing division as a genuine "world factory", laying a solid industrial foundation for subsequent innovative transformation.

Phase 2: Innovation-Driven Growth (2010 – 2020). Restructuring of global industrial chains and rising domestic factor costs created dual internal and external pressures, pushing the whole region to shift from factor-driven to innovation-led development. Leading enterprises including Huawei, DJI and BYD made breakthroughs in core technologies in communications, consumer drones and new energy vehicles, driving coordinated upgrading of upstream and downstream SMEs and forming clustered industrial progress. Over the decade, the GBA steadily increased R&D investment, with PCT international patent applications growing tenfold. Innovation evolved from scattered sporadic breakthroughs into a chain reaction where advances in one sector triggered coordinated progress across the region, marking a qualitative leap in regional innovation capacity.

Phase 3: Self-Sustaining Innovation Ecosystem (2020 – Present). Today, industrial, innovation, capital and talent chains are deeply integrated within the GBA, forming a self-circulating, iteratively evolving innovation ecosystem. The Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong-Macao Science and Technology Corridor links innovation resources across the region, while major cooperation zones including Qianhai, Hengqin, Nansha and Hetao pursue differentiated, complementary development, forming a full chain covering basic research, technology transfer and industrial application. Freed from overreliance on external policy stimuli, the region's endogenous growth momentum has been fully unlocked, ushering in a brand-new stage of high-quality, sustainable development.

The Institutional Melting Pot: Turning Institutional Divergences Into Development Dividends

The framework of One Country, Two Systems defines the core feature of the GBA, forming a unique landscape featuring One Country, Two Social Systems, three separate customs territories and three sets of legal and economic regimes. Outside observers once questioned whether overlapping regulatory frameworks would raise collaboration costs and hinder deep regional integration.

The GBA's solid practical achievements offer a clear answer: institutional disparities are never a burden on development, but one-of-a-kind developmental assets.Existing academic research on global bay areas is premised on homogeneous institutional environments and cannot interpret the evolutionary logic of composite multi-institutional bay areas; the Institutional Melting Pot analytical framework elaborated in this paper fills such research gaps. Through constant refinement within the institutional melting pot, the region actively mitigates frictions and amplifies comparative strengths, steadily converting institutional disparities into tangible development dividends.

The release of institutional dividends hinges on three coordinated variables captured by the formula R= C×P/T: R stands for institutional diversity dividend; C represents institutional complementarity coefficient; P refers to policy catalysis coefficient; T denotes comprehensive cross-border transaction cost. Greater institutional complementarity, stronger policy support and lower cross-border transaction costs jointly boost development dividends. Hong Kong's common law aligns with international commercial rules; Macao maintains extensive ties with Portuguese-speaking economies; the mainland boasts robust industrial supporting capacity and efficient administrative execution. The three systems feature complementary strengths. Coupled with sustained national strategic support and deepening regional connectivity, barriers to cross-border collaboration have gradually faded, unlocking the full value of institutional diversity.

The multi-layered value of institutional complementarity manifests in threedimensions. First, Hong Kong's common law system featuring freedom of contract and rigorous intellectual property protection provides highly predictable legal expectations for cross-border businesses, attracting multinationals to set regional headquarters and R&D hubs here. Second, as an irreplaceable bridge between China and Lusophone countries, Macao delivers unique intermediary functions in commercial mediation, cultural and talent exchanges unmatched by other bay areas. Third, the mainland's robust administrative mobilization enables rapid delivery of large-scale infrastructure and industrial supporting projects, providing efficient organizational backing for GBA integration. The three dimensions are mutually indispensable, jointly forming the GBA's unique institutional competitive edge.

Hard connectivity eliminates geographical barriers and lays the physical foundation for coordinated development. Major transport infrastructure including the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong High-Speed Rail and Shenzhen-Zhongshan Link have opened to traffic successively, forming a comprehensive one-hour transport network that drastically improves the efficiency of cross-border personnel and cargo flows, underpinning industrial and talent linkage.

Soft connectivity dismantles regulatory barriers and unblocks the internal circulation of production factors. Under the Bay Area Connect Initiative, the three jurisdictions continuously advance mutual recognition of professional qualifications, cross-border capital flows and alignment of commercial rules, removing collaborative obstacles. A series of innovative measures including cross-border allocation of scientific research funds, compliant cross-border data flows and cross-border judicial assistance have been rolled out, shifting the three regions from disconnected to compatible regulatory frameworks.

Qianhai, Hengqin, Nansha and Hetao serve as frontline pilot zones for institutional innovation. Qianhai focuses on modern service sector reform, launching over 800 institutional innovations nearly a hundred of which have been replicated nationwide. Leveraging the separate-line management model, Hengqin facilitates appropriately diversified industries in Macao. Nansha positions itself as an integrated hub for shipping and finance, while the Hetao Zone simplifies customs clearance for researchers, materials and funds as a benchmark for cross-border scientific collaboration.As pilot platforms of the Institutional Melting Pot, Qianhai, Hengqin, Nansha and Hetao consistently reduce the comprehensive cross-border transaction cost T and raise the institutional complementarity coefficient C, providing replicable practical experience for full-range regulatory alignment and institutional integration. Rather than operating in isolation, the four zones form a tiered matrix of complementary institutional innovations. Evolving from individual zone-specific policies to coordinated four-zone development, the overall effectiveness of institutional innovation in the GBA keeps expanding. Today, the three jurisdictions are no longer divided by institutional boundaries, but form an integrated whole with differentiated roles and complementary strengths.

Benchmarking the World: A Distinctive Catch-Up Development Path

Beyond the three mature bay areas of New York, San Francisco and Tokyo, emerging bay areas such as Jakarta and Mumbai face prominent developmental constraints, while the Hangzhou Bay Area lacks multi-institutional coordination capacity, making the GBA's composite institutional framework uniquely irreplicable in terms of comparative advantages. Benchmarked against international advanced regions, the GBA objectively recognizes its gaps while identifying its positioning based on endowments, forging a distinctive catch-up path.

The GBA boasts prominent strengths: supported by a complete industrial system and all-round opening-up, it leads the globe in foreign trade volume and international patent output, with top-tier industrial matching capacity and market responsiveness delivering robust growth momentum. At the same time, we must objectively acknowledge its weaknesses: compared with top-tier bay areas, basic research capacity remains insufficient, world-leading original scientific achievements are limited, and the number of globally dominant leading enterprises needs further expansion, requiring sustained investment in high-end manufacturing and frontier sectors.

Mature global bay areas follow fixed development models: the San Francisco Bay Area leads frontier original innovation through top universities and venture capital; the Tokyo Bay Area relies on flagship corporations to excel in high-end lean manufacturing. Instead of simply copying overseas models, the GBA maximizes its strengths and avoids weaknesses, drawing on four exclusive advantages: an ultra-large domestic market, complete industrial chains, integrated diversified institutions and top-down national strategic coordination. It has pioneered a new institutional-driven bay paradigm, distinct from the academic-driven, industry-driven and finance-driven models of overseas counterparts.

Moving forward, the GBA will consolidate its strengths in applied innovation, industrial matching and opening-up, make up gaps in basic research and high-end talent cultivation, strengthen the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong-Macao Science and Technology Corridor, deepen regulatory alignment, and steadily evolve into a world-class bay area.

Photo: Night view featuring Zhuhai Grand Theater (Riyuebei) alongside the skyline of Macao.

Three Core Takeaways

Decades of transformative exploration in the GBA have not only written its own developmental story, but also delivered three profound insights for all urban agglomerations and industrial zones nationwide pursuing high-quality development.

First, uphold top-level strategic guidance. Major regional development relies on comprehensive planning and cross-regional coordination. Only by adopting holistic thinking can administrative barriers be broken, institutional mechanisms streamlined, and all production factors flow freely and allocate efficiently.

Second, pursue bold institutional innovation. Faced with inherent regulatory disparities and institutional barriers, passive waiting and rigid adherence to outdated rules yield no progress. Regions must proactively deepen institutional reform and carry out pilot trials to translate unique local endowments into core market competitiveness. The GBA's core experience lies in transforming institutional disparities from developmental obstacles into developmental dividends.

Third, develop based on local strengths. Regions differ widely in resource endowments, industrial foundations and developmental stages. Blind imitation of external models cannot deliver sustainable growth; only by clarifying positioning, leveraging strengths and offsetting weaknesses can regions achieve targeted leapfrog development.

The GBA's practice fully proves that institutional innovation constitutes the deepest level of reform and generates the most enduring developmental dividends. When institutional disparities cease to hinder regional coordination and become complementary win-win strengths, regions can unlock inexhaustible endogenous growth momentum. In the long run, drawing on its composite institutional endowments and complete industrial system, the GBA can steadily remedy deficiencies in basic research and top-tier scientific talent, continuously release institutional diversity dividends, and evolve into a world-class bay area with comprehensive global competitiveness, forming a Chinese development path (China's Approach) applicable to cross-border urban agglomerations worldwide. This is not merely the GBA's response to the world, but also a vivid footnote to Chinese modernization in the field of coordinated regional development.

Author: Xie YunLoong, Founder and Secretary-General of the World Innovation Congress (WIC), and Senior Research Scholar in Global Innovation Strategy. This article is excerpted from the WIC 10th Anniversary Book Series, Logic of Innovation: Global Innovation Governance and China’s Solutions — Theory and Practice of the World Innovation Congress in Its First Decade (forthcoming).

文章来源：谢云龙，世界创新大会公众号，版权属于原作者，转载请注明文章作者及来源。