| Literature DB >> 31071947 |
Gangqiang Yang1,2, Yuxi Ma3,4, Yongyu Xue5,6, Xia Meng7.
Abstract
Does the development of a high-speed railway (HSR) have a significant impact on the equalization of medical and health resources allocated among cities? Based on the panel data of 67 cities in China from 2007 to 2016, this paper investigates the direct and dynamic effects of HSR development on the equalization of medical and health services by using the difference-in-differences (DID) method. The empirical results show that an HSR connection significantly reduces the equalization level of medical and health services in cities and that the effect is larger for the period from the year of the connection to the second year. However, in the long term, HSR development improves the equalization level of medical and health services in cities. Heterogeneity tests show that the effect of the HSR connection shows an "N"-shaped trend under different city scales, the equalization level of medical resources in the largest cities benefit the most from HSR development, and the Eastern and Western regions of China are more sensitive to the HSR connection. While the allocation of medical resources is in the direction of equalization, the level of medical resources is significantly more equal with the HSR development in cities with stronger financial capacity and non-core cities. The analysis of other city characteristics provides policy recommendations for improving the public services delivery mode in China's heterogeneous cities in terms of HSR development.Entities:
Keywords: HSR development; city; equalization level; medical and health services
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31071947 PMCID: PMC6539790 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16091609
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The location of the sample cities.
Summary statistics for the total sample.
| All Data | Unit | Scale | Mean | Std Dev | Max | Min |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medi | — | — | 5.326 | 1.794 | 14.383 | 1.648 |
| HSR | — | — | 0.476 | 0.499 | 1 | 0 |
| Time | — | — | 1.879 | 2.625 | 10 | 0 |
| Rgdp | RMB | Natural logarithm | 10.721 | 0.580 | 12.028 | 8.886 |
| Exp | 10,000 RMB | Natural logarithm | 12.419 | 0.953 | 15.269 | 9.621 |
| Rexp | RMB | Natural logarithm | 6.034 | 0.683 | 8.776 | 4.141 |
| Expper | % | — | 0.076 | 0.047 | 0.720 | 0.011 |
| Stru | % | — | 0.651 | 0.215 | 1.541 | 0.138 |
| Inves | Number/100 square km | — | 26.109 | 24.760 | 198.147 | 0.312 |
| Urban | % | — | 0.568 | 0.170 | 0.896 | 0.174 |
| Gap | — | — | 2.463 | 0.471 | 4.023 | 1.296 |
| Migr | % | — | 0.005 | 0.031 | 0.283 | −0.239 |
| Pop | Permanent population/square km | Natural logarithm | 6.138 | 0.902 | 8.693 | 2.261 |
| Road | km | Natural logarithm | 9.322 | 0.683 | 11.870 | 7.165 |
| Airport | — | — | 0.876 | 0.328 | 1 | 0 |
Summary statistics by group.
| By Group | Cities Connected by the HSR | Cities Not Connected to the HSR | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Std. Dev | Mean | Std. Dev | ||
| Medi | 5.401 | 1.698 | 4.893 | 1.736 | 0.016 ** |
| HSR | 0.590 | 0.492 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 *** |
| Time | 2.000 | 2.515 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 *** |
| lnrgdp | 10.800 | 0.505 | 10.294 | 1.062 | 0.000 *** |
| lnexp | 12.512 | 0.965 | 12.032 | 0.771 | 0.000 *** |
| lnrexp | 6.051 | 0.693 | 5.989 | 0.928 | 0.000 ** |
| Expper | 0.075 | 0.052 | 0.081 | 0.028 | 0.053 |
| Stru | 0.696 | 0.203 | 0.464 | 0.160 | 0.000 *** |
| Inves | 26.010 | 18.874 | 15.610 | 18.427 | 0.000 *** |
| Urban | 0.585 | 0.163 | 0.468 | 0.131 | 0.000 *** |
| Gap | 2.438 | 0.418 | 2.687 | 0.495 | 0.006 *** |
| Migr | 0.006 | 0.031 | –0.003 | 0.035 | 0.319 |
| lnpop | 6.288 | 0.671 | 5.305 | 1.062 | 0.000 *** |
| lnroad | 9.284 | 0.692 | 9.481 | 0.620 | 0.923 |
| Airport | 0.720 | 0.307 | 0.156 | 0.394 | 0.023 ** |
Note: ** and *** denote the 5% and 1% significance levels, respectively.
Figure 2Average annual equalization of medical and health services.
Test of the direct effect of the HSR connection.
| Variables | FE (1) | FE (2) | FE (3) | FE (4) | FE (5) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No control variables | |||||
| HSR | −0.371 ** | −0.376 *** | −0.377 *** | −0.391 *** | −0.412 *** |
| [0.1179] | [0.1051] | [0.1041] | [0.1060] | [0.1068] | |
| Time | 0.0702 * | 0.0822 ** | 0.107 *** | 0.110 *** | 0.114 *** |
| [0.0277] | [0.0269] | [0.0276] | [0.0279] | [0.0282] | |
| Development level | |||||
| Lnrgdp | 1.979 *** | 1.801 *** | 1.786 *** | 2.121 *** | |
| [0.3268] | [0.3790] | [0.3840] | [0.4020] | ||
| Inves | 0.0350 *** | 0.0339 *** | 0.0338 *** | 0.0336 *** | |
| [0.0032] | [0.0031] | [0.0032] | [0.0032] | ||
| Gap | −0.496 ** | −0.537 ** | −0.540 ** | −0.619 *** | |
| [0.1735] | [0.1749] | [0.1768] | [0.1766] | ||
| Public finance level | |||||
| Lnexp | −2.772 *** | −2.988 ** | −3.243 *** | ||
| [0.6707] | [0.9449] | [0.9612] | |||
| Expper | 1.701 | 1.891 | 2.143 | ||
| [1.3484] | [1.3660] | [1.3603] | |||
| Lnrexp | 2.359 *** | 2.547 ** | 2.783 ** | ||
| [0.6431] | [0.9433] | [0.9606] | |||
| Stru | 0.479 | 0.414 | 0.345 | ||
| [0.4080] | [0.4154] | [0.4131] | |||
| Population agglomeration level | |||||
| Urban | 0.676 | 0.511 | |||
| [0.7663] | [0.7673] | ||||
| Migr | −0.0117 | 0.347 | |||
| [1.0789] | [1.0831] | ||||
| Lnpop | 0.358 | 0.726 | |||
| [0.9031] | [0.9233] | ||||
| Traffic condition | |||||
| Lnroad | 0.321 | ||||
| [0.1876] | |||||
| Airport | −0.544 * | ||||
| [0.2425] | |||||
| Cons | 4.253 *** | −14.96 *** | 6.109 | 5.305 | −0.699 |
| [0.1020] | [3.4911] | [6.1759] | [6.5930] | [7.0268] | |
|
| 670 | 660 | 660 | 658 | 649 |
| Adj. R2 | 0.4651 | 0.5888 | 0.5997 | 0.5962 | 0.6090 |
Note: Standard errors clustered at the city level are in parentheses; *, **, and *** denote the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels of significance, respectively. All of the results are estimated using the difference-in-differences (DID) method embedded in the fixed-effects panel data model.
Test of the optimization mechanism for the HSR.
| Variable | FE (1) | FE (2) | FE (3) |
|---|---|---|---|
| HSR | −1.149 *** | −1.445 *** | −1.153 *** |
| [0.1247] | [0.3720] | [0.2644] | |
| HSR × Inves | 0.0352 *** | ||
| [0.0034] | |||
| HSR × Urban | 1.804 ** | ||
| [0.6184] | |||
| HSR × Stru | 1.116 ** | ||
| [0.3652] | |||
| Cons | 6.559 | 5.364 | 0.869 |
| [7.0025] | [7.2083] | [6.9918] | |
| Control variables | yes | yes | yes |
| Time effect | yes | yes | yes |
| Individual effect | yes | yes | yes |
|
| 649 | 649 | 649 |
| Adj. R2 | 0.6068 | 0.6145 | 0.6149 |
Note: Standard errors clustered at the city level are in parentheses; *, **, and *** denote the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels of significance, respectively. All results are estimated using the fixed-effects panel data model.
Test of the dynamic effects of HSR development.
| Variables | FE (1) | FE (2) |
|---|---|---|
| after0 | −0.132 | −0.268 * |
| [0.1193] | [0.1062] | |
| after1 | −0.317 * | −0.417 *** |
| [0.1226] | [0.1083] | |
| after2 | −0.266 * | −0.302 * |
| [0.1332] | [0.1190] | |
| after3 | −0.077 | −0.089 |
| [0.1484] | [0.1309] | |
| after4 | 0.066 | 0.066 |
| [0.1570] | [0.1401] | |
| after≥5 | 0.134 | 0.087 |
| [0.1396] | [0.1317] | |
| Cons | 4.235 *** | −0.109 |
| [0.1025] | [7.0462] | |
| Control variables | no | yes |
| Time effect | yes | yes |
| Individual effect | yes | yes |
|
| 670 | 649 |
| Adj. R2 | 0.4627 | 0.6087 |
Note: Standard errors clustered at the city level are in parentheses; *, **, and *** denote the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels of significance, respectively. All results are estimated using the fixed-effects panel data model.
Test of the direct effect of the HSR considering the heterogeneity of city scale.
| Variables | 200,000–1,000,000 | 1,000,000–5,000,000 | 5,000,000–10,000,000 | >10,000,000 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HSR | −0.729 ** | 0.192 | −0.684 *** | −0.480 ** |
| [0.2621] | [0.1516] | [0.1645] | [0.1740] | |
| Time | 0.276 *** | −0.0673 | 0.232 *** | 0.306 *** |
| [0.0741] | [0.0354] | [0.0468] | [0.0753] | |
| Cons | −34.89 | 17.45 * | −9.103 | 14.95 |
| [21.7533] | [8.6089] | [12.1386] | [17.5231] | |
| Control variables | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| Time effect | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| Individual effect | yes | yes | yes | yes |
|
| 207 | 145 | 179 | 118 |
| Adj. R2 | 0.6045 | 0.8238 | 0.7055 | 0.7897 |
Note: The name of the column is the city group with a population size of 200,000–1,000,000, 1,000,000–5,000,000, 5,000,000–10,000,000, and more than 10,000,000 (the high numbers are included while the low numbers are excluded). Standard errors clustered at the city level are in parentheses; *, **, and *** denote the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels of significance, respectively.
Figure 3Trend of the regression coefficients for the direct effect with different city scales.
Test of the effect of the HSR connection under different types of heterogeneity.
| Variables | FE (1) | FE (2) | FE (3) |
|---|---|---|---|
| HSR | −0.599 *** | −0.439 ** | −0.440 *** |
| [0.1331] | [0.1498] | [0.1128] | |
| Time | 0.112 *** | 0.101 *** | 0.0898 ** |
| [0.0282] | [0.0290] | [0.0285] | |
| HSR × Core city | 0.387 * | ||
| [0.1656] | |||
| HSR × Central region | −0.116 | ||
| [0.1800] | |||
| HSR × Western region | −0.587 ** | ||
| [0.1872] | |||
| HSR × Northeastern region | −0.540 | ||
| [0.2763] | |||
| HSR × stronger financial ability | −0.0319 ** | ||
| [0.0898] | |||
| Cons | 2.370 | −0.290 | −3.778 |
| [7.1207] | [7.3276] | [3.5110] | |
| Control variables | yes | yes | yes |
| Time effect | yes | yes | yes |
| Individual effect | yes | yes | yes |
|
| 649 | 649 | 585 |
| Adj. R2 | 0.6121 | 0.6100 | 0.5013 |
Note: Standard errors clustered at the city level are in parentheses; *, **, and *** denote the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels of significance, respectively. All results are estimated using the fixed-effects panel data model.
Test of the effect of the HSR development under different types of heterogeneity.
| Political Attributes | Economic Regions | Financial Abilities | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core | Noncore | Eastern | Central | Western | Northeastern | Weaker | Stronger | |
| Time | 0.0536 | 0.165 *** | 0.292 *** | 0.205 *** | 0.0745 | −0.324 ** | 0.0237 | 0.112 *** |
| [0.0320] | [0.0448] | [0.0672] | [0.0363] | [0.0753] | [0.0997] | [0.0323] | [0.0659] | |
| Cons | 16.77 * | −2.723 | 11.80 | −7.273 | 50.66 *** | 12.41 | −0.580 | 7.897 |
| [8.1639] | [11.9400] | [18.4440] | [8.7476] | [14.1636] | [28.8711] | [3.7923] | [6.1672] | |
| Control variables | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
|
| 285 | 364 | 249 | 160 | 166 | 74 | 478 | 107 |
| Adj. R2 | 0.7760 | 0.5459 | 0.5648 | 0.8553 | 0.7085 | 0.6481 | 0.5101 | 0.7307 |
Note: Standard errors clustered at the city level are in parentheses; *, **, and *** denote the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels of significance, respectively. All the results are estimated using the DID method embedded in the fixed-effects panel data model. The virtual variable HSR is concluded.
Figure 4Population flow rate and the level of medical and health services in cities in different economic regions.
Figure 5Parallel trend test of the HSR.
Test of the common trend assumption, using a counterfactual test.
| Variables | FE (1) | FE (2) |
|---|---|---|
| before1 | −0.084 | 0.00605 |
| [0.1317] | [0.1300] | |
| before2 | −0.085 | 0.0610 |
| [0.1392] | [0.1315] | |
| before3 | 0.057 | 0.154 |
| [0.1573] | [0.1401] | |
| Cons | 4.243 *** | 0.384 |
| [0.1083] | [7.1243] | |
| Control variables | No | yes |
| Time effect | Yes | yes |
| Individual effect | Yes | yes |
|
| 670 | 649 |
| Adj. R2 | 0.4525 | 0.5981 |
Note: Standard errors clustered at the city level are in parentheses; *** denotes the 1% level of significance. N is the number of observations. All results are estimated using the fixed-effects panel data model.
Balance test of the PSM.
| Variables | Mean | Bias (%) | t | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment Group | Control Group | ||||
| Lnrgdp | 10.975 | 10.949 | 5.5 | 0.77 | 0.443 |
| Inves | 30.845 | 29.967 | 4.8 | 0.54 | 0.591 |
| Gap | 2.354 | 2.324 | 7.3 | 0.98 | 0.327 |
| Lnexp | 12.787 | 12.673 | 14.1 | 1.84 | 0.066 |
| Expper | 0.080 | 0.074 | 13.3 | 1.31 | 0.190 |
| Lnrexp | 6.289 | 6.209 | 13.4 | 1.87 | 0.062 |
| Stru | 0.715 | 0.728 | −6.9 | −0.81 | 0.421 |
| Urban | 0.603 | 0.607 | −2.8 | −0.30 | 0.762 |
| Migr | 0.008 | 0.006 | 5.1 | 0.61 | 0.543 |
| Lnpop | 6.377 | 6.473 | −12.6 | −1.77 | 0.078 |
| Lnroad | 9.424 | 9.299 | 19.4 | 2.30 | 0.022 |
Test of the direct and dynamic effects of the HSR after matching.
| Variables | FE (1) | FE (2) |
|---|---|---|
| HSR | −0.411 *** | |
| [0.1154] | ||
| Time | 0.122 *** | |
| [0.0314] | ||
| after0 | −0.273 * | |
| [0.1096] | ||
| after1 | −0.436 *** | |
| [0.1123] | ||
| after2 | −0.331 ** | |
| [0.1253] | ||
| after3 | −0.085 | |
| [0.1379] | ||
| after4 | 0.100 | |
| [0.1535] | ||
| after≥5 | 0.026 | |
| [0.1482] | ||
| Control variables | yes | yes |
| Time effect | yes | yes |
| Individual effect | yes | yes |
| Cons | −8.340 | −8.042 |
| [7.8054] | [7.8272] | |
|
| 572 | 572 |
| Adj. R2 | 0.5770 | 0.5776 |
Note: Standard errors clustered at the city level are in parentheses; *, **, and *** denote the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels of significance, respectively. All results are estimated using the fixed-effects panel data model.