图书情报知识 ›› 2026, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (1): 146-157.doi: 10.13366/j.dik.2026.01.146

• 情报、信息与共享 • 上一篇    下一篇

地方政府如何引导数据交易所建设:路径与因素研究

张怡梦1, 胡业飞2   

  1. 1.上海理工大学管理学院,上海,200093;
    2.复旦大学国际关系与公共事务学院,上海,200433
  • 出版日期:2026-01-10 发布日期:2026-03-24
  • 通讯作者: 胡业飞(ORCID: 0000-0003-3251-2070),博士,副教授,研究方向:数据治理、数字治理,Email: huyefei@fudan.edu.cn。
  • 作者简介:张怡梦(ORCID: 0009-0004-5637-7461),博士,讲师,研究方向:数据治理、行为公共管理,Email: ymzhang@usst.edu.cn。
  • 基金资助:
    本文系国家社会科学基金一般项目“供需匹配视角下公共数据流通激励机制创新研究”(24BZZ054)的研究成果之一。

How Local Governments Guide the Construction of Data Exchanges: Paths and Factors

ZHANG Yimeng1, HU Yefei2   

  1. 1. Business School, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai, 200093;
    2.School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200043
  • Online:2026-01-10 Published:2026-03-24
  • Contact: Correspondence should be addressed to HU Yefei, Email: huyefei@fudan.edu.cn, ORCID: 0000-0003-3251-2070
  • Supported by:
    This is an outcome of the project "Innovation Research on Incentive Mechanism for Public Data Circulation from the Perspective of Supply-Demand Matching"(24BZZ054)supported by National Social Science Foundation of China.

摘要: [目的/意义]在数据经济发展的时代背景下,构建有关数据交易所建设的政府治理角色理论解释,提炼具有中国特色的数据要素市场培育经验。[研究设计/方法]基于政策文本分析与实地调研访谈,考察各地方政府选择何种路径来引导数据交易所建设,进而运用QCA方法分析哪些因素及其组合影响了政府引导下的数据交易所建设模式选择。[结论/发现]在“制度建设”与“资金扶持”的基础上,各地方政府普遍要求数据交易所作为本地“龙头”带动当地数据交易产业发展,但区别在于:财政能力较弱和数据产业基础较差的地区倾向于引导当地交易所选择“全产业链运营”的经营方式,同时偏好于强化国企对交易所的控股;较发达地区则倾向于引导当地交易所选择“交易撮合+数据管理”的经营方式,也更有可能吸纳民营企业参与交易所持股。[创新/价值]挖掘出政府引导数据交易所建设的两条路径及约束因素,为国家完善数据交易产业发展相关战略举措提供智力参考。

关键词: 数据交易, 数据交易所, 地方政府, 数据要素

Abstract: [Purpose/Significance] Against the backdrop of the data economy's development, this study aims to construct a theoretical explain of the local government's role in establishing data exchanges and distill the experiences in cultivating data elements market with Chinese characteristics.[Design/Methodology] Based on policy text analysis and field research interviews, this study examines local government strategies for guiding data exchange construction and employs the Qualitative Comparative Analysis(QCA)to identify which factors and their combinations influence the selection of government-guided data exchange construction models. [Findings/Conclusion] Based on "institutional construction" and "financial support", local governments generally require data exchanges serve as local "leaders" to drive the development of local data trading industries. However, regions with weaker fiscal capacity and less developed data industries tend to guide local exchanges to adopt a "full industrial chain operation" business model, while preferring to strengthen state-owned enterprises' control over exchanges. In contrast, developed regions tend to guide local exchanges to adopt a "transaction matching + data management" business model and tend to involve private enterprises to participate in the shareholding of exchanges. [Originality/Value] This study identifies two paths and associated constraining factors for government-guided data exchange construction, offering insights to inform national relevant strategic measure formulation for the development of the data trading industry.

Keywords: Data trading, Data exchange, Local government, Data elements