This year's Central Economic Work Conference explicitly proposed "building international science and technology innovation centers in Beijing (Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region), Shanghai (Yangtze River Delta region), and the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area." Compared with previous formulations, "Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region" and "Yangtze River Delta region" have been added after "Beijing" and "Shanghai," respectively. This seemingly minor change signifies a profound transformation in my country's science and technology innovation, moving from "single-point breakthroughs" in core cities to "coordinated operations" across regions.
The term "science and technology innovation center" first appeared in 2014 when Beijing was strategically positioned as one of the "four centers" of the capital. In 2020, the Fifth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee explicitly proposed supporting Beijing, Shanghai, and the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area to form international science and technology innovation centers. Since the 18th CPC National Congress, significant progress has been made in the construction of these three international science and technology innovation centers.
The "International Science and Technology Innovation Center Index 2025" report, jointly compiled by the Research Center for Industrial Development and Environmental Governance at Tsinghua University and Nature Research Intelligence, shows that China's innovative cities continue to strengthen their advantages in the global innovation landscape. Beijing, the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, and Shanghai remain firmly in the top ten international science and technology innovation centers, continuing to lead global innovation development.
Specifically, among the top 10 cities (metropolitan areas) in the assessment, Beijing has ranked among the top three for four consecutive years, placing it in the first tier; the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area has jumped from 6th to 4th place, placing it in the leading position of the second tier, showing the most significant progress among the top 10 cities (metropolitan areas); Shanghai is in the third tier, ranking 10th.
Practice has shown that focusing on core cities to build science and technology innovation centers is conducive to forming globally influential "innovation pioneers." Beijing and Shanghai both have significant advantages in the number of major laboratories and leading talents. Beijing's Zhongguancun, Shanghai's Zhangjiang, and Shenzhen's Qianhai have become important symbols of national scientific and technological competitiveness.
Currently, as the global landscape of technological competition intensifies and becomes more complex, the core logic of my country's technological innovation strategy is shifting from "vanguard" to "ecosystem." Taking the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region as an example, Beijing possesses the nation's leading scientific research resources, Tianjin boasts an advanced manufacturing base and more application scenarios, and Hebei has a vast hinterland and cost advantages. By uniting these three regions, they have moved from "going it alone" to "regional chorus," which is conducive to building a complete and vibrant innovation ecosystem.
The Central Economic Work Conference emphasized "developing new productive forces in accordance with local conditions." Breaking down administrative barriers and leveraging the combined strengths of regional resources is precisely the true meaning of "adapting to local conditions."
The blueprint has been drawn up; how to implement it? The Central Economic Work Conference proposed "innovating science and technology financial services." Faced with the financial service demands arising from the construction of an international science and technology innovation center, banking financial institutions will encounter more new opportunities and challenges.
First, the banking industry should innovate science and technology financial services to support the construction of science and technology innovation centers and provide precise and suitable financial services to relevant entities.
Currently, the three regions have initially formed an innovation pattern with distinct focuses. Beijing (Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region) emphasizes "original innovation," relying on national laboratories and top universities, and is becoming the "source" of innovation; Shanghai (Yangtze River Delta region) excels in "technology transfer," serving as a crucial "hub" from basic research to industrialization and application; and the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area emphasizes "globalization," leveraging its high level of openness to promote cross-border collaboration between science and technology, manufacturing, and finance. Therefore, the banking industry's financial services must abandon the "one-size-fits-all" model and strive to create a financial service system that aligns with the tiered division of labor between "original innovation—technology transfer—globalization."
Secondly, the banking industry should innovate science and technology financial services to support the construction of science and technology innovation centers, and increase financial support for original innovations "from 0 to 1".
Original innovation is often characterized by high risk and uncertainty. Basic research in cutting-edge fields such as quantum technology and aerospace technology is characterized by large investments, long cycles, and high risks. The banking industry needs to proactively connect with strategic scientific and technological forces such as national laboratories and top universities, and innovate combined products of "R&D loans + intellectual property pledges" to transform papers and patents from laboratories into "hard evidence" for credit approval. In response to the regional collaboration model in the three regions, banking institutions should also establish corresponding cross-regional service mechanisms. For example, extending Beijing's scientific research credit to production bases in Tianjin and Hebei can provide relevant market entities with full-process financial support from R&D to mass production.
Finally, the banking industry should innovate its technology and financial services to support the construction of science and technology innovation centers. It should be bold in exploring and experimenting, but also uphold integrity and innovation.
Banking financial institutions must address risk control challenges through institutional innovation. Regarding performance evaluation mechanisms, the weighting of science and technology finance indicators should be increased, and the tolerance for non-performing loans should be appropriately relaxed to motivate frontline staff to proactively serve science and technology innovation. In terms of risk management mechanisms, a risk-sharing system involving government guarantee funds and venture capital institutions should be established, using a "loan + external direct investment" model to diversify risk. Regarding digital empowerment, a credit assessment model for science and technology innovation enterprises should be established based on big data to accurately identify the technological value and growth potential of enterprises, ensuring that financial resources are concentrated on truly innovative and dynamic companies.
