Impact of county-to-district conversion on the urban-rural integration development: A case study from Jiangsu Province, China

doi:10.1016/j.regsus.2026.100331

Abstract

Abstract:

County-to-district conversion (CDC) has restructured the pattern of urban-rural development and influenced the allocation of resources by local governments as well as the urbanization process. However, the impact and mechanism of the CDC on China’s urban-rural integration development (URID) are not yet clear. Using panel data from 52 county-level cities, districts, and counties in Jiangsu Province of China during 2005-2021, this paper constructed an evaluation system for URID and applied the multi-period difference-in-differences (DID) model to measure the impact of the CDC on URID and identify its primary mechanisms of action. The results demonstrated that the CDC has significantly fostered URID, though with pronounced regional heterogeneity. Specifically, while the CDC facilitated URID in the southern and central Jiangsu Province—regions characterized by high socio-economic development—it exerted a less significant impact in the comparatively underdeveloped northern Jiangsu Province. Mechanistically, the implementation of the CDC promotes equal regional development, enhances rural self-development capacity, improves environmental quality and living standards, and optimizes urban-rural land allocation and transport networks. Ultimately, this study clarifies the role of the CDC in China, provides insights for achieving URID, and offers a reference for other countries pursuing coordinated urban-rural development.

Key words: County-to-district conversion (CDC), Urban-rural integration development (URID), Multi-period difference-in-differences (DID), County-level city

MENG Gui, WANG Kaiyong, WANG Fuyuan, LI He. Impact of county-to-district conversion on the urban-rural integration development: A case study from Jiangsu Province, China[J]. Regional Sustainability, 2026, 7(2): 100331.

Figures/Tables 11

Fig. 1.

Table 1

Indicator for measuring urban-rural integration development (URID)."

Dimension	Indicator	Calculation method	Unit	Property	Weight
Economic integration	Ratio of per capita disposable income of urban-rural residents (X1)	The ratio of per capita disposable income between urban and rural residents	%	−	0.19
	Ratio of per capita consumption of urban-rural residents (X2)	The ratio of per capita consumption between urban and rural residents	%	−	0.25
	Ratio of Engel’s coefficient of urban-rural residents (X3)	The ratio of the Engel’s coefficients between urban and rural residents	%	+	0.22
	Urban-rural duality comparison coefficient (X4)	The ratio of labor input per unit output of the primary industry to that of the secondary and tertiary industries	%	+	0.18
	Level of agricultural mechanization (X5)	The ratio of the total power of agricultural machinery to the cultivated land area of crops	kW/hm²	+	0.16
Social integration	Internet coverage coefficient (X6)	The ratio of the number of households with Internet access to the permanent resident population	%	+	0.15
	Student-teacher ratio (X7)	The ratio of the number of middle school students to that of middle school teachers	%	-	0.31
	Healthcare coverage coefficient (X8)	The ratio of the number of health technicians to the number of permanent residents	%	+	0.21
	Industrial-agricultural electricity ratio (X9)	The ratio of rural electricity consumption to industrial electricity consumption	%	-	0.33
Ecological integration	Green space coverage in built-up areas (X10)	The ratio of the green space area in the built-up area to the built-up area	%	+	0.31
	Sewage treatment rate (X11)	The ratio of sewage treatment volume to sewage discharge volume	%	-	0.33
	Comprehensive utilization rate of industrial solid waste (X12)	The ratio of solid waste discharge volume to utilization volume	%	-	0.37
Spatial integration	Land allocation between urban and rural areas (X13)	The ratio of the sown area of crops to the built-up area	%	+	0.34
	Urban-rural spatial circulation capacity (X14)	The ratio of the number of private cars to the area of administrative regions	Private cars/hm²	+	0.41
	Urban-rural spatial circulation network (X15)	The ratio of road area to administrative area	%	+	0.09
	Urban-rural service supply coefficient (X16)	The ratio of the number of street lamps to the area of administrative regions	Street lamps/hm²	+	0.15

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Table 4

Fig. 4.

Table 5

Table 6

Fig. 5.

References 57

[1]	Cao S., Zhang Z.T., 2022. Towards a county-free era? Summary and reflections on city-county merge in contemporary China. Open Times. 4, 62-77 (in Chinese).
[2]	Chen B.K., Kang T.K., Hou J.Y., 2023a. Equalization of public services, educational equity and common prosperity. China Economic Quarterly. 23(6), 2104-2118 (in Chinese).
[3]	Chen F.H., Ye J.J., 2023. Growing beyond administrative borders: County-to-district reform and mobilizing intra-city synergies. China Economic Quarterly. 23(5), 1776-1792 (in Chinese).
[4]	Chen J.Y., Luo W.J., Ren X.H., et al., 2023b. The local-neighborhood effects of low-carbon city pilots program on PM_2.5 in China: A spatial difference-in-differences analysis. Science of The Total Environment. 857, 159511, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159511.
[5]	Cheng C., Liu Y.L., Liu Y.F., et al., 2020. Cropland use sustainability in Cheng-Yu Urban Agglomeration, China: Evaluation framework, driving factors and development paths. Journal of Cleaner Production. 256, 120692, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120692.
[6]	Darly S., Torre A., 2013. Conflicts over farmland uses and the dynamics of “agri-urban” localities in the Greater Paris Region: An empirical analysis based on daily regional press and field interviews. Land Use Policy. 33, 90-99.
[7]	Deng H.H., Pan X.T., 2020. How government-driven urbanization promote industrial upgrading? World Economic Papers. 1(6), 88-103 (in Chinese).
[8]	Feng R.D., Wang K.Y., 2021. Spatiotemporal effects of administrative division adjustment on urban expansion in China. Land Use Policy. 101, 105143, doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105143.
[9]	Feng R.D., Wang K.Y., 2022. The direct and lag effects of administrative division adjustment on urban expansion patterns in Chinese mega-urban agglomerations. Land Use Policy. 112, 105805, doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105805.
[10]	Fu Y., He C.Y., Luo L., 2021. Does the low-carbon city policy make a difference? Empirical evidence of the pilot scheme in China with DEA and PSM-DID. Ecological Indicators. 122, 107238, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107238.
[11]	Guo Q.B., Zhong J.R., 2022. The effect of urban innovation performance of smart city construction policies: Evaluate by using a multiple period difference-in-differences mode. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 184, 122003, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122003.
[12]	Guo Q.Y., Wang Y., 2020. A study on the regional economic balanced growth effect of city-county mergers. Nanjing Journal of Social Sciences. 9, 39-48 (in Chinese).
[13]	Ji X.L., Wei J., Li X.Z., 2018. Setting counties to districts vs. district expansion: Empirical study on the effect of expanding municipal districts of prefectural-level city to economic development. Social Sciences in Guangdong. 6, 46-57 (in Chinese).
[14]	Jiangsu Provincial Bureau of Statistics, 2023. Jiangsu Statistical Yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press (in Chinese).
[15]	Jin H., Liu W.H., Chen S.Y., 2023. Centralization and firm pollution emissions: Evidence from City-county Merger in China. Journal of Cleaner Production. 416, 137964, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137964.
[16]	Liang Z.Y., Zhao Y., 2019. Does the city-county merger improve urban public services? Evaluation based on the PSM-DID method. Journal of Eco-Civilization Studies. 1(6), 49-59 (in Chinese).
[17]	Liu M.S., Lo K., 2022. The territorial politics of urban expansion: Administrative annexation and land acquisition. Cities. 126, 103704, doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2022.103704.
[18]	Liu W., Zhou J.Y., Yang X., 2022. The impact of government driven urbanization on enterprise pollution emission. Chinese Journal of Environmental Management. 14(5), 60-69 (in Chinese).
[19]	Liu X.Q., You C., Cifuentes-Faura J., et al., 2024. Bigger cities and less carbon? Government-driven urbanization and carbon emissions in China. Journal of Cleaner Production. 467, 142808, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142808.
[20]	Lu S.F., Chen S.X., 2017. Does governmental favoritism reduce financing constraints of firms: A quasi-natural experiment from China. Journal of Management World. 5, 51-65 (in Chinese).
[21]	Lu X.X., Xu C., Zhang F., 2023. Research on the impact of city-county merger on urban economic resilience. Public Finance Research. 3, 63-77 (in Chinese).
[22]	Lu Y.P., Zhang J.K., Mao J., et al., 2024. Land financialization and debt expansion: Evidence from city-county mergers in China. Cities. 146, 104679, doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2023.104679.
[23]	Ma H.Q., Zou J.X., Cai H.B., et al., 2024. Administrative division adjustment and environmental pollution: Evidence from City-County Mergers in China. China Economic Review. 84, 102141, doi: 10.1016/j.chieco.2024.102141.
[24]	Ma L.B., Liu S.C., Fang F., et al., 2020a. Evaluation of urban-rural difference and integration based on quality of life. Sustainable Cities and Society. 54, 101877, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101877.
[25]	Ma W.Q., Jiang G.H., Chen Y.H., et al., 2020b. How feasible is regional integration for reconciling land use conflicts across the urban-rural interface? Evidence from Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei metropolitan region in China. Land Use Policy. 92, 104433, doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104433.
[26]	Ma Z.P., Zhou G.L., Zhang J., et al., 2025. Demographic trends in China’s northeast borderlands: Shocks from core-periphery relations and border effects. Cities. 166, 106235, doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2025.106235.
[27]	Meng G., Wang K.Y., Wang F.Y., et al., 2023. Analysis of the tourism-economy-ecology coupling coordination and high-quality development path in karst Guizhou Province, China. Ecological Indicators. 154, 110858, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110858.
[28]	National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2023a. China Urban Statistical Yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press (in Chinese).
[29]	National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2023b. China Regional Economic Statistical Yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press (in Chinese).
[30]	Newton K., 1982. Is small really so beautiful? Is big really so ugly? Size, effectiveness, and democracy in local government. Political Studies. 30(2), 190-206. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1982.tb00532.x
[31]	Paweł S., 2021. From post-communist democratic laissez-faire to prevention of territorial fragmentation: Tightening the rules of municipal splits in Central and Eastern Europe after 1990. Miscellanea Geographica. 25(1), 5-17. doi: 10.2478/mgrsd-2020-0046
[32]	Qiao J.F., Huang Z.C., 2021. Why local government debts are lasting enlargement: Evidence based on city-county merger. Nankai Economic Studies. 6, 127-143 (in Chinese).
[33]	Qiao J.F., Li Y., Yu J., 2024. Administrative-led urbanization and urban carbon emission intensity: Evidence from city-county merger in China. Energy Economics. 136, 107615, doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2024.107615.
[34]	Qiao Y.B., He C.F., 2024. Impact of turning counties into districts on county manufacturing upgrading: Policy evaluation with difference in differences in differences. Acta Geographica Sinica. 79(4), 909-930 (in Chinese). doi: 10.11821/dlxb202404006
[35]	Shao Z.D., Su D.N., Bao Q., 2018. Growth performance evaluation of city-county merger under the Chinese style decentralization. The Journal of World Economy. 41(10), 101-125 (in Chinese).
[36]	Song D.Y., Zhang Q., Yang L.Q.Q., 2020. Environmental effect of flattening administrative structure on local water quality: A county-level analysis of China’s County-Power-Expansion reform. Journal of Cleaner Production. 276, 123256, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123256.
[37]	Song M.Z., Qi J.Y., 2023. The impact of administrative power adjustment on urban green total factor productivity: Evidence from the reform of “city-county merger” and “province-managing-county”. Chinese Journal of Environmental Management. 15(4), 140-150 (in Chinese).
[38]	Tang W., Wang Y., 2015. Administrative boundary adjustment and urbanization of population: Evidence from city-county merger in China. Economic Research Journal. 50(9), 72-85 (in Chinese).
[39]	Tang W., 2021. Decentralization and development of small cites: Evidence from county-to-city upgrading in China. China Economic Quarterly International. 1(3), 191-207. doi: 10.1016/j.ceqi.2021.05.002
[40]	Wang C., Wang L., 2023. Does regional market integration promote urban technological innovation? An empirical analysis based on “county-to-district conversion”. Collected Essays on Finance and Economics. 39(12), 3-13 (in Chinese).
[41]	Wang K.Y., Qi W., 2017. Space-time relationship between urban municipal district adjustment and built-up area expansion in China. Chinese Geographical Science. 27(2), 165-175. doi: 10.1007/s11769-017-0856-z
[42]	Wang K.Y., Chen T., Liu Y., 2019. New discussion and reflection on “Administrative division itself can be seen as a resource”. Geographical Research. 38(2), 195-206 (in Chinese).
[43]	Wang S.L., Chen X., 2022. The impact of transformation of counties into districts on urban land use efficiency. China Land Science. 36(12), 117-127 (in Chinese).
[44]	Wang Y.F., Peng Q.Y., Jin C., et al., 2023. Whether the digital economy will successfully encourage the integration of urban and rural development: A case study in China. Chinese Journal of Population, Resources and Environment. 21(1), 13-25. doi: 10.1016/j.cjpre.2023.03.002
[45]	Wu F.L., 2016. China’s emergent City-region governance: A new form of state spatial selectivity through state-orchestrated rescaling. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 40(6), 1134-1151. doi: 10.1111/ijur.v40.6
[46]	Xu F.X., Li X.W., 2024. The influence of the city-county merger reform on public service level of counties: Empirical analysis based on county panel data in Jiangsu Province. Urban Problems. 342(1), 65-74 (in Chinese).
[47]	Yan J.M., Chen H., Xia F.Z., 2018. Toward improved land elements for urban-rural integration: A cell concept of an urban-rural mixed community. Habitat International. 77, 110-120.
[48]	Yu F., Xiao D., Chang M.S., 2021. The impact of carbon emission trading schemes on urban-rural income inequality in China: A multi-period difference-in-differences method. Energy Policy. 159, 112652, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112652.
[49]	Yu H., Deng Y., Xu S., 2018. Evolutionary pattern and effect of administrative division adjustment during urbanization of China: Empirical analysis on multiple scales. Chinese Geographical Science. 28(5), 758-772. doi: 10.1007/s11769-018-0990-2
[50]	Zhan X.Y., Zeng F.W., 2021. Does adjustment of administrative divisions improve economic development quality? Empirical evidence from the “city-county merger”. Finance and Trade Research. 32(4), 70-82 (in Chinese).
[51]	Zhang K.Y., Li C., 2021. The course, characteristics and prospect of administrative division adjustment in 70 years of China. Social Science Journal. 1, 118-128 (in Chinese).
[52]	Zhang K.Y., Wang Y.Z., 2022. The synchronization between “district-county merger” and “sub district-town merger” and the focal point and orientation of the adjustment of urban administrative division. Chinese Public Administration. 12, 33-40 (in Chinese).
[53]	Zhang L., Pi J.Y., Song G.X., 2018. Government competition and preference for productive expenditure: The political economy in county-to-district reforms in China. Finance and Trade Economics. 39(3), 65-78 (in Chinese).
[54]	Zhang Y.J., Dai X.J., Yu X.F., et al., 2020. Urban integration of land-deprived households in China: Quality of living and social welfare. Land Use Policy. 96, 104671, doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104671.
[55]	Zhang Y.Z., Wang J., Zhang M., et al., 2023. The mechanism of revoking counties or county-level cities to municipal districts and its effect on urban expansion in Chinese cities. Applied Geography. 159, 103068, doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.103068.
[56]	Zhao H., Li Y.Y., Wang Z.T., et al., 2024. Trade liberalization, regional trade openness degree, and foreign direct investment: Evidence from China. Emerging Markets Review. 59, 101103, doi: 10.1016/j.ememar.2023.101103.
[57]	Zhou J.N., Qin F.C., Liu J., et al., 2019. Measurement, spatial-temporal evolution and influencing mechanism of urban-rural integration level in China from a multidimensional perspective. China Population, Resources and Environment. 29(9), 166-176 (in Chinese).

Type	Variable	Abbreviation	Unit	Calculation method
Dependent variable	Urban-rural integrated development	URID	-	f(x)=∑w_ij×d_ij, where f(x) represents the level of URID; w_ij represents the weight of indicator j in dimension i; and d_ij denotes the normalized value of indicator j in dimension i.
Core independent variable	Status of policy adjustments	dt×du	-	Adjustment is set to 1, otherwise 0
Control variable	Per capita gross domestic product (GDP)	PGDP	CNY/capita	Ratio of the total GDP to the total population
	Government expenditure level	GEL	%	Ratio of public fiscal expenditure to GDP
	Government investment level	GIL	%	Ratio of fixed asset investment to GDP
	Consumption level	CL	%	Ratio of the total social retail sales to GDP
	Import and export level	IEL	%	Ratio of the total exports and imports to GDP
	Technical development level	TDL	piece	Annual granted patents

Variable	Observation	Mean	Standard deviation	Minimum	Maximum
URID	884	2.093	0.386	1.140	3.360
dt×du	884	0.118	0.322	0.000	1.000
PGDP (CNY/capita)	884	67,398.134	48,654.042	4379.000	259,470.950
GEL (%)	884	63.882	52.897	3.300	402.670
GIL (%)	884	305.131	240.924	7.930	1155.300
CL (%)	884	184.727	181.374	12.010	1640.181
IEL (%)	884	40.955	117.793	0.050	1036.888
TDL (piece)	884	1950.140	3393.617	10.000	40,878.000

Variable	Benchmark regression without control variable	Benchmark regression (with control variable)
dt×du	0.025^** (0.012)	0.085^** (0.040)
ln(PGDP)	-	0.324^*** (0.032)
ln(GEL)	-	-0.325 (0.386)
ln(GIL)	-	-0.085^** (0.386)
ln(CL)	-	0.352^*** (0.108)
ln(IEL)	-	-2.031^*** (0.480)
ln(TDL)	-	0.085 (0.069)
Constant term	1.707^*** (0.009)	-1.563^*** (0.222)
Year fixed effect	Yes	Yes
City fixed effect	Yes	Yes
Observation	884	884
Adjusted coefficient of determination (R²)	0.917	0.868

Variable	2 a in advance	3 a in advance	Shrink-tail at the 1.00% level	Shrink-tail at the 5.00% level
dt×du	0.066 (0.040)	0.055 (0.039)	0.090^** (0.038)	0.096^*** (0.036)
Control variable	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
City-fixed effect	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Year-fixed effect	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Observation	884	884	884	884
Adjusted R²	0.864	0.863	0.866	0.859

Variable	Southern Jiangsu Province	Central Jiangsu Province	Northern Jiangsu Province
dt×du	0.059^** (0.030)	0.211^*** (0.036)	-0.006 (0.038)
Control	Yes	Yes	Yes
Year fixed effect	Yes	Yes	Yes
City fixed effect	Yes	Yes	Yes
Observation	238	408	238
Adjusted R²	0.809	0.750	0.753