IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v14y2024i4p21582440241299899.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

County-Level Economic Development Mode in the Context of China’s Rural Revitalization: A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Yiting Wu
  • Yunqing Liu
  • Zekun Dai
  • Fang Da

Abstract

In the context of China’s rural revitalization strategy, the significance of county economic development cannot be overstated. Aligning county economic development with the deeper implications of this strategy is a pressing concern for governments at every level. This study, drawing from the Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) framework, employs the fs-QCA method to elucidate the causal mechanisms underpinning high-quality county-level economic development. Utilizing data from 57 counties in an agricultural province in China, this research investigates the interplay between antecedent conditions and county economic development, delineating distinct developmental pathways that yield optimal outcomes. The findings reveal that, (1) no singular condition suffices to attain superior county economic development; rather, it emerges from the confluence of multiple factors. (2) Four distinct pathways, technology-led industry-pull, technology-driven government-supported, all-factor linkage, and technology-organized balanced, are instrumental in achieving high-level county economic development. (3) Substitutional relationships exist among the antecedent conditions. These insights deepen our comprehension of the multifaceted determinants influencing county economic growth. By highlighting the interdependencies among these conditions, this research offers valuable perspectives that can guide the formulation of pragmatic, synergistic policies, paving the way for efficient county economic developmental trajectories.

Suggested Citation

  • Yiting Wu & Yunqing Liu & Zekun Dai & Fang Da, 2024. "County-Level Economic Development Mode in the Context of China’s Rural Revitalization: A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(4), pages 21582440241, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:4:p:21582440241299899
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440241299899
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241299899
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440241299899?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:4:p:21582440241299899. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.