Progress and Prospects in Research on the Indicator System for Chinese-Path Modernization

Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has initially formed a theoretical system for Chinese-path modernization, established the "Two Centenary Goals" [1]1 The Five-Sphere Integrated Plan (五位一体总体布局) is the overall plan for the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics, covering economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological civilization construction. and the "Five-Sphere Integrated Plan" [2]2 The New Development Concepts (新发展理念) are five concepts—innovation, coordination, green development, openness, and sharing—that guide China’s development strategy., and clarified the new objectives, new tasks, and new requirements of Chinese-path modernization. Building an indicator system for Chinese-path modernization, based on its one basic prerequisite, one fundamental guideline, five distinguishing features, nine essential requirements, five major principles, and one fundamental goal, is both an inherent requirement for upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics and a scientific guide for advancing the great cause of national rejuvenation. The indicator system for Chinese-path modernization vividly embodies the strategic resolve of "carrying a blueprint through to the end" [3]3 "Carrying a blueprint through to the end" (一张蓝图绘到底) is a Chinese political idiom meaning to maintain strategic consistency and implement a long-term plan without deviation. and the practical wisdom of "dynamic adjustment" in Chinese-path modernization. Looking ahead, progress measurement is both a practical answer to "how things have been viewed in the past" and a strategic starting point for "how things will be done in the future." As the deployments of the 20th National Congress of the CPC and the Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee [4]4 The Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the CPC has not yet been held as of the time of this text's writing; the reference likely anticipates its future role in deepening deployments. continue to deepen, Chinese-path modernization will surely achieve higher-level coordinated progress across all fields through gradual, sustained effort.

党的十八大以来，以习近平同志为核心的党中央初步形成了中国式现代化理论体系，确定了“两个一百年”奋斗目标和“五位一体”总体布局，明确了中国式现代化的新目标、新任务和新要求。基于中国式现代化的一个基本前提、一个根本遵循、五大特色、九个本质要求、五个重大原则、一个根本目标，构建中国式现代化指标体系既是坚持和发展中国特色社会主义的内在要求，更是推进民族复兴伟业的科学指引。中国式现代化指标体系生动体现了中国式现代化“一张蓝图绘到底”的战略定力与“动态调整”的实践智慧。展望未来，进程测度既是“过去怎么看”的实践答卷，更是“未来怎么干”的战略起点。随着党的二十大、党的二十届四中全会的部署持续深化，中国式现代化必将在循序渐进、久久为功中实现各领域更高水平的协同推进。

The indicator system for Chinese-path modernization is an important scientific tool for understanding and advancing Chinese-path modernization, and a crucial guarantee that Chinese-path modernization is measurable, perceptible, attainable, and credible. Without standards, no square or circle can be drawn; without evaluation, no progress can be known. Chinese-path modernization is a practical process with historical stages, structural immanence, and the subjectivity of the people. The establishment of an indicator system for Chinese-path modernization that combines commonality and distinctiveness can refine the key elements, main aspects, and transformation conditions of the process into measurable, comparable, and trackable observation variables and threshold intervals, thereby forming a complete closed loop of the historical logic, theoretical logic, practical logic, developmental logic, and value logic of Chinese-path modernization. This drives modernization to advance steadily along a path that is higher quality, more efficient, fairer, more sustainable, and more secure. How to construct an evaluation framework that both embodies the essential requirements of socialist modernization and possesses international comparability has become a frontier issue in interdisciplinary research across economics, sociology, and public administration.

中国式现代化指标体系是认识、推动中国式现代化的重要科学工具，也是确保中国式现代化可测、可感、可及、可信的重要保障。没有规矩，不成方圆；没有评价，不知进步。中国式现代化是具有历史阶段性、结构内在性与人民主体性的实践过程。兼具共性与特色的中国式现代化指标体系的建立，可以把进程中的关键要素、主要方面与转化条件，精炼为可度量、可比较、可追踪的观测量与阈值区间，使中国式现代化的历史逻辑、理论逻辑、实践逻辑、发展逻辑和价值逻辑形成完整闭环，推动现代化沿着更高质量、更有效率、更加公平、更可持续、更为安全的方向稳步前行。如何构建既能体现社会主义现代化本质要求、又具备国际可比性的评价框架，已成为经济学、社会学与公共管理等学科交叉研究的前沿议题。

This article aims to systematically review the evolutionary trajectory of domestic and international modernization indicator systems, focusing on the theoretical logic, indicator selection, target setting, and comprehensive evaluation methods of the indicator system for Chinese-path modernization. It seeks to clarify research progress and shortcomings, and to provide actionable research prospects for subsequent framework improvement and policy practice. The full text is structured as follows: Part One reviews the evolutionary paths and theoretical paradigms of major global modernization indicator systems and provides an overview of the latest research priorities in the indicator system for Chinese-path modernization; Part Two systematically summarizes the key points of constructing the indicator system for Chinese-path modernization from the perspectives of evaluation dimensions and indicator selection; Part Three discusses the target-setting methods and comprehensive evaluation practices of the indicator system, comparing the applicable scenarios of various weighting and evaluation models; Part Four proposes future research directions concerning top-level design, stage-specific goals, and indicator dimensions, emphasizing the scientific focus on the multidimensional theoretical core, the unification of stage-specific goal standards, and the construction of a multi-level indicator framework that balances Chinese characteristics with international consensus.

本文旨在系统梳理国内外现代化指标体系演进脉络的基础上，聚焦中国式现代化指标体系的理论逻辑、指标选取、目标设定与综合评价方法，旨在廓清研究进展与不足，并为后续框架完善与政策实践提供可操作的研究展望。全文结构如下：第一部分回顾世界主要现代化指标体系的演进路径与理论范式，并总体概述中国式现代化指标体系的最新研究重点；第二部分从评价维度与指标遴选两方面系统总结中国式现代化指标体系的构建要点；第三部分探讨指标体系的目标设定方法与综合评价实践，比较各类赋权与评价模型的适用场景；第四部分针对顶层设计、阶段目标和指标维度提出未来研究方向，强调科学聚焦多维理论内核、统一阶段目标标准、构建兼顾中国特色与国际共识的多层次指标框架。

I. Review of Domestic and International Research

一、国内外研究综述

(I) Research Progress on Global Modernization Indicator Systems

（一）世界现代化指标体系的研究进展

Against the backdrop of changes unseen in a century, global modernization indicator systems have undergone a profound transformation from industrial-economic modernization to multidimensional coordinated modernization. In the early 20th century, profound changes in the global political, economic, and cultural landscape prompted academia to begin reflecting on the connotations and pathways of modernization, laying an initial foundation for the composition of global modernization indicator systems. In the mid-to-late 20th century, with preliminary exploration of quantitative evaluation of modernization, a "post-modernization indicator system" gradually emerged, shifting the evaluation perspective of modernization from a singular focus on economic growth to a multidimensional analysis that more comprehensively considers social structure, cultural change, and political system transformation. In the early 21st century, the "new modernization indicator system" further expanded the key roles of dimensions such as global value chains, information technology, and the ecological environment within modernization theory and indicator systems.

在全球百年未有之大变局背景下，世界现代化指标体系经历了从工业经济现代化到多维协同现代化的深刻转型。20世纪初，全球政治、经济及文化格局的深刻变动促使学术界开始思考现代化的内涵及其路径，为世界现代化指标体系的构成奠定了初步基础。20世纪中后期，随着对现代化定量评价的初步探索，逐渐形成了“后现代化指标体系”，推动现代化评价视角从单一注重经济增长转向更加综合考量社会结构、文化变迁与政治制度变革的多维度分析。21世纪初的“新现代化指标体系”进一步拓展了全球价值链、信息技术、生态环境等维度在世界现代化理论和指标体系中的关键作用。

Since the 20th century, different theoretical schools have proposed modernization pathways dominated by economics, society, politics, and culture, providing qualitative frameworks for early modernization indicator systems. In the economic dimension, Rostow divided modernization into five stages—traditional society, preconditions for take-off, take-off, drive to maturity, and age of high mass consumption—emphasizing that industrialization and capital accumulation are the core forces driving social transformation. In the social dimension, Parsons' social systems theory viewed modernization as a process of functional differentiation and reintegration, focusing on the mobility and adaptability of social structure. In the political dimension, represented by Huntington's theory of political modernization, the key role of political participation, rule of law construction, and governance capacity in modern transformation was highlighted. From a cultural perspective, Weber used the Protestant ethic to explain the promoting effect of value reform on industrialization, introducing cultural variables into modernization research. On this basis, from the mid-to-late 20th century onward, the international academic community gradually quantified the above qualitative frameworks into operational indicator systems. For example, the Hakone Conference model proposed seven major areas covering industrialization, urbanization, marketization, democratization, social mobility, cultural heritage, and political participation. The Levy model further emphasized the nonlinear evolutionary characteristics of the interaction between social organization specialization, bureaucratization, and ethical concepts. In quantitative practice, the Inkeles system was the first to systematically incorporate economic, social, and health indicators; the United Nations Development Programme launched the Human Development Index (HDI), which assesses national development levels from three aspects: life expectancy, years of schooling, and gross national income per capita. Although the above indicator systems laid a methodological foundation for modernization indicator research, constrained by the development stage of the time, most neglected emerging dimensions such as the ecological environment, the information society, and infrastructure. Moreover, they suffered from issues such as low standard settings and imperfect methodological norms, urgently requiring theoretical updates and framework reconstruction in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

20世纪以来，不同理论学派提出了经济主导、社会主导、政治主导和文化主导的现代化路径，为早期现代化指标体系提供了定性框架。经济维度方面，罗斯托将现代化划分为传统社会、起飞前准备、起飞、成熟与大规模消费五阶段，强调工业化与资本积累是驱动社会转型的核心力量。社会维度上，帕森斯社会系统论把现代化视为功能分化与再整合的过程，重点关注社会结构的流动性与适应性。政治维度则以亨廷顿的政治现代化理论为代表，突出政治参与、法治建设与治理能力在现代转型中的关键作用。文化视角方面，韦伯借助新教伦理阐释了价值观改革对工业化的促进效应，为现代化研究注入文化变量。在此基础上，自20世纪中后期起，国际学界逐步将上述定性框架量化为可操作化的指标体系。例如，箱根会议模型提出了涵盖工业化、城市化、市场化、民主化、社会流动、文化传承与政治参与的七大领域。列维模型进一步强调了社会组织专业化、科层化与伦理观念交互的非线性演进特征。在定量实践方面，英格尔斯体系首次系统纳入经济、社会与健康指标；联合国开发计划署推出的人类发展指数（HDI）从预期寿命、教育年限与人均国民总收入三方面评估国家发展水平。尽管上述指标体系为现代化指标研究奠定了方法论基础，但受制于当时的发展阶段，大多忽视生态环境、信息社会与基础设施等新兴维度，且存在标准设定偏低、方法学规范不完善的问题，亟需结合第四次工业革命的背景实现理论更新与框架重构。

With the deepening of the globalization process and the advancement of the sustainable development agenda, the diversity of modernization paths determines the inclusiveness and foresight of modernization indicator systems. Against this backdrop, the “new modernization indicator system” has gradually broken through the traditional scope of economic and social development, beginning to incorporate elements such as environment, culture, and social diversity. Some international organizations have also started using terms like “sustainable” and “development” to replace or expand the original conceptual framework of “modernization.” For example, the United Nations Millennium Summit in September 2000 established the “United Nations Millennium Development Goals” (MDGs), centered on eradicating extreme poverty, achieving universal primary education, promoting gender equality, and reducing child mortality, covering 8 dimensions with a total of 22 specific indicators. On this basis, the World Bank continuously monitors the performance of various countries in areas such as population, environment, economy, governance, and global connectivity, constructing the “World Development Indicators” system, which includes 20 dimensions and approximately 1,500 indicators. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) also followed suit by releasing a country overview indicator system, covering 12 dimensions including economic growth, education, employment, social welfare, and energy, with over 100 indicators. In 2015, the United Nations adopted the “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” establishing 17 Sustainable Development Goals, covering three major areas—economy, society, and environment—with a total of over 200 specific indicators. This system reflects the diversified characteristics of the new modernization indicator system, such as Goal 3 focusing on health and well-being, Goal 13 on climate action, and Goal 16 on peace and justice. Furthermore, world modernization indicator systems have continued to deepen in specific fields and at the regional level, such as the United Nations System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA), the United Nations Industrial Competitiveness Performance (CIP) indicator system, the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) indicator system of the European Union, and the Innovation Union Scoreboard (IUS) indicator system. Currently, China has produced representative achievements in the study of world modernization indicator systems. Taking the system constructed by a team from the Chinese Academy of Sciences as an example, this system takes 131 countries worldwide as its research subjects, spans the period from 1750 to 2050, and includes 100 indicators, covering six areas: economy, society, politics, culture, environment, and individual life, subdivided into 15 themes and 35 sub-themes. Among these, there are 50 level indicators, 28 characteristic indicators, and 22 status indicators, systematically reflecting the multi-dimensional structure and dynamic evolution of the world modernization process.

随着全球化进程的深化与可持续发展议程的推进，现代化道路的多样性决定了现代化指标体系的包容性和前瞻性。在此背景下，“新现代化指标体系”逐渐突破传统的经济和社会发展的范畴，开始纳入环境、文化、社会多样性等元素，部分国际组织也开始使用“可持续”“发展”等表述替代或拓展原有的“现代化”概念框架。例如，2000年9月联合国首脑会议确立了以消除极端贫困、普及初等教育、促进性别平等、降低儿童死亡率等为核心的“联合国千年发展目标”（MDGs），涵盖8个维度共22项具体指标。在此基础上，世界银行持续监测各国在人口、环境、经济、治理与全球联系等方面的表现，构建了包含20个维度、约1500项指标的“世界发展指标”体系。经济合作与发展组织（OECD）也跟进发布了国家概览指标体系，涵盖经济增长、教育、就业、社会福利、能源等12个维度超过100项指标。2015年，联合国通过《2030年可持续发展议程》，设立了17项可持续发展目标，涵盖经济、社会与环境三大领域共计200多项具体指标。该体系体现了新现代化指标体系的多元化特征，如目标3关注健康与福祉、目标13关注气候行动、目标16关注和平与公正等。此外，世界现代化指标体系在具体领域和区域层面也不断深化，如联合国环境经济核算体系（SEEA）、联合国工业竞争力评价（CIP）指标体系、欧盟欧洲创新评价（EIS）指标体系与创新联盟评价（IUS）指标体系等。目前，中国在世界现代化指标体系研究方面已形成具有代表性的成果，以中科院团队构建的体系为例，该体系以世界131个国家为研究对象，以1750年至2050年为时间跨度，包含100个指标，涉及经济、社会、政治、文化、环境和个人生活六个领域，细分为15个主题和35个亚主题。其中包含水平指标50项、特征指标28项及状态指标22项，系统反映了世界现代化进程的多维结构与动态演变。

(II) Research Progress on the Indicator System for Chinese-Path Modernization

（二）中国式现代化指标体系的研究进展

The socialist system with Chinese characteristics determines that Chinese-path modernization possesses distinctive features different from Western modernization in terms of political system, social structure, strategic layout, development philosophy, and development mode. On the basis of world modernization research, since the 18th National Congress of the CPC [5]5 The 18th National Congress of the CPC, held in November 2012, marked the beginning of the New Era of socialism with Chinese characteristics under Xi Jinping’s leadership., domestic academia has carried out a series of localized theoretical innovations centered on Chinese-path modernization, focusing on systematic discussions of qualitative dimensions such as its basic characteristics, stages of development, and theoretical origins. Although in recent years the academic community has made some progress in constructing comprehensive modernization indicator systems, modernization indicator systems based on the new development philosophy, and modernization evaluation systems for specific fields, it remains in a stage of continuous expansion and deepening in terms of evaluation dimensions, indicator construction, and quantitative standards.

中国特色社会主义制度决定了中国式现代化在政治体制、社会结构、战略布局、发展理念和发展方式等方面均具有不同于西方现代化的鲜明特征。在世界现代化研究的基础上，自党的十八大以来，国内学术界围绕中国式现代化开展了一系列本土化理论创新，重点就其基本特征、发展阶段与理论渊源等定性维度进行了系统探讨。尽管近年来学界在构建综合现代化指标体系、基于新发展理念的现代化指标体系以及特定领域现代化评价体系等方面已取得一定进展，但在评价维度、指标构建与量化标准方面仍处于不断拓展与深化的阶段。

This paper, based on the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database, adopts a keyword clustering knowledge graph analysis method, aiming to systematically reveal the research hotspots, evolutionary脉络 [6]6 The Chinese term 脉络 (mailuo) literally, and knowledge structure of the indicator system for Chinese-path modernization. First, using the advanced search function of CNKI, the search terms “Chinese-path modernization indicators,” “Chinese-path modernization evaluation,” and “Chinese-path modernization index” were set as subject terms. Considering the temporal characteristics of concentrated publication of literature in this field, the search time range was limited to January 2020 to October 2025, yielding bibliographic information for 63 relevant documents (including titles, keywords, abstracts, authors, institutions, and references). After cleaning the original literature data, it was imported into CiteSpace 6.1.R1 software for format conversion and deduplication processing to ensure the accuracy of the analysis foundation. In CiteSpace, the data was divided into four time slices (2022 to October 2025) by publication year, with each slice lasting one year, where the number of references for 2022 to 2025 was 3, 19, 36, and 10 respectively. To effectively identify high-impact literature and reduce noise interference, this paper adopted the g-index algorithm (k=25), combined with a frequency threshold (L/N=10), a minimum citation count (LBY=5), and a path dependency factor (LRF=2.5) to optimize the network structure. The final constructed keyword co-occurrence network contains 62 nodes and 65 edges, with a network density of 0.0344. On this basis, cluster labels were extracted using the LLR (Log-Likelihood Ratio) algorithm, and cluster quality was evaluated through modularity (Q=0.8794) and weighted silhouette value (S=0.9871). Among these, a Q value greater than 0.3 indicates a significant literature cluster structure, while an S value close to 1 indicates high homogeneity within the cluster. The harmonic mean of the two is 0.9301, further verifying the reliability of the clustering results. As shown in Figure 1, the knowledge structure map of the research field “indicator system for Chinese-path modernization” contains multiple closely related clusters. Among them, “dynamic evolution” and “regional differences” constitute core research themes, pointing respectively to the application of indicator system construction in differentiated temporal and spatial contexts. The nodes in the figure represent research keywords, and the lines between nodes indicate the strength of association between concepts.

本文基于中国知网（CNKI）数据库，采用关键词聚类的知识图谱分析方法，旨在系统揭示中国式现代化指标体系的研究热点、演进脉络与知识结构。首先，利用CNKI高级检索功能，设定“中国式现代化指标”“中国式现代化评价”“中国式现代化指数”为主题词进行检索。综合考虑该领域文献集中发表的时间特征，将检索时间范围限定为2020年1月至2025年10月，共获取63篇相关文献的题录信息（含标题、关键词、摘要、作者、机构及参考文献）。在对原始文献数据进行清洗后，将其导入CiteSpace 6.1.R1软件进行格式转换与去重处理，以确保分析基础的准确性。在CiteSpace中，数据被按发表年度划分为4个时间切片（2022年—2025年10月），每个切片时长为1年，其中2022年至2025年的参考文献数分别为3、19、36、10篇。为有效识别高影响力文献并降低噪声干扰，本文采用g-index算法（k=25），并结合频次阈值（L/N=10）、最低被引量（LBY=5）及路径依赖因子（LRF=2.5）优化网络结构。最终构建的关键词共现网络包含62个节点与65条边，网络密度为0.0344。在此基础上，通过LLR（对数似然比）算法提取聚类标签，并通过模块度（Q=0.8794）和加权轮廓值（S=0.9871）评估聚类质量。其中，Q值大于0.3表明文献集群结构显著，S值接近1则表明聚类内部具有较高的同质性。二者调和均值为0.9301，进一步验证了聚类结果的可靠性。如图1所示，“中国式现代化指标体系”研究领域的知识结构图谱中包含了多个紧密关联的聚类。其中，“动态演进”与“区域差异”构成核心研究主题，分别指向指标体系的构建在时间和空间差异化情境中的应用。图中节点代表研究关键词，节点间的连线则表示概念之间的关联强度。

Specifically, through the visualization knowledge graph in Figure 1, it can be found that the current research hotspots of the Chinese-path modernization index are concentrated on keyword groups such as “entropy weight method,” “Chinese characteristics,” “civilizational development,” “common features,” and “theoretical basis.” At the same time, when analyzing regional differences in the Chinese-path modernization index, methods such as “dynamic measurement,” “spatiotemporal differentiation,” “coupling coordination,” and “entropy method” have become key research tools. First, Chinese characteristics are the core element in studying the indicator system for Chinese-path modernization. Domestic scholars generally emphasize the uniqueness of Chinese-path modernization, striving to quantify the modernization process by constructing modernization indicator systems that conform to China’s national conditions. For example, Jiang Yongmu et al. (2022), based on the five major characteristics of the “new development philosophy”—innovation, coordination, greenness, openness, and sharing; the Zhejiang Provincial Bureau of Statistics Research Group et al. (2024), based on the characteristic “Five-Sphere Integrated Plan” [7]7 The “second centenary goal” refers to the goal of building China into a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful by the middle of the 21st century (around 2049), the centenary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. of economic construction, political construction, cultural construction, social construction, and ecological civilization construction; and Chen Shengli and Wan Zheng (2023), focusing on the five major features of Chinese-path modernization—a huge population scale, common prosperity for all people, coordination between material civilization and cultural-ethical progress, harmony between humanity and nature, and taking the path of peaceful development—have respectively constructed comprehensive indicator systems for Chinese-path modernization. In terms of evaluation methods, the entropy method is widely used in the construction and weight allocation of the Chinese-path modernization index, while principal component analysis, multi-objective decision-making, and the analytic hierarchy process are also adopted in related research. In addition, regional difference analysis has become an important research direction in this field. For example, Wu Jifei and Yang Shixin (2025), Xiong Xing et al. (2025), through methods such as “dynamic measurement,” “coupling coordination,” and “spatiotemporal differentiation,”

具体而言，通过图1可视化知识图谱可以发现，当前中国式现代化指数的研究热点集中在“熵权法”“中国特色”“文明发展”“共同特征”和“理论依据”等关键词组。同时，在分析中国式现代化指数的区域差异时，“动态测度”“时空分异”“耦合协调”和“熵值法”等方法成为关键的研究工具。首先，中国特色是研究中国式现代化指标体系的核心元素。国内学者普遍强调中国式现代化的独特性，致力于通过构建符合中国国情的现代化指标体系来量化现代化进程。例如，蒋永穆等（2022）基于创新、协调、绿色、开放和共享的五大特色“新发展理念”，浙江省统计局课题组等（2024）基于经济建设、政治建设、文化建设、社会建设、生态文明建设的特色“五位一体”总体布局，陈胜利和万政（2023）则围绕人口规模巨大、全体人民共同富裕、物质文明和精神文明相协调、人与自然和谐共生、走和平发展道路的中国式现代化五大特征，分别构建了综合性的中国式现代化指标体系。在评价方法方面，熵值法被广泛应用于中国式现代化指数的构建与权重分配中，主成分分析、多目标决策及层次分析法等也在相关研究中得到采用。此外，区域差异分析也成为该领域的重要研究方向之一，例如，吴继飞和杨世信（2025）、熊兴等（2025）通过“动态测度”“耦合协调”和“时空分异”等方法

Figure 1 Knowledge Graph of Research on the Indicator System for Chinese-Path Modernization (2020-2025)

图1 中国式现代化指标体系研究知识图谱（2020-2025)

II. Evaluation Dimensions and Indicator Selection of the Indicator System for Chinese-Path Modernization

二、中国式现代化指标体系的评价维度与指标选取

(I) Evaluation Dimensions of the Indicator System for Chinese-Path Modernization

（一）中国式现代化指标体系的评价维度

The construction of an indicator system for Chinese-path modernization is a multi-dimensional, comprehensive systemic project rooted in China’s distinctive development background and strategic objectives. At present, existing studies have proposed various approaches to constructing such an indicator system, which can generally be summarized as follows: (1) system design based on the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan [1]1 The Five-Sphere Integrated Plan (五位一体总体布局) is the overall plan for the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics, covering economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological civilization construction.; (2) system design centered on the five major features of Chinese-path modernization; (3) system design grounded in the New Development Concepts [2]2 The New Development Concepts (新发展理念) are five concepts—innovation, coordination, green development, openness, and sharing—that guide China’s development strategy.; (4) system design from the perspective of coordinated development of the three spaces of production, living, and ecology; and (5) system design incorporating dimensions of distinctive regional governance and development. These approaches indicate that the construction of an indicator system for Chinese-path modernization integrates comprehensive considerations and systematic planning across multiple levels and fields.

中国式现代化指标体系的构建是一项多维度、综合性的系统工程，其根植于中国特有的发展背景与战略目标。目前，已有研究对中国式现代化指标体系提出了多种不同的构建思路，总体而言主要可以归纳为以下几种：（1）基于“五位一体”总体布局进行体系设计；（2）以中国式现代化的五大特征为核心进行体系设计；（3）立足“新发展理念”进行体系设计；（4）从三生空间协调发展的角度切入进行体系设计；（5）结合特色区域治理与发展的维度进行体系设计等。这些构建思路表明，中国式现代化指标体系的构建方案是融汇了多层面、多领域的全面考量与系统规划。

First, some scholars have based their work on the comprehensive development dimension of the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan, emphasizing the coordinated advancement of the economy, politics, culture, society, and ecological civilization, and have constructed indicator systems accordingly. Jia Xiaofen and Zhang Hongli (2022), Lu Jiang and Guo Ziang (2023), and Guo Chunli (2025) argue that Chinese-path modernization should be evaluated from five dimensions, covering economic modernization, cultural modernization, social modernization, ecological modernization, and political modernization (some studies also refer to the latter as “governance modernization”).

首先，有学者基于“五位一体”总体布局的综合发展维度，强调经济、政治、文化、社会和生态文明的协调推进，并据此构建指标体系。贾晓芬和张宏莉（2022）、卢江和郭子昂（2023）、郭春丽（2025）认为，中国式现代化应从五个维度进行评价，涵盖经济现代化、文化现代化、社会现代化、生态现代化、政治现代化（部分研究也称“治理现代化”）

Second, many scholars have designed indicator systems centered on the “five major features” of Chinese-path modernization. This approach highlights core content such as modernization of a huge population, modernization of common prosperity for all the people, modernization of material and cultural-ethical progress in tandem, modernization of harmony between humanity and nature, and modernization on a path of peaceful development, emphasizing the distinctive path China takes in advancing modernization. The indicator systems for Chinese-path modernization proposed by Chen Shengli and Wan Zheng (2023), Fu Xiangguo et al. (2024), Hu Hao (2023), and Zhang Xiaohe et al. (2024) include dimensions such as population scale characteristics, the effectiveness of regional efforts to promote common prosperity for all the people, the degree of coordinated development between material and cultural-ethical progress, the features of harmony between humanity and nature, and the level of openness to the outside world in various regions.

其次，许多学者以中国式现代化的“五大特征”为核心进行体系设计，这一思路突出了人口规模巨大的现代化、全体人民共同富裕的现代化、物质文明和精神文明相协调的现代化、人与自然和谐共生的现代化、走和平发展道路的现代化等核心内容，强调中国推进现代化的特有路径。陈胜利和万政（2023）、傅相国等（2024）、胡昊（2023）、张晓鹤等（2024）的中国式现代化指标体系中包括人口规模特征、地区推动全体人民共同富裕进程中的成效、物质文明与精神文明协调发展的程度、人与自然和谐共生特征和各地区对外开放水平等维度。

Third, some scholars have constructed indicator systems for Chinese-path modernization based on the New Development Concepts, emphasizing the key roles of the five dimensions of innovation, coordination, green development, openness, and sharing in the modernization process. Jiang Yongmu et al. (2022), building on the five New Development Concepts, constructed an indicator system for Chinese-path modernization covering the five core areas of innovation, coordination, green development, openness, and sharing, highlighting the concept of focusing on social equity and environmental sustainability while promoting economic growth. Zhou Mi et al. (2024) constructed an evaluation indicator system for Chinese-path modernization from the perspective of common prosperity, based on the goals (improvement of people’s livelihoods and sharing of outcomes), capabilities (economic growth, infrastructure, and governance capacity), and potential (innovation capacity, cultural development, openness to the outside world, and environmental protection) of Chinese-path modernization, emphasizing the core essence of the New Development Concepts. Li Yingying (2024) added economic modernization and cultural modernization to the five New Development Concepts.

再次，有学者基于“新发展理念”构建的中国式现代化指标体系，强调了创新、协调、绿色、开放、共享五大维度在现代化进程中的关键作用。蒋永穆等（2022）基于五大新发展理念构建的中国式现代化指标体系，涵盖了创新、协调、绿色、开放和共享五大核心领域，突出了在推动经济增长的同时注重社会公平和环境可持续性的理念。周密等（2024）构建的中国式现代化的评价指标体系，从共同富裕视角出发，基于中国式现代化的目标（民生建设与成果共享）、能力（经济增长、基础设施和治理能力）和潜力（创新能力、文化发展、对外开放和环境保护）展开，强调了新发展理念的核心要义。李莹莹（2024）在五大新发展理念的基础上，加入了经济现代化和文化现代化。

Furthermore, some scholars have proposed dimensions focusing on the coordinated development of the three spaces of production, living, and ecology, or on distinctive regional governance and development, emphasizing the interrelationships and balance among production, living, and ecology, and focusing on how to coordinate China’s urban-rural differences and regional disparities in the modernization process, thereby enriching the perspectives for a multi-dimensional comprehensive evaluation system for Chinese-path modernization. In terms of coordinated development of the three spaces, Zou Hong et al. (2023), by sorting out the relationship between the coordinated development model of production development, affluent living, and sound ecology and the “five major features” of Chinese-path modernization, took production, living, and ecology as three criterion layers to construct a measurement indicator system for Chinese-path modernization, unfolding a vision of high-quality development and simultaneous efforts on both the supply and demand sides, efficient coordination between material and spiritual aspects, and equal emphasis on harmony between humanity and nature. Pei Changsheng and Qu Jianwu (2023), when elaborating on the typical features of Chinese-path modernization, also emphasized the importance of green development and ecological civilization construction, and proposed dimensions for deepening green development modernization and technological innovation modernization within the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan.

此外，还有学者提出了侧重于三生空间的协调发展或特色区域治理与发展的维度，强调生产、生活和生态之间的相互关系与平衡，关注在现代化进程中如何协调中国城乡差异和区域差异，丰富了中国式现代化多维度综合评价体系的切入视角。在三生空间的协调发展方面，邹红等（2023）通过梳理生产发展、生活富裕、生态良好的协同发展模式与中国式现代化的“五大特征”的关系，将生产、生活和生态作为三个准则层，构建了中国式现代化的测度指标体系，展开了高质量发展和内需两侧发力、物质和精神高效协同、人与自然和谐并重的美好愿景。裴长盛和曲建武（2023）在阐述中国式现代化的典型特征时，也强调了绿色发展和生态文明建设的重要性，并提出了在“五位一体”总体布局中深化绿色发展现代化和技术创新现代化的维度。

Finally, in terms of distinctive regional governance and development, the Zhejiang Provincial Bureau of Statistics Research Group et al. (2024) constructed a provincial-level statistical monitoring indicator system for Chinese-path modernization from the five dimensions of economy, politics, culture, society, and ecological civilization. Liu Xingyuan (2023) suggested constructing an evaluation indicator system for the new practice of Chinese-path modernization in Jiangsu, oriented toward promoting the comprehensive development of the individual.

最后，在特色区域治理与发展方面，浙江省统计局课题组等（2024）从经济、政治、文化、社会和生态文明五个维度展开，构建了中国式现代化省域统计监测指标体系；刘兴远（2023）建议以促进人的全面发展为价值取向构建中国式现代化江苏新实践的评价指标体系。

To systematically analyze the keywords in the main frameworks of the indicator systems for Chinese-path modernization, this study employs a word cloud generation method based on word frequency statistics, including steps such as text collection, Chinese word segmentation, word frequency statistics, and stop-word filtering. First, to maintain consistency in the research data, this paper takes the literature analyzed in Figure 1 as its source, crawling all main text content containing specific indicator system tables from 63 articles on indicator systems for Chinese-path modernization indexed in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and identifying and extracting first-level indicator names from them to form the basic analytical corpus. Second, Chinese word segmentation tools are used to segment the corpus, dividing continuous text into independent word units and filtering out common stop words, followed by word frequency statistics to screen high-frequency keywords. Finally, based on the word frequency information, visualization tools such as WordCloud are used to generate a word cloud image, where the font size of words is positively correlated with their frequency of occurrence in the text; higher-frequency keywords appear in larger fonts, while lower-frequency keywords appear in smaller fonts. From the final word cloud image, it can be seen that keywords mainly revolve around core concepts such as “civilization,” “ecology,” “society,” “economy,” and “population.” Among them, keywords with a word frequency exceeding 10 are society (23), ecology (22), economy (21), civilization (18), population (16), harmony (13), coordination (12), symbiosis (11), governance (11), and cultural-ethical progress (11). In addition, words such as “sharing” and “innovation” also appear in the word cloud image, further highlighting the boosting role of platform economy, technological innovation, and resource sharing in the process of Chinese-path modernization.

为系统分析中国式现代化指标体系中主要框架中的关键词，本研究采用了基于词频统计的词云生成方法，具体包括文本收集、中文分词、词频统计与停用词过滤等步骤。首先，为保持研究数据的一致性，本文以图1分析所基于的文献为来源，从中国知网收录的63篇涉及中国式现代化指标体系的文献中，爬取了所有包含具体指标体系表格的正文内容，并从中识别、摘录出一级指标名称，以此构成基础分析语料。其次，运用中文分词工具对语料进行分词处理，将连续性文本切分为独立词语单元，并过滤常见停用词，随后通过词频统计筛选出高频关键词。最后，基于词频信息，使用WordCloud等可视化工具生成词云图，其中词语的字体大小与其在文本中出现的频率呈正相关，频率较高的关键词显示为较大字体，频率较低的关键词则显示为较小字体。从最终生成的词云图可以看出，关键词主要围绕“文明”“生态”“社会”“经济”“人口”等核心概念展开。其中，词频超过10的关键词分别为社会（23）、生态（22）、经济（21）、文明（18）、人口（16）、和谐（13）、协调（12）、共生（11）、治理（11）、精神文明（11）。此外，词云图中还出现了如“共享”“创新”等词汇，进一步突显了平台经济、技术创新与资源共享在中国式现代化进程中的助推作用。

(2) Indicator Selection for the Indicator System for Chinese-Path Modernization

（二）中国式现代化指标体系的指标选取

Under the comprehensive first-level dimension framework of the indicator system for Chinese-path modernization, the selection of second- and third-level indicators must follow scientific principles such as scientificity, systematicity, representativeness, measurability, and dynamism, to ensure the effectiveness and authority of the indicator system. Based on the above principles and the preceding analysis, existing studies generally set first-level indicators around the fields of economy, society, politics, culture, and ecology, and subdivide within each field several second-level indicators to measure the development connotation of Chinese-path modernization. By reviewing representative literature, the categories of high-frequency second-level indicators under each first-level indicator, their selection basis, functional positioning, and trends toward relative consensus can be summarized.

在中国式现代化指标体系全面的一级维度框架下，二级和三级指标的遴选需遵循科学性、系统性、代表性、可测量性、动态性等科学原则，以确保指标体系的有效性和权威性。基于上述原则和前文分析，已有研究普遍围绕经济、社会、政治、文化、生态等领域设定一级指标，并在各领域内细分若干二级指标以衡量中国式现代化的发展内涵。通过梳理代表性文献，可归纳出各一级指标下高频出现的二级指标类别、选取依据、功能定位及其相对共识趋势。

As a foundational dimension, economic modernization emphasizes achieving a balance between total scale, structural optimization, innovation-driven development, and openness and coordination, striving for the simultaneous improvement of economic aggregate, development quality, and shared benefits. Existing studies generally list economic scale and development level as core second-level indicators, commonly using per capita gross domestic product (GDP) and per capita disposable income of residents for measurement, to reflect regional economic strength and the degree of residents’ affluence.

经济现代化作为基础维度，强调在规模总量、结构优化、创新驱动与开放协同之间取得平衡，致力于实现经济总量与发展质量、共享效益的同步提升。现有研究普遍将经济规模与发展水平列为核心二级指标，常用人均国内生产总值、人均居民可支配收入等进行度量，以反映地区经济实力与居民富裕程度。

The social modernization indicator system aims to measure the comprehensive level of livelihood security, social security, and income structure development. Existing studies generally list income structure as a high-frequency second-level indicator, commonly using indicators such as per capita disposable income, the Gini coefficient, the Engel coefficient, and the poverty incidence rate, to assess the degree of residents’ affluence and their basic living standards.

社会现代化指标体系旨在衡量民生保障、社会保障、收入结构发展的综合水平。现有研究普遍将收入结构列为高频二级指标，常用人均可支配收入、基尼系数、恩格尔系数和贫困发生率等指标，以评估民众富裕程度与基本生活水平状况。

Governance modernization (political modernization) is mainly organized around three dimensions: democratic participation, law-based governance, and government effectiveness, with a focus on assessing government governance capacity and the level of institutional safeguards. In terms of democratic participation, indicators such as the participation rate in grassroots mass self-governance, the degree of electoral participation, and the composition of people’s congress deputies are commonly used to quantify the extent to which whole-process people’s democracy guarantees citizens’ democratic rights. In terms of law-based governance, indicators such as the rule-of-law government construction index and the number of lawyers per capita are used to measure progress in legalization. In terms of government effectiveness, indicators such as government service efficiency, transparency, and the business environment evaluation reflect the level of administrative system modernization and governance performance improvement. In addition, some studies also incorporate the effectiveness of clean governance construction and public security conditions (such as the rate of workplace safety accidents and the crime rate) into the evaluation framework to reflect the degree of integrity in the political system and the capacity to maintain social order.

治理现代化（政治现代化）主要围绕民主参与、依法治理与政府效能三个维度展开，重点评估政府治理能力与制度保障水平。在民主参与方面，常采用基层群众自治参与率、选举参与度和人大代表构成等指标，用以量化全过程人民民主对公民民主权利的保障程度；在依法治理方面，法治政府建设指数、人均律师数量等指标被用于衡量法治化进展；在政府效能方面，政府服务效率、透明度以及营商环境评价等指标，则体现了行政体系现代化与治理绩效的提升水平。此外，部分研究也将廉政建设成效与公共安全状况（如安全生产事故率、犯罪率）纳入评价框架，以反映政治体系的廉洁度与社会秩序的维护能力。

Culture and cultural-ethical progress are the concentrated embodiment of the coordination between material civilization and cultural-ethical progress in Chinese-path modernization. Existing indicator systems are mainly organized around three categories of high-frequency indicators: first, the improvement of cultural quality, commonly measured by indicators such as average years of education and the proportion of the population with a college degree or above to assess the public’s cultural attainment; second, public cultural services and participation, reflected through indicators such as the number of books per capita in public libraries, the number of cultural centers (stations) per 10,000 people, and the comprehensive reading rate of residents to gauge the level of cultural supply and mass participation; third, the cultural industry and its communication capacity, assessed through indicators such as the share of value added from the cultural industry, the export value of cultural products, and the internet penetration rate to evaluate the degree of modernization and influence of the cultural industry. Some studies also attempt to introduce indicators such as the volunteer service participation rate, the social integrity index, and the degree of cultural identity to quantify the effectiveness of practicing core socialist values and the actual progress of cultural-ethical progress.

文化与精神文明建设是中国式现代化“物质文明与精神文明相协调”的集中体现。现有指标体系主要围绕三类高频指标展开：一是文化素质提升，常用平均受教育年限、大学及以上学历人口占比等指标衡量公众文化素养；二是公共文化服务与参与，通过人均公共图书馆藏书量、每万人文化馆（站）数、居民综合阅读率等指标反映文化供给与群众参与水平；三是文化产业与传播力，采用文化产业增加值占比、文化产品出口额、互联网普及率等指标评估文化产业的现代化程度及其影响力。部分研究还尝试引入志愿服务参与率、社会诚信指数、文化认同度等指标，以量化社会主义核心价值观的践行成效与精神文明建设的实际进展。

The ecological environment dimension is a distinctive feature that distinguishes Chinese-path modernization from traditional modernization models, and it centrally embodies the core value concept of “harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature.” Existing research generally regards the efficiency of energy and resource utilization, the state of environmental quality, and the performance of pollution control as the core secondary indicators of ecological civilization modernization. Among these, commonly used indicators such as energy consumption intensity per unit of GDP, carbon dioxide or major pollutant emissions per unit of GDP measure the resource and environmental costs of economic activities and the level of cleaner production. At the same time, ecological and environmental quality indicators often use the proportion of days with good air quality, the compliance rate of surface water quality, the forest coverage rate, and the per capita urban green area to directly reflect the health status of the ecosystem and the extent of improvement in the living environment. In terms of ecological governance capacity, most scholars incorporate indicators such as the intensity of investment in industrial pollution control and the harmless treatment rate of domestic waste into the evaluation framework to measure the input and performance of environmental governance. In addition, the green development transition has also received sustained attention, with indicators such as the share of new energy consumption, the circular economy index, and the intensity of green technology innovation commonly used to characterize the process of transforming the development model toward low-carbon and circular patterns.

生态环境维度是中国式现代化区别于传统现代化模式的鲜明特征，集中体现了“人与自然和谐共生”的核心价值理念。现有研究普遍将能源资源利用效率、环境质量状况与污染治理绩效视为生态文明现代化的核心二级指标，其中，常用单位GDP能源消耗强度、单位GDP二氧化碳或主要污染物排放量等指标衡量经济活动的资源环境成本与清洁生产水平。与此同时，生态环境质量类指标常使用空气质量优良天数比例、地表水质达标率、森林覆盖率及人均城市绿地面积等，直观体现生态系统健康状况与人居环境改善幅度。在生态治理能力方面，多数学者将工业污染治理投资强度、生活垃圾无害化处理率等指标纳入评估框架，用以衡量环境治理的投入与绩效。此外，绿色发展转型也受到持续关注，新能源消费占比、循环经济指数及绿色技术创新强度等指标常被用于刻画发展方式向低碳化、循环化转型的进程。

III. Target Setting and Comprehensive Evaluation of the Indicator System for Chinese-Path Modernization

三、中国式现代化指标体系的目标设定与综合评价

(I) Target Setting of the Indicator System for Chinese-Path Modernization

（一）中国式现代化指标体系的目标设定

Planning and targets are fundamental tools for ensuring the long-term stability of major national development strategies. Based on the medium-term goal of basically realizing socialist modernization by 2035 and the second centenary goal of building China into a great modern socialist country by 2050, incorporating future target values into the construction of the indicator system for Chinese-path modernization can not only provide bridging indicator designs for five-year plans at various stages, such as the 15th Five-Year Plan and even the 19th Five-Year Plan, but also ensure effective linkage between plans at each stage and the long-term vision. The methods for setting specific indicator target values mainly fall into the following three categories: first, direct calculation based on explicit targets in relevant policy documents; second, reference to actual data for similar international indicators in typical countries; third, reasonable extrapolation based on the current level of development combined with future trends.

规划和目标是保障国家重大发展战略长期稳定的基础工具。基于2035年基本实现社会主义现代化的中期目标、2050年建成社会主义现代化强国的第二个百年目标，将未来目标值纳入中国式现代化指标体系的构建，不仅能够为“十五五”乃至“十九五”等各阶段五年规划提供承接性指标设计，还能确保各阶段规划与远景目标之间实现有效联动。具体指标目标值的设定方法主要有以下三类：一是依据相关政策文件中的明确目标进行直接核算；二是参照国际同类指标在典型国家的实际数据；三是基于现有发展水平，结合未来趋势进行合理外推。

For indicators with explicit targets already set in policy documents for economic and social development, the target values can be directly calculated based on the target values in the relevant policies, combined with base-year data. For example, the “Proposal of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Formulating the 14th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development and the Long-Range Objectives Through the Year 2035” (hereinafter referred to as the “Proposal”) states that “by 2035, the total economic volume or per capita income will double.” Based on this, using 2020 as the base year, the target value for national per capita GDP in 2035 can be calculated. Combining the basic data and growth rates from the base year of the policy milestone in the “China Education Modernization 2035” plan, and referencing data from OECD countries and developed countries, the target value for the gross enrollment rate in preschool education can be comprehensively determined. Furthermore, by referencing the national and Zhejiang Province’s 14th Five-Year Plans, the provincial target values for indicators such as overall labor productivity, the share of the digital economy core industries in GDP, the death rate from workplace safety accidents per 100 million yuan of GDP, the average years of education of the working-age population, the proportion of skilled workers among employees, the share of labor remuneration in GDP, the urban-rural per capita disposable income ratio, the proportion of households with a disposable income (calculated for a family of three) between 200,000 and 600,000 yuan, the urban surveyed unemployment rate, the number of childcare slots for children under three years old per 1,000 people, energy consumption per unit of GDP, and the share of non-fossil energy in total energy consumption can all be determined and adjusted through the linkage between base-year data and policy development targets.

对于已有明确政策文件设定经济社会发展目标的指标，可直接依据相关政策中的目标值，结合基年数据进行核算。例如，《中共中央关于制定国民经济和社会发展第十四个五年规划和二○三五年远景目标的建议》（以下简称“建议”）中提到“到2035年实现经济总量或人均收入翻一番”，据此可以2020年为基年，推算出全国人均GDP在2035年的目标值。结合《中国教育现代化2035》政策节点基年的基础数据和增长率，参考OECD国家和发达国家的数据，可以综合确定学前教育毛入园率指标的目标值。此外，参考国家和浙江省“十四五”规划，全员劳动生产率、数字经济核心产业占GDP比重、亿元生产总值生产安全事故死亡率、劳动年龄人口平均受教育年限、技能人才占从业人员比例、劳动报酬占GDP比重、城乡人均可支配收入之比、家庭可支配收入（按三口之家计算）20万至60万元群体比例、城镇调查失业率、每千人拥有3岁以下婴幼儿托位数、单位GDP能耗、非化石能源占能源消费比重等指标的省域目标值，均可通过基年数据与政策发展目标的衔接予以确定和调整。

For indicators with a relatively high degree of international alignment, target values can be set by referencing data from countries at corresponding development levels, based on the phased goals of Chinese-path modernization. Generally, data from moderately developed countries serve as a reference for the 2035 goal of basically realizing modernization, while data from developed countries serve as a reference for the 2050 goal of building a great modern socialist country. For example, according to the statement in the report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC that “by 2035, China’s per capita GDP will reach the level of a moderately developed country,” Zhang Zhanbin et al. (2024) argue that China’s economic modernization requires achieving a per capita GDP target of US$20,000 by 2035. The Research Group of the Zhejiang Provincial Bureau of Statistics et al. (2024) further refined the target hierarchy: under the low-level goal of basically realizing modernization by 2035, the indicator target value can be set at a level equivalent to approximately the 40th place among current modernized countries; under the medium-level goal of reaching the average level of modernized countries, the target value needs to enter the top 20; and under the high-level goal of building a great modern country by the middle of this century, the target value needs to reach the top 10 in the world. Based on this principle, the target values for common quantitative indicators such as per capita GDP, the household consumption rate, the gross enrollment rate in higher education, and per capita disposable income can all be set by referencing relevant standards and existing data from developed countries. In addition, Liang Haoguang and Li Li (2024) defined the concept of “moderately developed countries.” Their research suggests that among the 21 major developed countries that simultaneously meet the four conditions of being a UN developed economy, a World Bank high-income economy, an IMF advanced economy, and an OECD member, nine moderately developed country samples can be further selected. Their study recommends that the target values for Chinese-path modernization indicators in 2035 can be calculated by referencing the average values of the corresponding indicators for these moderately developed countries.

对于与国际接轨程度较高的指标，可依据中国式现代化的阶段性目标，参照相应发展水平国家的数据设定目标值，一般以中等发达国家对应指标数据作为2035年基本实现现代化的参照，以发达国家数据作为2050年建成社会主义现代化强国的目标参照。例如，根据党的二十大报告关于“到2035年我国人均国内生产总值达到中等发达国家水平”的表述，张占斌等（2024）认为中国经济现代化需要在2035年实现人均GDP达到2万美元的目标。浙江省统计局课题组等（2024）进一步细化了目标层次：在2035年基本实现现代化的低层次目标下，指标目标值可设定为相当于当前现代化国家排名第40位左右的水平；在达到现代化国家平均水平的中等层次目标下，目标值需进入前20位；而在本世纪中叶建成现代化强国的高层次目标下，目标值需要达到世界前10位。依据此原则，人均GDP、居民消费率、高等教育毛入学率、人均可支配收入等常见量化指标的目标值，均可对照发达国家相关标准与现有数据进行设定。此外，梁昊光和李力（2024）对“中等发达国家”的概念进行了界定，即在同时符合联合国发达经济体、世界银行高收入经济体、国际货币基金组织先进经济体及OECD成员国四项条件的21个主要发达国家中，进一步筛选出9个中等发达国家样本。其研究建议，2035年中国式现代化指标的目标值可参考中等发达国家对应指标的平均值进行测算。

For indicators that are difficult to obtain policy references or international benchmarking data and are based on China’s unique national conditions, target values are mainly determined through rational extrapolation by referencing current levels and combining them with future development trends. Taking indicators such as the profit margin of enterprise revenue, the science and technology innovation index, the share of the “three new” [12]12 The “three new” (三新) economy refers to new industries, new business forms, and new business models. economy in GDP, the degree of economic openness, per capita actual utilized foreign capital, the share of service trade exports in GDP, the non-performing loan ratio of banking financial institutions, the grain output stability rate, the palm-law enforcement application rate, the litigation rate per 10,000 people, the number of lawyers per 10,000 people, public satisfaction with the rule of law, the criminal crime rate per 10,000 people, and the rate of “one-network processing” [13]13 “One-network processing” (一网通办) refers to a government service reform enabling citizens and businesses to handle administrative procedures through a single online platform. for government service applications applied for, the Zhejiang Provincial Bureau of Statistics Research Group et al. (2024) combined multiple forecasting methods, referenced the development levels of the whole country and developed regions for trend extrapolation, and set the predicted values for 2035 as the target values for the corresponding indicators. Similarly, Ma Xiaohe and Zhou Wanbing (2023), based on the overall goals proposed in the report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC, combined with the actual progress of development in various dimensions, comprehensively determined the target values for indicators related to Chinese-path modernization. Zhu Tao (2024), when determining target values for indicators related to civil welfare, social governance, and social structure, also widely adopted trend extrapolation methods. For example, based on historical trends from 1980 to 2022, he calculated the target value for the number of practicing (assistant) physicians per 1,000 people in 2035.

对于部分较难获取政策参照或国际对标数据且基于中国特有国情的指标，主要通过参照现有水平并结合未来发展趋势进行合理化外推来确定目标值。以企业营业收入利润率、科技创新指数、“三新”经济增加值占GDP比重、经济外向度、人均实际使用外资额、服务贸易出口额占GDP比重、银行业金融机构不良贷款率、粮食产量稳定率、掌上执法应用率、万人成讼率、律师万人比、法治建设群众满意度、每万人口刑事犯罪率、依申请政务服务事项“一网通办”率等指标为例，浙江省统计局课题组等（2024）结合多种预测方法，参照全国和发达地区的发展水平进行趋势外推，将2035年的预测值设定为相应指标的目标值。类似地，马晓河和周婉冰（2023）基于党的二十大报告提出的总体目标文本，结合各维度发展的实际进展，综合确定中国式现代化相关指标的目标值。朱涛（2024）在确定民事福祉、社会治理、社会结构等相关指标的目标值时，也广泛采用趋势外推方法，例如，其根据1980—2022年的历史趋势推算出了2035年千人拥有执业（助理）医师数的目标值。

(II) Comprehensive Evaluation of the Indicator System for Chinese-Path Modernization

（二）中国式现代化指标体系的综合评价

In the practice of comprehensive evaluation of the indicator system for Chinese-path modernization, academia has mainly formed three technical paths: subjective weighting methods, objective weighting methods, and integrated weighting methods. First, subjective weighting methods are based on expert experience, with representative methods including the Delphi method and the analytic hierarchy process. The Delphi method is often used for preliminary screening of indicators, while the analytic hierarchy process, leveraging its advantages of hierarchical structure and judgment matrix, is suitable for constructing indicator systems with complex hierarchical relationships and relatively weak statistical foundations. Second, objective weighting methods mainly rely on the variability of sample data or correlation structures to automatically determine weights, with typical tools including the entropy method, principal component analysis (PCA), factor analysis, and grey relational weighting. The entropy method can effectively reflect the dispersion information of indicators when data is complete; principal component analysis and factor analysis mainly eliminate redundant information through dimensionality reduction. Third, integrated weighting methods balance value orientation and objective differences. For example, Wang Chengzhe (2023) proposed comprehensively applying multiple methods such as expert consultation, analytic hierarchy process, entropy value correction, and fuzzy evaluation to enhance the scientificity and practicality of the indicator system. Niu Rui and Wu Shiyi (2023), by introducing models such as BP-DEMATEL [14]14 BP-DEMATEL combines a back-propagation neural network (BP) with the Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method to analyze complex causal relationships between indicators. combining neural networks and decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory, rearranged the importance of indicator weights from dimensions such as centrality, causality, and priority, further enriching the technical connotation of integrated weighting.

在中国式现代化指标体系的综合评价实践中，学界主要形成了主观赋权法、客观赋权法以及融合赋权法三条技术路径。其一，主观赋权法以专家经验为基础，代表性方法包括德尔菲法和层次分析法。德尔菲法常用于初筛指标，而层次分析法凭借其递阶结构与判断矩阵的优势，适用于层次关系复杂、统计基础相对薄弱的指标体系构建。其二，客观赋权法主要依托样本数据变异性或相关结构自动确定权重，典型工具有熵值法、主成分分析（PCA）、因子分析及灰色关联赋权等。熵值法在数据完备时能有效反映指标离散度信息；主成分分析与因子分析则主要通过降维剔除冗余信息。其三，融合赋权法兼顾价值导向与客观差异，例如，王承哲（2023）提出应综合运用专家咨询、层次分析、熵值校正及模糊评价等多种方法，以增强指标体系的科学性与实用性。牛蕊和吴施忆（2023）通过引入神经网络与决策实验室相结合的BP-DEMATEL等模型，从中心度、原因度与优先度等维度对指标权重进行重要性重排，进一步丰富了融合赋权的技术内涵。

Based on the theoretical connotation of Chinese-path modernization, academia has formed an evaluation indicator system covering multiple dimensions, enabling comprehensive quantitative analysis of the modernization process and preliminarily revealing its spatiotemporal evolution characteristics. From a temporal trend perspective, since 2010, the comprehensive evaluation score of Chinese-path modernization at the national level has shown a steady upward trend, with an overall evolution trend of continuous advancement and gradual acceleration. From a spatial pattern perspective, there are obvious regional differences in the development level of Chinese-path modernization, but the differences are generally converging. Among them, the modernization level of the eastern coastal areas, represented by the three major urban agglomerations of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei, the Yangtze River Delta, and the Pearl River Delta, is significantly higher than the national average, forming a “core belt” of high-value agglomeration; the central region, relying on hub cities such as Wuhan, Changsha, and Hefei in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River urban agglomeration, is gradually developing into a “secondary growth pole” connecting the north and south and linking the east and west, but the gradient gap between regions remains significant. In addition, the spatial correlation of Chinese-path modernization levels presents a multi-layered nested network structure, with inter-provincial linkage intensity continuously increasing, forming a complex spatial pattern characterized by “core-periphery” differentiation. From the perspective of driving mechanisms, Jian Xinhua and Nie Changfei (2024), based on the results of a benchmark measurement of the overall index of China’s new quality productive forces, pointed out that the combination of an effective government and an efficient market is an important mechanism for promoting the formation of new quality productive forces. Furthermore, the realization of Chinese-path modernization depends on promoting organic connections between regional strategies. The construction of transportation corridors, high-speed rail economic belts, and digital infrastructure has significantly enhanced the hub functions of central provinces, promoting the outward diffusion of modernization elements along the “axis-belt” structure.

基于中国式现代化的理论内涵，学界已形成涵盖多维要素的评价指标体系，从而能够对现代化进程展开综合量化分析，并初步揭示其时空演进特征。从时间趋势来看，自2010年以来，全国层面的中国式现代化综合评价得分呈现稳步上升态势，整体表现为持续推进、逐步加速的演进趋势。从空间格局看，中国式现代化发展水平存在明显的区域差异，但差异总体趋于收敛，其中，以京津冀、长三角、珠三角三大城市群为代表的东部沿海地区的现代化水平显著高于全国均值，构成高值集聚的“核心带”；中部地区依托长江中游城市群中的武汉、长沙、合肥等枢纽城市，正逐步发展成为连接南北、贯通东西的“次级增长极”，但区域间梯度差距依然显著。此外，中国式现代化水平的空间关联呈现多层嵌套的网络结构，省际联系强度持续增强，并形成以“核心—边缘”分化为特征的复杂空间格局。从驱动机制来看，简新华和聂长飞（2024）基于对中国新质生产力总体指数的基准测度结果分析指出，有为政府和有效市场结合是促进新质生产力形成的重要机制。进一步地，中国式现代化的实现有赖于促进区域战略之间的有机衔接，交通走廊、高铁经济带以及数字基础设施的建设显著提升了中部省份的枢纽功能，推动了现代化要素沿“轴带”结构向外扩散。

IV. Research Prospects for Constructing an Indicator System for Chinese-Path Modernization

四、构建中国式现代化指标体系的研究展望

(I) Top-Level Design: Scientifically Focusing on the Multi-Dimensional Theoretical Core

（一）顶层设计：科学聚焦多维度理论内核

The construction of the indicator system for Chinese-path modernization is based on the logical coherence of the theoretical framework, and scientifically grasping its multi-dimensional theoretical core is crucial. The theoretical spectrum of Chinese-path modernization is jointly supported by the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan, the major exposition of the “Five Characteristics,” and the coordinated development of the “Five Civilizations.” [15]15 The “Five Characteristics” (五个特征) of Chinese-path modernization are: a huge population, common prosperity for all, material and cultural-ethical advancement, harmony between humanity and nature, and peaceful development. The “Five Civilizations” (五个文明) are material, political, cultural-ethical, social, and ecological civilization. Among them, the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan incorporates the five major fields of economy, politics, culture, society, and ecological civilization into a unified governance system, constituting the practical path of socialist modernization with Chinese characteristics and answering the question “what to rely on to advance modernization”; the “Five Characteristics” proposed by the 20th National Congress of the CPC profoundly reveal the unique essence of Chinese-path modernization that distinguishes it from Western modernization, clarifying both the direction and goals of modernization and highlighting the value pursuit of socialism, answering the question “what kind of modernization to achieve”; the coordinated development of the “Five Civilizations” integrates material, political, cultural-ethical, social, and ecological civilization into the carrier of a new form of human civilization, ensuring that modernization construction is both rich in “form” and cast in “spirit,” answering the question “what value criteria should be followed in modernization construction.” However, at present, the three major systems have not yet formed an organic connection at the micro level, such as target scale, indicator thresholds, and evaluation paradigms, leading to dimensional misalignment and weight imbalance in current indicator construction.

中国式现代化指标体系的构建立足于理论框架的逻辑贯通，科学把握其多维理论内核至关重要。中国式现代化的理论谱系由“五位一体”总体布局、“五个特征”重大论述与“五个文明”协同发展、共同支撑。其中，“五位一体”总体布局将经济、政治、文化、社会与生态文明五大领域纳入统一的治理系统，构成中国特色社会主义现代化建设的实践路径，回答了“依靠什么推进现代化”的问题；党的二十大提出的“五个特征”深刻揭示了中国式现代化区别于西方现代化的独特本质，既明确了现代化的目标方向，也彰显了社会主义的价值追求，回答了“要实现什么样的现代化”的问题；“五个文明”协同发展将物质、政治、精神、社会、生态文明整合为人类文明新形态的载体，确保现代化建设既富“形”亦铸“魂”，回答了“现代化建设应遵循何种价值准则”的问题。然而目前三大体系在目标规模、指标阈值与评价范式等微观层面尚未形成有机衔接，导致现行指标构建中容易出现维度错位与权重失衡。

Promoting the cross-mapping and integrated unification of multi-dimensional theoretical systems will become an important foundation for the future construction of the indicator system for Chinese-path modernization. This requires first systematically sorting out and organically integrating the internal logic of relevant theories to ensure that the indicator system comprehensively and coherently reflects the theoretical core in its structure. Currently, theories such as the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan, the major exposition of the “Five Characteristics,” and the coordinated development of the “Five Civilizations” seem to have different emphases, but they are in fact intertwined, jointly constituting the theoretical logic and practical framework of Chinese-path modernization. Future research needs to deeply explore the cross-mapping relationships between the above theoretical systems. For example, the coordinated advancement of political civilization and material civilization constitutes the dual drive of institutional innovation; the benign interaction between common prosperity and high-quality economic development forms a composite development path; and the basic national condition of a huge population scale is both a fundamental constraint running through the modernization process and an endogenous driving force for its sustained development. At the operational level, consideration can be given to establishing evaluation dimensions based on mature frameworks such as the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan, and incorporating the core essences of other theoretical systems as value orientations into the selection of secondary indicators and the allocation of indicator weights, thereby constructing a comprehensive evaluation model that unifies goals, paths, and values. By systematically sorting out the mapping relationships between theoretical dimensions and specific indicators, clarifying the logical structure and weight configuration among tertiary indicators, and combining flexible threshold setting with dynamic monitoring mechanisms, a top-level design for the indicator system of Chinese-path modernization that is scientific, systematic, and has practical guiding significance can ultimately be formed.

推动多维理论体系的交叉映射与融合统一，将成为未来中国式现代化指标体系构建的重要基础。这要求首先对相关理论的内在逻辑进行系统梳理与有机整合，以确保指标体系在结构上全面、连贯地反映理论内核。当前，“五位一体”总体布局、“五个特征”重要论述及“五个文明”协同发展等理论看似各有侧重，实则相互交织，共同构成了中国式现代化的理论逻辑与实践框架。未来研究需深入探索上述理论体系之间的交叉映射关系，例如，政治文明与物质文明的协同推进构成制度创新的双驱动；共同富裕与经济高质量发展的良性互动形成复合发展路径；而人口规模巨大的基本国情既是贯穿现代化进程的基础性约束，也是其持续发展的内生动力。在操作层面，可考虑以“五位一体”等成熟框架为基础设立评价维度，并将其他理论体系的核心要义作为价值导向，融入二级指标选取和指标权重分配之中，从而构建起目标、路径与价值相统一的综合评价模型。通过系统梳理理论维度与具体指标之间的映射关系，明确三级指标间的逻辑结构与权重配置，并结合弹性阈值设定与动态监测机制，最终形成科学、系统且具备实践指导意义的中国式现代化指标体系顶层设计。

(II) Process Planning: Establishing Unified Standards for Stage Goals

（二）进程规划：确立阶段目标的统一标准

Considering that the process targets for some indicators of Chinese-path modernization are benchmarked against moderately developed countries, when establishing the target values for the Chinese-path modernization indicator system, it is necessary to calculate and calibrate the relevant indicators of Chinese-path modernization based on the indicator values of “developed countries” and “moderately developed countries.” However, there is no unified international standard for the concept, scope, and level of “developed countries” and “moderately developed countries,” which poses challenges for establishing the target values of the indicator system. Different international organizations have varying criteria for classifying countries: the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, in the *World Economic Situation and Prospects 2025*, divides member states into three categories—developed economies, economies in transition, and developing economies—covering a total of 36 countries. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), based on the Human Development Index, classifies 68 countries as countries with very high human development in the *Human Development Report 2024*, which can be regarded as developed economies. The World Bank typically classifies countries’ economic development levels according to per capita gross national income, with developed countries categorized as high-income countries in terms of economic development level. The member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are generally recognized as developed countries; as of early 2025, the organization comprises 38 full members, with several other countries in the process of application and review. In addition, “advanced economies” is a term used by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to describe the world’s developed countries. Referring to the *World Economic Outlook 2024*, the IMF uses three main criteria—per capita gross domestic product, export diversification, and integration into the global financial system—to classify 38 countries and regions as advanced economies.

考虑到中国式现代化部分指标的进程目标对标的是中等发达国家，在确立中国式现代化指标体系的目标值时，需要基于“发达国家”和“中等发达国家”的指标数值对中国式现代化相关指标进行测算和校准。然而，国际上对“发达国家”“中等发达国家”的概念、范围和水平没有统一标准，为指标体系目标值的确立带来了挑战。不同国际组织对国家的划分标准存在差异：联合国经济社会事务部在《2025世界经济态势与展望》中将成员国分为发达经济体、转轨经济体和发展中经济体三类，共涵盖36个国家。联合国开发计划署（UNDP）依据人类发展指数划分，在《2024年人类发展报告》中将68个国家列为极高人类发展指数国家，可视作发达经济体。世界银行通常根据人均国民收入来划分国家的经济发展水平，发达国家在经济发展水平上被归类为高收入国家。经济合作与发展组织（OECD）的成员国一般被认定为发达国家，截至2025年初，该组织共包含38个正式成员，另有多个国家处于申请审议阶段。此外，先进经济体是国际货币基金组织（IMF）用来描述世界上发达国家的术语。参考《世界经济展望2024》，国际货币基金组织使用人均国内生产总值、出口多样化、融入全球金融体系三个主要标准将38个国家及地区归类为先进经济体。

The standards for “basically achieving modernization” and “a modern socialist country” [16]16 “A modern socialist country” (现代化强国) refers to the goal set by the CPC of building China into a “great modern socialist country” by the middle of the 21st century, as part of the two-stage development strategy outlined at the 19th National Congress of the CPC in 2017. also pose challenges for establishing indicator targets. To establish a reference standard for target values with consensus, the following approach of integrating information from multiple sources can be considered. For example, Dong Xiangrong (2021) proposed that countries simultaneously meeting five conditions—being OECD member states, UNCTAD industrial countries, IMF advanced economies, UNDP very high human development index countries, and World Bank high-income countries (a total of 26 countries)—can serve as the benchmark range for “developed countries.” Liang Haoguang and Li Li (2024) selected 30 countries that simultaneously meet four conditions—UN developed economies, World Bank high-income economies, IMF advanced economies, and OECD member states—as countries that have “basically achieved modernization.” Regarding the definition of moderately developed countries, Liu Wei (2021) proposed removing “major developed countries” from all “developed countries” to determine the range of moderately developed countries, or regarding economies classified by UNDP as having a development level between “very high” and “high” as moderately developed countries. In actual numerical calculations, the average indicator values of developed economies, high-income countries, OECD member states, and other such groups in international organizations can also be used as the modernization benchmark value, and classification standards for modernization levels can be established accordingly. For example, an indicator value reaching 50% or more of the average of high-income countries can be defined as “basically achieving modernization,” while reaching 80% or more of the standard value can be defined as “comprehensively (high-standard) achieving modernization.”

“基本实现现代化”和“现代化强国”的标准也为指标目标的确立带来了挑战。为建立具有共识的目标值参考标准，可参考以下整合多源信息的思路。例如，董向荣（2021）提出，同时满足OECD成员国、联合国贸发会议工业国、IMF发达经济体、UNDP极高人类发展指数国家以及世界银行高收入国家这五项条件的国家（共26个）可以作为“发达国家”的基准范围。梁昊光和李力（2024）筛选出同时符合联合国发达经济体、世界银行高收入经济体、IMF先进经济体及OECD成员国四项条件的30个国家作为“基本实现现代化”的国家。在中等发达国家的界定方面，刘伟（2021）提出从全部“发达国家”中剔除“主要发达国家”，以确定中等发达国家范围，或将联合国开发计划署划分的发展水平介于“很高”与“高”之间的经济体视为中等发达国家。在实际数值计算时，也可以以国际组织中发达经济体、高收入国家、OECD成员国等国家的指标平均值作为现代化基准值，并依此设立现代化水平的分类标准。例如，将指标值达到高收入国家平均50%及以上的水平定义为“基本实现现代化”，达到标准值80%及以上则定义为“全面（高标准）实现现代化”。

(III) Indicator Dimensions: Balancing Chinese Characteristics and International Consensus

（三）指标维度：兼顾中国特色和国际共识

In the current process of constructing the indicator system for Chinese-path modernization, how to properly balance the dual demands of Chinese characteristics and international consensus has become a prominent dilemma in research. On the one hand, overemphasizing indicators with local characteristics may reduce the international comparability of the indicator system, weakening China’s ability to conduct horizontal comparisons and mutual learning with other countries and regions globally. On the other hand, over-reliance on internationally common indicators may dilute the unique connotations of Chinese-path modernization, making it difficult to effectively reflect the institutional advantages, cultural characteristics, and key strategic layouts of the socialist modernization path. At the same time, existing mainstream international evaluation systems, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, the Human Development Index, and the OECD Better Life Index, while possessing general applicability, do not fully cover emerging fields or development topics with Chinese characteristics, such as common prosperity, ecological civilization, and the digital economy. Therefore, how to both reflect the institutional and cultural connotations of Chinese characteristics in indicator construction and effectively connect with existing international evaluation systems has become one of the important practical challenges in current modernization evaluation practice.

在现阶段中国式现代化指标体系的构建过程中，如何妥善兼顾中国特色与国际共识的双重诉求，成为研究面临的突出困境。一方面，过于强调本土特色指标可能会导致指标体系的国际可比性降低，削弱我国与全球其他国家和地区进行横向比较和相互借鉴的能力。另一方面，如果过分倚重国际通用指标，又可能淡化中国式现代化的独特内涵，难以有效体现社会主义现代化道路的制度优势、文化特色和重点战略布局。同时，现有国际主流评价体系，如联合国可持续发展目标、人类发展指数和经合组织生活质量指数等，虽然具备普遍适用性，但并不能完全涵盖共同富裕、生态文明、数字经济等新兴领域或具有中国特色的发展议题。因此，如何在指标构建时既体现中国特色的制度与文化内涵，又能与国际现行评价体系有效衔接，成为当前现代化评价实践中的重要实践难题之一。

To effectively address the above dilemma, the future construction of the indicator system for Chinese-path modernization should adopt a comprehensive design approach that is multi-level, dual-dimensional, and dynamic. First, an indicator framework covering three levels—international consensus, Chinese characteristics, and local flexibility—can be constructed. The international consensus dimension can align with common standards such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the Human Development Index, and the OECD Better Life Index, selecting globally comparable key indicators such as life expectancy, carbon emission intensity, and years of schooling; the Chinese characteristics dimension can set core indicators reflecting the advantages of the Chinese path, such as the common prosperity index, digital economy penetration rate, and green innovation intensity, around major goals like common prosperity, Digital China, and ecological civilization; the local flexibility dimension can add expandable sub-indicators, such as the accessibility rate of public services in ethnic minority areas and the trade facilitation degree at border ports, based on regional development stages and actual needs, to achieve differentiated evaluation within a unified framework. Second, the connection of indicators in both horizontal and vertical dimensions should be strengthened. Horizontally, a correspondence between international indicators and Chinese indicators can be established through thematic mapping—for example, aligning the UN climate action goals with China’s ecological civilization construction indicators; vertically, outcome indicators can be comprehensively used to measure the level of modernization, and process indicators to monitor the progress of modernization, thereby balancing static evaluation and dynamic tracking. In addition, regarding the setting of weights and thresholds, a mechanism combining public parameters and scenario flexibility can be established. Public parameters are determined with reference to internationally accepted standards to enhance horizontal comparability, while scenario flexibility parameters are dynamically adjusted based on the actual development conditions and medium- to long-term strategic tasks of each region. At the same time, actively introduce multi-source real-time data sources such as remote sensing, nighttime light data, and digital economy platforms to enhance the monitoring sensitivity and trend prediction capability of the indicator system, promoting the development of evaluation work toward refinement and forward-looking direction.

为了有效应对上述困境，未来中国式现代化指标体系的构建宜采用多层次、双维度与动态化的综合设计思路。首先，可以构建涵盖国际共识、中国特色与地方弹性三个层次的指标框架。国际共识维度可以对接联合国可持续发展目标、人类发展指数以及经合组织生活质量指数等通用标准，选取预期寿命、碳排放强度、受教育年限等具有全球可比性的重要指标；中国特色维度围绕共同富裕、数字中国、生态文明等重大目标设置共同富裕指数、数字经济渗透率、绿色创新强度等体现中国道路优势的核心指标；地方弹性维度则根据区域发展阶段与实际需求，增设如民族地区公共服务可及率、沿边口岸贸易便利度等可扩展性子指标，以实现统一框架下的差异化评估。其次，应加强横向和纵向两个维度的指标衔接。横向上，可通过主题映射建立国际指标与中国指标之间的对应关系，例如将联合国气候行动目标与我国生态文明建设指标相对应；纵向上，可综合采用结果性指标衡量现代化水平，过程性指标监测现代化进展，从而兼顾静态评价与动态追踪。此外，在权重与阈值设定方面，可建立公共参数与情景弹性相结合的机制。公共参数参照国际通行标准确定以增强横向可比性，情景弹性参数则依据各地区的现实发展条件和中长期战略任务进行动态调整。同时，积极引入遥感、夜间灯光数据与数字经济平台等多源实时数据源，提升指标体系的监测灵敏度与趋势预判能力，推动评估工作向精细化、前瞻化方向发展。