Introduction

A rule-of-law government emphasizes the legal basis of governmental authority, the legitimacy of administrative actions, and the respect for and protection of citizens’ rights. It also indirectly reflects the broader relationship between the rule of law and society. The concept of the “rule of law” is subject to some debate in both academic and practical circles, and in 2004 the Secretary-General of the United Nations provided a detailed definition of the concept in order to facilitate the understanding and use of the concept of the “rule of law” (Secretary-General, 2004). This “fuzzy” concept may be interpreted differently in different geographies, and quantitative assessments that combine the rule of law with government can indicate whether government performance on the rule of law is in line with public expectations, as well as identify shortcomings in government efforts to build the rule of law.

China has been making sustained efforts toward building a rule-of-law government. The construction of a government based on the rule of law, as clearly articulated by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the State Council, stands as a major strategic goal for national governance, supported by a series of policy frameworks at both central and national levels. The Fifteenth National Congress of the CPC introduced the development strategy of “ruling the country according to law and establishing a socialist state governed by the rule of law,” subsequently enshrined in the 1999 amendments to the Constitution. immediately thereafter, the State Council issued the “Decision on Comprehensively Promoting Administration in accordance with Law” (1999), “Implementation Program for Comprehensively Promoting Administration in accordance with the Law” (2004), “Several Opinions on the Implementation of the Administrative Law Enforcement Accountability System” (2005), “Decision on strengthening the administration of municipal and county governments in accordance with the law” (2008), “Opinions on Strengthening the Construction of a Government Based on the Rule of Law” (2010) and a series of other documents related to the construction of a government based on the rule of law and assessment and evaluation. Drawing from pertinent State Council documents, each region has developed an indicator system for evaluating the rule of law within the government.

In 2012, the report of the Eighteenth National Congress of the CPC introduced the goal of comprehensively implementing the basic strategy of ruling the country according to the law and establishing a government based on the rule of law. In 2013, the Decision of the Central Committee of the CPC on Several Major Issues Concerning Comprehensive Deepening of Reform, adopted at the Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee, explicitly proposed establishing a scientific system of indicators for constructing the rule of law. The Fourth Plenary Session of the Eighteenth Central Committee of the CPC adopted the “Decision of the Central Committee of the CPC on a Number of Major Issues Concerning Comprehensively Promoting the Rule of Law,” which makes it clear that it is necessary to “adhere to the construction of the rule of law, the rule of law government, and the rule of law society as a trinity” and “accelerate the construction of a rule of law government with scientific functions, legal powers and responsibilities, strict law enforcement, openness and fairness, cleanliness and efficiency, and law-abiding and honesty.” In 2015, the “Implementation Outline for the Construction of a Government Based on the Rule of Law (2015-2020)” was issued by the State Council. Once again, the basic establishment of a government based on the rule of law has been clearly established as one of the important goals for building a moderately prosperous society in all respects by the year 2020. In 2021, the “Implementation Outline for the Construction of a Government Based on the Rule of Law (2021-2025)” was issued by the Central Committee of the CPC and the State Council. Having further clarified the key elements of the construction of a government based on the rule of law in China, in the next 5 years. Incorporating “emergency response” and “digital rule of law government” into the “eight systems” for building a rule of law-based government in China. It highlights “people’s satisfaction” as the starting point and fundamental destination for the construction of a government based on the rule of law, and underlines the new connotation of the construction of a government based on the rule of law as China enters a new stage of development.

Since 2009, China’s governments at all levels have been consciously practicing the construction of a law-based government, following the issuance of the “Guiding Opinions on the Implementation of the Indicator System for Rule of Law Government Construction (Discussion Draft)” by the General Office of the State Council. This practice has continued for more than a decade. China, being a vast country with varying levels of economic and social development across regions, exhibits differences in the construction of a government based on the rule of law. The level of government building under the rule of law reflects the effectiveness of local governments in applying the rule of law thinking and the rule of law approach to local governance, as well as the degree of standardization of administrative management and services within the legal framework. Compared to other legal topics, the level of rule of law government is more reflective of the “local” or “on-the-ground” nature of the law (Gomez, 2016; Yu, 2019). Therefore, we believe that examining and studying the level of rule of law government from the perspective of legal geography is more appropriate.

With regard to the relationship between law and geography, as early as Montesquieu’s “The Spirit of the Laws,” there was an exploration of the relationship between law and the material conditions of the country—climatic conditions, quality of the land, geographic location, size of the boundaries, and other factors (Secondat, 1748). Legal geography, as a distinct concept or field of study, emerged relatively late. In the 1980s, Nicholas Blomley conducted one of the earliest interdisciplinary studies linking law and geography by examining the enforcement of retail legislation in England and Wales (Blomley, 2003; Braverman et al., 2014). In addition, Professor Blomley et al. compiled The Legal Geographies Reader: Law, Power and Space, a seminal volume that brought together key discussions on the relationship between law and geography, aiming to clarify the increasingly complex interplay between these two domains (Blomley et al., 2001). In more recent research, Ojeda and Blomley Professor have noted that while legal geography has grown into a dynamic and pluralistic field—offering critical insights into mainstream understandings of “law,” “space,” and “power”—its development remains largely confined to English-speaking contexts, with limited attention in other regions (Ojeda, Blomley, 2024).

“Legal geography or geojurisprudence, also known as the study of law and space, is concerned with law in space, space in law, and the interplay between the two” (Yu, 2015). According to the research content of legal geography, extraterritorial research on law and space can be summarized into three main issues or branches: “law in space” (space versus law), “space under the law” (law versus space), and the issues of “law and space” and “third domain” (Bochmann, 2023). There is a general consensus on the scope of the study of the “law-space” relationship in a general sense, such as urbanization, urban zoning issues, globalization, racial discrimination issues, post-colonialism, etc. As a guide to the frontiers of scholarship, academics have called for research around the “space-power-law” relationship (Bartel et al., 2013; Feng et al., 2023). Regarding the scope of the study of the “legal-spatial” relationship in a specific sense, a wide range of topics are scattered, such as the management of homelessness in cities and the separation between slums and rich neighborhoods (Blandy and Sibley, 2010). Research conducted by Chinese scholars on legal geography can be broadly categorized as follows: First, the “law and space” narrative of specific legal phenomena, such as folk law and customary law, in the context of “vernacular China” (Fei, 2006; Su, 2000; Xie, 2016). The second is to focus on the theoretical construction of legal geography, discussing basic issues such as the disciplinary orientation, research scope, and research methodology of legal geography (Xie, 2021). Third, legal geography is utilized in specific scenarios. For example, the method of legal geography is used to study criminal behavior in China, comparing the situation and characteristics of crime occurrence in different regions (Xu, 2022; Liu et al., 1994). At present, research in China on the application of legal geography theories to specific scenarios is still in its infancy and is mainly concentrated in the areas of criminal geography and the spatial inequalities of China’s judicial and administrative systems (Li et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2025).

Let’s examine the topic of building a government based on the rule of law, which is discussed in this paper. Assessing and evaluating the rule of law government as an important means of promoting its construction has been a basic consensus among academic and practical circles (Cao, 2020). Existing research on the construction of the rule of law government primarily focuses on the evaluation index system (Liu, 2021). Specifically, this includes the following: First, examining the significance and feasibility of constructing the rule of law government evaluation index system (Yuan, 2006; Fang and Qian, 2017). Second, designing and constructing the performance evaluation index system of the rule of law government (Chen, 2013; Ying et al., 2014; Zheng and Lu, 2014). Third, implementing and assessing the evaluation indicator system (Deng and Hua, 2019; Liu, 2022).

Existing research has paid limited attention to the differences in the level of rule-of-law government construction across regions, and even less to its relationship with space. Applying geographical methods to examine the spatiotemporal differentiation of rule-of-law government construction and its influencing factors holds both theoretical and practical significance.

On the one hand, this study responds to the international call to strengthen research at the frontier of the “law-space” nexus and helps fill a notable gap in the current literature. Although, as early as 2003, Professor Blomley pointed out that there was a lack of studies and literature exploring how law and space are related—resulting in the two concepts being discussed separately—the field of legal geography has yet to be fully developed (Blomley, 2003). This inherently interdisciplinary concept has been more frequently discussed within the frameworks of criminal geography or geopolitical discourse. By adopting a legal geography perspective, this study fills the theoretical gap in China’s research on rule-of-law government construction from a spatial dimension, expands the application boundaries of legal geography in the context of developing countries, and provides new empirical evidence for understanding how legal institutions are embedded in space.

Moreover, Lefebvre’s “triadic dialectic of space” argues that space is not a naturally occurring entity, but rather a product of social relations, which is continuously constructed and reproduced through social practices under specific historical conditions (Lefebvre, 1991; Zylstra, 2017). This theory has important reference value for analyzing social inequality and power relations in space. The spatial pattern of the level of rule of law government construction discussed in this paper can likewise be interpreted as institutional, practical, and symbolic space. Therefore, this paper provides further empirical support for enriching the theory with a deeper understanding of space not only as a physical presence but also as an intersection of social practices, power operations, and cultural meanings. It also reveals the complex interactions between the space of the rule of law government and socio-economic and natural relations.

On the other hand, this study also has a good practical guiding significance. Analyzing the spatial imbalance in the level of rule of law government construction in different parts of China can, first of all, provide a basis for various regions of China to further improve their measures and enhance the level of rule of law government construction, taking into account both historical and practical reasons. Secondly, the topics discussed in this study can provide empirical support for cases in developing countries, make up for the limitations of existing studies that mostly focus on developed countries in Europe and the United States, and provide paradigmatic references and experiences of rule of law government construction for other countries in the world, especially developing countries, as well as provide practical guidance for the practice of collaborative governance across the region (e.g., the Association of Southeast Asian Nations).

Data sources and research methods

Data sources and description

Data on the level of governmental construction of the rule of law

The assessment of the construction of the rule of law government in various regions involves two main assessment modes: public assessment and self-assessment. Public assessment, exemplified by the Rule of Law Index in Yuhang District, Hangzhou, has also been adopted in Kunming and Wuxi. Self-assessment, on the other hand, is represented by Chengdu and other cities (Sun, 2014). Regarding the content of the assessment, it can be divided into two main types: comprehensive rule of law index assessment and specialized rule of law index assessment (Wang, 2015). If we categorize the assessment subjects, they can be broadly classified into three types: governmental, social, and government-social hybrid assessments (Deng and Hua, 2019). For example, in Zhejiang Province, the assessment of the construction of the rule of law government at all government levels and departments relies on internal evaluation by the government as the primary method, supplemented by third-party (research institutions) assessment, thus adopting a coexisting model of “government and society.” Geographically, government-led assessments are generally limited to their respective administrative jurisdictions. As of now, the central government has not implemented a unified nationwide assessment and evaluation of the rule of law in government. Therefore, the current maximal regional scope of the unified assessment and evaluation of the rule of law government is limited to the provinces. There are no government-driven data sources for a nationwide examination of the level of the rule of law in government at the provincial level. Among social assessments, the most influential is the China Rule of Law Government Assessment Program conducted by the Rule of Law Government Institute of China University of Political Science and Law. The organization initiated the assessment of local rule of law governments in 2013 and has been conducting it for ten consecutive years, publishing the “China Rule of Law Government Assessment Report” almost annually (School of Law-Based Government, CUPL, 2023). The project is based on the “Outline for the Implementation of the Rule of Law Government Construction” and other important programmatic documents on the construction of the rule of law government formulated and promulgated by the Central Committee of the CPC and the State Council, as mentioned earlier. To address specific issues in the construction of the rule of law government, a more comprehensive “China’s Rule of Law Government Assessment Index System” was designed. For example, the assessment indicator system for the period 2021–2022 includes 11 first-level indicators, 34 second-level indicators, and 69 third-level indicators (observation points), covering various aspects such as the full performance of government functions in accordance with the law, organizational leadership in constructing a rule of law government, improvement of the institutional system of administration in accordance with the law, administrative decision-making, administrative law enforcement, openness of government affairs, supervision and accountability, impetus given by a government based on the rule of law to a society based on the rule of law, rule-of-law guarantees for business environment optimization, digital rule-of-law government, and a survey on the level of satisfaction of members of the public. Accordingly, the assessment object is measured through internet search, practical experience, and application of judicial big data. Each year, 100 cities (increased from 53 cities in 2013) are assessed according to the assessment indicator system, including four municipalities directly under the central government, 27 provincial capital cities, five special economic zones, and other larger cities approved by the State Council, as well as cities selected based on population size. Data on assessment scores over the years show that, in most cases, if there are multiple assessment targets within a provincial region, the city where the provincial capital is located tends to achieve the highest score. Therefore, this paper selects the score data of the 27 cities where the provincial capitals are located, as well as the four municipalities directly under the central government in the program. The highest score of the rule of law government construction in each provincial division is used to represent the level of rule of law government construction in the provincial division for comparative analysis. The time scale is based on 3 years, with data selected from different periods: 2015, 2018, and 2022.

Other data

The data on impact factors selected in this paper mainly come from the China Statistical Yearbook, statistical yearbooks of various regions, statistical bulletins on national economic and social development, and databases of national laws and regulations. It is used to analyze the influence mechanism of the spatiotemporal characteristics of the level of rule of law government construction. The geographic information base data comes from the platform of the National Basic Geographic Information Center of the Ministry of Natural Resources of China.

Research methodology

Spatial correlation model

Tobler proposed the first law of geography in 1970. He argued that “everything is spatially correlated, and things close together are more spatially correlated than things that are far away” (Sui, 2004). Spatial autocorrelation reflects the degree of potential relatedness of things by calculating spatial autocorrelation indices, and is frequently applied to the study of spatial variation in geography and other areas, the most commonly used being Moran’s I index (Moran’s I). We respond to the trend of spatial agglomeration of the level of rule of law government construction through the global Moran index (Getis and Fischer, 2010). The formula is as follows:

$$I=\frac{n}{{S}_{0}}\times \frac{\mathop{\sum}\nolimits_{s=1}^{n}\mathop{\sum}\nolimits_{t=1}^{n}{W}_{{ij}}\left({y}_{i}-\bar{y}\right)\left({y}_{j}-\bar{y}\right)}{\mathop{\sum}\nolimits_{s=1}^{n}{\left({y}_{i}-\bar{y}\right)}^{2}}$$
(1)

Where: \({S}_{0}=\mathop{\sum}\nolimits_{s=1} ^{n}\mathop{\sum}\nolimits_{t=1}^{n}{W}_{{ij}}\); “n” is the number of spatial units in the study area; “\({y}_{i}\)” and “\({y}_{j}\)” are the scores for the level of rule of law government in the “i” and “j” spatial units, respectively; “\(\bar{y}\)” is the average of the scores for the level of government building under the rule of law in each spatial unit; “\({W}_{{ij}}\)” is the weight matrix. If cell “i” and cell “j” are adjacent to each other, then “\({W}_{{ij}}\)”=1, on the contrary, it is zero. Moran’s I index ranges between [−1,1]. If Moran’s I index is greater than 0, we assume that there is a spatial positive correlation term for the level of rule of law government in the study area. If Moran’s I index is greater than 0, we consider that there is a spatial positive correlation between the level of rule of law government building in the study area, with a clustering trend. The closer Moran’s I index is to 1, the stronger the spatial agglomeration; Conversely, Moran’s I index is less than 0, it is considered that there is a spatial negative correlation and a tendency of dispersion in the level of rule of law government in the study area. The closer Moran’s I index is to −1, the more pronounced the state of dispersion. Also, the significance of the clustered or dispersed state needs to be judged in conjunction with the Z-statistic and the significance level P value.

LISA local spatial autocorrelation can test for changes in the heterogeneity of the data, revealing the extent to which spatial units are correlated with neighboring units at the level of attribute values (Anselin, 1995). The formula is:

$${I}_{i}=\frac{{Z}_{i}}{{S}^{2}}\mathop{\sum}\limits_{j\ne i}^{n}{W}_{{ij}}{Z}_{j}$$
(2)

Based on the localized Moran index, we classify the results into four categories: high-high agglomeration, high-low agglomeration, low-high agglomeration, and low–low agglomeration. When Zi > 0″ and \({I}_{i} > 0\) in the equation, it indicates that the differences in the level of government under the rule of law in the regions are relatively small, and that both the region and the neighboring regions have higher level values. When \({Z}_{i} > 0\) and \({I}_{i} < 0\), it indicates that there are large spatial differences in the level of government under the rule of law in the regions, with a high level of government under the rule of law in the region but a low level in neighboring regions. When \({Z}_{i} < 0\) and \({I}_{i} < 0\), it indicates that there are large spatial differences in the level of government under the rule of law across regions, with the level of government under the rule of law being low in the region but high in neighboring regions. When Zi < 0″ and \({I}_{i} > 0\), it indicates that the differences in the level of the rule of law government construction in the regions are small, and the level value of the region and the neighboring regions are low. When \({I}_{i}=0\), it indicates that the spatial difference in the level of rule of law government construction is not significant.

Geodetector model

Geodetectors can indicate the relationships between geographic elements in terms of spatial differentiation. Geoprobe contains four models: factor detection, interaction detection, risk detection and ecological detection (Wang and Xu, 2017). This paper uses both factor detection and interaction detection to explain the causes of the spatiotemporal pattern of the level of rule of law government construction. Considering that different discretization methods can have an impact on the detection results, we implement the optimal discretization of data through the “R” to classify the data (Cao et al., 2013). The formula is:

$$q=1-\frac{1}{{N\sigma }^{2}}\mathop{\sum }\limits_{h=1}^{L}{N}_{h}{\sigma }_{h}^{2}$$
(3)

Where: “\(N\)” and “σ2” are the number of sample units and variance for the entire study area; “\({N}_{h}\)” and “\({\sigma }_{h}^{2}\)” are the number of sample units and variance of the first “ \(h\)” (\(h\) = 1, 2, …, “ \(L\)” is the stratification of the variable “y” or the factor “x”) stratum. The value of “\(q\)” is in the interval [0, 1]. “\(q\)” = 0 indicates that the factor has no effect on the spatial differentiation characteristics of the level of rule of law government. The closer “ \(q\)” is to 1, the stronger is the influence of factor “x” on the spatial differentiation of the level of rule of law government.

Interaction detection recognizes interactions between different factor “x.” It is to assess whether the factors “x1” and “x2” together enhance or weaken the explanatory power of the spatially differentiated characteristics of the dependent variable “y,” or whether the effects of these factors on “y” are independent of each other. That is, the combined effect of “x1” and “x2” does not enhance or weaken the explanatory power of the spatially differentiated characteristics of the dependent variable “y.” The interaction probes resulted in the following five outcomes (Table 1).

Table 1 Interaction detection results interpretation.
Full size table

Analysis of results

Characteristics of the spatial and temporal evolution of the level of construction of the rule of law government

Time-varying characteristics

We generated Figs. 1 and 2 to analyze the temporal changes in the level of rule of law government construction over the 3 years—2015, 2018, and 2022. Figure 1 illustrates that Tibet had the lowest score for the level of rule of law government construction in 2015, with 441.88 points, while Beijing achieved the highest score in 2022, with 849.9 points. Over the study period, there is a clear upward trend in the level of rule of law government construction in each province. Notably, four provinces—Shanxi, Fujian, Hubei, and Ningxia—exhibited significant growth, with an average growth rate of 41.20%, representing substantial improvement. Conversely, six provinces, including Heilongjiang, Henan, Hunan, Guangdong, Yunnan, and Xinjiang, demonstrated slower growth rates. Upon comparing Figs. 1 and 2, it becomes evident that two northern provinces, Heilongjiang and Henan, started with low initial scores and experienced sluggish growth. On the contrary, three southern provinces—Hunan, Guangdong, and Yunnan—began with high initial scores but demonstrated slow growth, positioning them in the middle to upper range. Furthermore, certain provinces have experienced negative growth, and their level of government construction with regard to the rule of law has consistently scored low over the years.

Fig. 1: Score on the level of construction on law-based government.
figure 1

A line chart was used to illustrate the changing trends in the level of law-based government development across 31 provincial-level regions in China in the years 2015, 2018, and 2022.

Full size image
Fig. 2: Growth rate of score on the level of construction on law-based government.
figure 2

A line chart was used to depict the growth rate of law-based government development levels across 31 provincial-level regions in China.

Full size image

Characterization of spatial variation

Changes in spatial patterns

Based on the characteristics of the data in the time period of the study, this paper divides the level of rule of law government (y) into four intervals. 0 ≤ y ≤ 560 is categorized as a low-level zone, 560 < y ≤ 630 is categorized as a medium-low-level zone, 630 < y ≤ 700 is categorized as a medium-high level zone, and 700 < y ≤ 850 is categorized as a high-level zone. Accordingly, the spatial pattern of changes in the level of rule of law government is analyzed (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3: Characteristics of spatial changes in the level of construction on law-based government.
figure 3

The level of law-based government development was classified into four categories and visualized using maps, where a, b, and c represent the levels in 2015, 2018, and 2022, respectively.

Full size image

On a spatial scale, there are obvious spatial variations in the level of China’s rule of law government construction over the study period. From 2015 (Fig. 3a) to 2018 (Fig. 3b), the level zones were generally characterized by an evolution from low and low-middle level zones to medium-high and high level zones. In between, the low-level zone was reduced from seven to three provinces, concentrated in the northwest. The number of high-level zones increased from 6 to 10, with the increase in provinces concentrated in the eastern Yangtze River Delta region. In addition to this, the low and medium level zones show a decreasing trend, and the number of medium and high level zones increases significantly, mainly in the northeast and north China. In 2022 (Fig. 3c), China’s level of rule of law government is significantly higher compared to the previous 2 years. Most of the eastern, southern, central, and northern provinces have become high-level zones, as have the three northeastern provinces, as well as Hebei in northern China, Yunnan in southwestern China, and Hainan in the south, all of which are also medium- to high-level zones. The medium-low and low-level zones are mainly located in the non-monsoon regions of Xinjiang, Gansu, and Tibet.

Taking the level of rule of law government construction in each region in 2015 as an example, the low and medium-low levels are categorized as “low level” (the score interval is 560 < y ≤ 630), and the medium-high and high-level levels are categorized as “high level” (the score interval is 630 < y ≤ 850). The average growth rate of each region between 2015 and 2022 (17.61%) was used as a reference standard, with those below the average growth rate categorized as “low growth” and those above the average growth rate categorized as “high growth.” As a result, the development of the rule of law government in each region from 2015 to 2022 was categorized into four types: “high level-high growth,” “high level-low growth,” “low level-high growth,” and “low level-low growth,” and their development characteristics were observed (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4: 2015–2022 Types of the level of construction on law-based government.
figure 4

The growth of law-based government development was classified into four types, and differences across 31 provincial-level regions were illustrated through map-based visual comparisons.

Full size image

We found that, using the situation of the level of rule of law government construction in 2015 as the evaluation benchmark, and the growth rate as the measure. The number of “high-level-high-growth” and “low-level-low-growth” areas in the four spatial types is relatively small, with four and six areas, respectively. The number of “high-level-low-growth” and “low-level-high-growth” regions is similar, at 11 and 10, respectively. The provinces involved in each spatial type and the distribution characteristics are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 2015–2022 spatial types and distribution characteristics of the level of construction on law-based government.
Full size table

Global spatial autocorrelation

We wish to explore the spatial correlation of the level of rule of law government construction through global spatial autocorrelation. ArcGIS software was used to calculate the global Moran index of the level of rule of law government construction in the study period (Table 3). The results show that the global Moran’s index passed the U-test and P-test for all 3 years. The global Moran Index for 2015 and 2018 passes the 5% significance level test, and the global Moran Index for 2022 passes the 1% significance level test, indicating that there is spatial agglomeration in the level of rule of law government construction. The results in Table 2 show that the global Moran index shows a trend of gradual increase during the study period, indicating that the spatial correlation of the level of rule of law government construction is increasing year by year.

Table 3 Global spatial autocorrelation.
Full size table

Local spatial autocorrelation

Global spatial autocorrelation can reflect whether there is a spatial clustering characteristic of the level of rule of law government construction. On this basis, we would like to identify the regions in which the level of rule of law government construction produces the clustering phenomenon through local spatial autocorrelation.

As can be seen from Fig. 5, in 2015 (Fig. 5a), the level of rule of law government construction in Yunnan, Hubei, and Henan provinces showed a high-high concentration phenomenon. It indicates that the three provinces and neighboring regions have higher values of the level of rule of law in government construction. Guangdong Province shows high-low agglomeration, indicating that Guangdong Province has a high level of rule of law government, but the surrounding provinces have a low level of rule of law government. The situation in 2018 (Fig. 5b) shows that high-high agglomeration is manifested in some central and southwestern provinces. High-low agglomeration is the same as in 2015, and still manifests itself in Guangdong and its neighboring regions. In contrast to 2015, the phenomenon of low-high agglomeration has emerged in Shanxi, indicating a higher level of construction of regional copies of the rule of law government in the province. In 2022 (Fig. 5c), the situation has changed significantly compared to the previous 2 years. This change mainly reflects the expansion of the double-high agglomeration feature to the North China Plain and the east coast. Additionally, the higher value of the rule of law government construction level is evident in regions with better economic and social development.

Fig. 5: Clustering characteristics of the level of construction on law-based government.
figure 5

The spatial clustering characteristics of law-based government development levels across China’s 31 provincial-level regions in 2015, 2018, and 2022 were identified using the method of local spatial autocorrelation. a The results for 2015, b for 2018, and c for 2022.

Full size image

Identification of factors affecting the level of construction of the rule of law government

Factor selection

What factors affect the level of rule of law government construction, and the relevant qualitative and quantitative research has not yet appeared clear research. Therefore, this paper refers to the relevant literature on rule of law assessment and government efficiency assessment (Rayp and Van de Sijpe, 2007; Parsons et al., 2008; Hauner and Kyobe, 2010; Voigt, 2012; Stastna and Gregor, 2012). We selected four dimensions of economy, society, environment, and politics to consider the influencing factors on the level of rule of law government construction, and the specific selection of factors is shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Impact factor of the level of construction on law-based government.
Full size table

The economic foundation determines the superstructure. On one hand, the attribution of the means of production in the socio-economic order is the most basic manifestation of the social economy in the relations of production. The socialist market economic system, with public ownership as the mainstay and a variety of economic ownership systems developing together, is China’s basic economic system at this stage. On the other hand, the construction of local rule of law governments, like other constructions, also requires a certain economic foundation and material guarantee. For example, the implementation of ecological protection, the provision of public services (e.g., elderly services), the implementation of legal training for law enforcement officials and civil servants, the intelligent construction of the platform for administrative normative documents, the implementation of law enforcement activities in key areas, the implementation of legal literacy campaigns, and the construction of the Government’s digital platform and the Internet-based question-and-answer session, among others. All require corresponding financial and material inputs. Therefore, we have selected four economic indicators: GDP per capita, public service expenditures per capita, share of public enterprises, and the ratio of the average wage of employed persons in the urban non-private sector to those in the private sector. This study examines the factors that influence the construction of a government governed by the rule of law, considering the basic economic system and the level of economic development (Liu, 2017; Sheng et al., 2018).

In the social dimension, we have chosen four indicators: resident population, percentage of urban population, average years of schooling, and number of government agencies per 10,000 people. The following analysis examines the number, urban/rural distribution, and educational status of the primary audience groups (service recipients) for rule of law government building, which are the most central factors in the government’s governance jurisdiction (Wang, 2014). The latter indicator considers the relationship between the subject of the rule of law government building itself and the number of organs involved in the process (Liu, 2006).

For the environmental and political dimensions, we chose two indicators: the number of days with good air quality and the number of provincial legislations. The chosen environmental indicators are already part of the assessment system for measuring the rule of law government’s environmental protection, governance, and public satisfaction. Therefore, we chose to use the number of days with good air quality as an indicator to measure the correlation between air quality and the effectiveness of environmental protection and governance, as well as public perception of it. This will help us determine the level of the rule of law in government buildings (Lou, 2016).

The last indicator is the amount of local legislation. The legislature, the executive, and the judiciary are the three main powers in the political structure of the State. The primary requirement for a government to govern in accordance with the law and establish a government based on the rule of law is to have a robust legal system. This enables the government to govern in accordance with the law and adhere to rules and regulations. In China’s legislative system, the National People’s Congress and its Standing Committee, as well as the local people’s congresses and their standing committees at all levels, are the most important organs of power. The former enacts national laws, while the latter may enact local regulations within a certain scope based on local specificities and needs. Therefore, the enactment of local regulations across China is also theoretically bound to have an impact on the level of rule of law government building.

It is important to note that the factors influencing the level of rule of law government construction are highly complex and multidimensional, covering economic, social, environmental, political, and other aspects, and the degree of influence of each aspect is not the same. However, due to the uncertainty of its influencing mechanism and the availability of data, the factor system selected in this study may not be perfect yet. Nonetheless, the geodetector approach adopted in this paper emphasizes the explanatory power of each factor on the spatial differentiation of the dependent variable without relying on assignment changes, so that even if there are missing factors, they will not have an impact on the analysis of the existing factors.

Factor detection

Table 5 presents the factors influencing the spatial differentiation characterizing the level of rule of law in government construction, based on geodetectors. The results indicate that, apart from individual influence factors, the q value of the influence factors from 2015 to 2022 exhibits an increasing trend. This suggests that the influence of each factor on the spatial differentiation of the level of rule of law government construction gradually increases with the development of the economy and society. In 2015, four factors passed the significance level test: x3 (share of public enterprises), x5 (number of resident population), x8 (number of government agencies per 10,000 people), and x9 (number of good air days). It shows that these four factors play a significant role in the spatial differentiation of the level of rule of law government building. Regarding q value, the four factors have an explanatory power of over 40% in the construction of a rule of law government. Among these factors, x8 has a strong explanatory power of 53.6%. In 2018, the significance test was passed for x3, x6 (share of urban population), and x8. Among them, x8 passes the 1% significance level test and explains 58% of the spatial differentiation characterizing the level of rule of law government building. In 2022, the factors that passed the significance level test were x1 (GDP per capita), x3, x8, and x10 (number of pieces of provincial legislation). Four factors were analyzed, with three showing a significance level of 1% and one showing a significance level of 5%. It shows the reliability of the explanatory power of the four factors for the level of rule of law in government building. The spatial differentiation characteristics of the level of rule of law government construction are impacted to a greater or lesser extent by all factors, based on the overall q values of the 3 years. The explanatory power of two factors, x3 and x8, is more stable compared to the other factors. Additionally, the p values for all 3 years passed the significance test. It should be noted that while some of the factors did not pass the p value significance level test. However, in terms of the fundamentals of geodetectors, factors that do not pass the significance test can also influence the dependent variable to some extent, only with relatively weak explanatory power.

Table 5 Factor detection results for the level of construction on law-based government.
Full size table

The above relevant factors with strong explanatory power have different mechanisms for influencing the level of rule of law government construction. X1 (GDP per capita), as a core indicator of the level of regional economic development, reflects the overall economic strength and resource supply capacity of the region. As the economic foundation determines the superstructure, local governments in affluent regions have more sufficient financial resources to promote the rule of law, such as strengthening the construction of law enforcement teams, promoting digital government, and enhancing the publicity of the rule of law, etc. Similarly, the public also tends to have higher legal awareness and demand for the rule of law, thus jointly promoting the improvement of the rule of law government on both the demand and supply sides. X3 illustrates the decisive role and far-reaching influence of the economic system based on public ownership of the means of production in social life in socialist China. As an important vehicle for the government’s participation in economic activities, a higher proportion of publicly owned enterprises often means that the government has a stronger ability to regulate and control economic operations and social construction, as well as the power to guide the system.

X5 (resident population) and x6 (urban population ratio) reflect the fundamental characteristics of regional social development from the perspectives of population size and the level of urbanization, respectively. The larger the population and the higher the degree of urbanization, the more complex and demanding social governance becomes. Consequently, public expectations for the government to govern in a standardized, fair, and transparent manner grow stronger, placing greater pressure on local governments to enhance governance capacity through improved legal mechanisms.

X10 (number of pieces of legislation at the provincial level) and x8 reflect, at the supply level, the basic conditions for promoting the rule of law at the local level. The number of pieces of legislation often implies the degree of importance attached by localities to institutional construction, and the establishment of a scientific, systematic, and standardized legal system can provide an institutional basis for the government to govern in accordance with the law. The number of organs, on the other hand, is directly related to the density of the supply of administrative resources, which is the basic condition and guarantee for the Government to perform all its duties in accordance with the law.

Interaction detector

The construction of a government based on the rule of law is a complex and systematic project. It is important to consider the driving effects of each influencing factor on the explained variables, as they may be cross-compounded. Thus, we computed the interaction probes for each influencing factor, and the outcomes are as follows (Tables 6–8).

Table 6 Interaction of factors on the level of construction on law-based government in 2015.
Full size table
Table 7 Interaction of factors on the level of construction on law-based government in 2018.
Full size table
Table 8 Interaction of factors on the level of construction on law-based government in 2022.
Full size table

The results indicate that factors can influence the level of the rule of law in government construction, as revealed by both the single-factor analysis and the interaction. It is essential to emphasize that this evaluation is objective and not based on subjective opinions. Overall, the two-factor interaction enhances the explanatory power of the factors on the dependent variable.

In 2015, the top four interaction factors in terms of explanatory power on the time scale were x4∩x5, x3∩x9, x6∩x8, and x4∩x9, all with an explanatory power of over 84%. Among them, the intersection of x4 and x5 exhibited an explanatory power of 90.3% and demonstrated nonlinear enhancement. Although x4 (the ratio of average wages of urban non-private sector to private sector employees) fails to pass the significance test in the one-way analysis, the explanatory power of its interaction with several factors on the level of rule of law government construction is characterized by “nonlinear enhancement.” Especially in the interaction combinations of x4∩x5, x4∩x9, and x4∩x3, the q value is over 80%. This phenomenon may be explained by the following aspects. X4, as a key indicator of regional labor market structure and income distribution differences, reflects the income gap between employment groups within and outside the system. In the construction of a government based on the rule of law, the sense of social fairness and public trust are important basic conditions. The significant income disparity between the urban non-private sector and the private sector may raise public questions about the fairness of government policies and the transparency of the system, thus affecting the public opinion base of the rule of law and the effectiveness of its implementation.

This effect is often not directly manifested in the form of a single variable but rather produces compound effects through coupled interactions with factors such as demographics, environmental governance, and rule of law resources. Taking x4∩x5 as an example, the growth in the number of permanent residents often causes problems such as the tight allocation of public resources and the difficulty of governance. At this time, if there is a large difference in income distribution within and outside the system, public recognition of the rule of law government, and institutional trust may be significantly affected. Another example of x4∩x3 reflects the institutional tension of institutional resource allocation in different economic structures. In regions dominated by public ownership, the income advantage of the institutionally employed may be more pronounced, and if the rule of law guarantee mechanism in the region is relatively sound, the income disparity may be mitigated to a certain extent within the institutional framework. On the contrary, such structural inequalities will exacerbate negative perceptions of rule of law performance.

Thus, although x4 does not have a significant impact on the construction of the rule of law government when acting alone, it essentially reflects the deep-rooted problems of institutional equity and social stratification structure, which, when coupled with variables such as population density and distribution of institutional resources, form a compounded pressure on social governance and spatially amplify the impact on the level of the construction of the rule of law government. The results of interaction detection reveal precisely this kind of nonlinear coupling effect between cross-dimensional variables, reflecting the multifactorial synergistic path and complex social feedback mechanism in the process of rule of law government construction.

In 2018, the explanatory power of x6∩x8, x2∩x3, x3∩x6 and x8∩x9 all reached over 79%. Among them, x2∩x3 reaches 94.33%, which shows nonlinear enhancement, and the remaining three groups show two-factor enhancement. 2018 is a critical period in which China’s economic and social transformation and governance modernization are being promoted simultaneously, and the government work report of that year points out that it is necessary to vigorously push forward the market-oriented reforms and high-level openness, as well as vigorously push forward the construction of a modernized economic system. This result reflects that under this macro-policy regime, the spatial differentiation of the level of rule of law government construction is compounded and amplified by institutional coupling, resource overlap, and governance synergy between different dimensional factors.

The nonlinear augmentation results of x2∩x3 reveal the synergistic mechanism between the structure of fiscal inputs and the structure of economic institutions. Per capita public service expenditure is an important indicator of the local government’s governance capacity and social security level, while the proportion of publicly owned enterprises maps the government’s participation in the economy. When both are high, it indicates that the government not only has the ability to invest financial resources, but also has the channel and ability to directly regulate in social management and resource allocation. This economic-financial linkage helps to promote the full embedding and implementation of the rule of law system in the process of governance and law enforcement.

Both groups x6∩x8 and x3∩x6 involve the proportion of urban population, an important variable in measuring the level of urbanization. The strong interaction of x6∩x8 suggests that the marginal effect of rule of law resource allocation (represented by the number of government agencies per 10,000 people) is stronger in highly urbanized areas. In other words, urban regions exhibit a greater reliance on legal human resources, and the more concentrated the resource input, the more effectively rule-of-law construction can be implemented. And x3∩x6 further reveals that rule of law governance tends to have a stronger foundation of institutional penetration in areas with a higher share of public enterprises, whose level of organization and institutionalization is conducive to strengthening lawful administration and standardized governance. In addition, the interaction group of x8∩x9 also shows a noteworthy two-factor enhancement effect. The number of government agencies is a direct reflection of the government’s ability to govern, while the number of good air days is an external manifestation of environmental governance performance. The strong interaction between the two reflects a linkage effect of “governance capacity - governance performance”: in areas with sufficient governance capacity and sound law enforcement system, there is more space for environmental quality improvement and sustainability, which in turn enhances the public’s recognition of the government’s governance capacity and the rule of law performance, and promotes the formation of a benign interactive ecology of rule of law construction. This will enhance public recognition of the government’s governance capacity and rule of law performance, and promote the formation of a positive and interactive ecology of rule of law construction.

The 2022 geodetector interaction results show that the explanatory power of the interactions among multiple factors on the level of rule of law government construction is significantly stronger, showing stronger nonlinear characteristics compared to 2015 and 2018. Among them, the explanatory power of x2∩x3 (per capita public service expenditures and the ratio of publicly owned enterprises) is as high as 93.54%, and x5∩x6 (the ratio of the number of resident population to the urban population) is 89%, both of which show nonlinear enhancement. X1∩x3 and x1∩x8 also show significant double enhancement with 90.29% and 87.06%, respectively. The q value reflects a significant two-factor enhancement effect. The above results indicate that the spatial differentiation of the level of rule of law government construction in 2022 has increasingly shown a complex mechanism driven by the linkage of multidimensional variables, and it is difficult for a single factor to fully explain the formation of its spatial pattern.

X2∩x3 reflects the high degree of coupling between governance resource inputs and institutional safeguard mechanisms. Per capita public service expenditure measures the government’s financial security capacity, while the share of publicly owned enterprises reflects the degree of institutional embeddedness of the government in the economic system. When both are at a high level, it not only represents that the government has strong resource allocation ability, but also indicates that it can use the system as a medium to strengthen the policy transmission in the process of governance, thus realizing the deep embeddedness of the rule of law system in the economic life and social management (Stoker, 2011). X1∩x3 reflects the logic of rule of law governance driven by economic fundamentals and institutional structure (formal or informal) (Calciolari et al., 2013). Economically developed regions have higher financial autonomy and governance innovation capacity, while in the context of a higher share of publicly owned enterprises, the government is able to form a more stable rule of law promotion mechanism through state-owned capital, policy instruments, and organizational networks. The interaction between the two strengthens the normative and executive power of the Government’s administration in accordance with the law.

The nonlinear enhancement effect of x5∩x6 (ratio of resident population to urban population) reflects the coupling effect of governance challenges and rule of law needs brought about by population agglomeration and urbanization. The expansion of population size and the acceleration of urbanization inevitably bring governance complexity and diversified governance needs. In this context, if the government can respond to demographic changes and optimize public service provision through the rule of law, it can effectively improve the level of the rule of law in government construction. The significant increase in q value after the interaction of the two indicators shows that the rule of law system can show stronger adaptability only when the population size and the degree of urbanization increase simultaneously.

Finally, x1∩x8 reflects the interactive logic of the level of economic development and the allocation of governance resources. On the one hand, higher GDP per capita provides local governments with sufficient fiscal space to increase the allocation of human resources for the institutional rule of law. On the other hand, the density of administrative personnel determines the capacity for policy implementation, administrative oversight, and rule of law popularization. The more adequate the economic development and the more legal employees there are, the more efficient the promotion of the rule of law. This interactive structure thus reveals the fundamental characteristic of the rule of law government building as being driven by the twin wheels of “economic capacity and governance capacity.”

Conclusion

In this paper, we investigate the level of rule of law government construction in 31 provincial-level administrative regions in China during the period of 2015–2022. We analyze the spatial and temporal distribution characteristics of the rule of law level and its influencing factors, leading to the following conclusions:

  1. (1)

    Overall, between 2015 and 2022, the level of rule of law government construction in each provincial administrative region exhibits a clear upward trend, evolving from predominantly “low to medium-low” to predominantly “medium-high to high.” This shift is evident in the transition from a predominantly “low to medium-low” performance level to a predominantly “medium-high to high” performance level. Notably, the proportion of medium-high and high-level areas has increased from 45% to 90%, gradually shifting from the southeast to the northwest side of the Hu line. Currently, except for a few provinces in the northwest and the Qinghai-Tibet region, all regions have developed into middle and high-level districts. However, some provinces in the Northeast, North China (Hebei), Qinghai, Yunnan, and Hainan remain at the medium-high level.

  2. (2)

    Geographically, the level of rule of law government construction in China exhibits significant spatial aggregation. Between 2015 and 2022, the spatial correlation of this level increased annually. Localized spatial autocorrelation results indicate a gradual expansion of high-high concentration areas, forming a “patchy” trend spreading from the southwest to the center, then to the east and north. Notably, Guangdong Province consistently exhibits high-low agglomeration, suggesting a higher level of rule of law government construction compared to neighboring regions.

  3. (3)

    We categorize the spatial evolution of the level of government rule of law in each region from 2015 to 2022 into four types, based on the growth rate relative to the benchmark level in 2015. The spatial distribution of each type demonstrates clear characteristics of clustering and strip agglomeration, with spatial continuity.

  4. (4)

    The level of rule of law in government construction is influenced by various factors, including economic, social, environmental, and political factors. Notably, the proportion of public enterprises in the basic economic system, GDP per capita, and the number of institutional lawyers per 10,000 people have significant impacts. Additionally, social factors such as population size, urban population ratio, and environmental factors such as air quality also play crucial roles. Furthermore, the number of provincial legislations is a significant political factor affecting the level of the rule of law in government.

  5. (5)

    After considering the interaction of factors, we find that the combined effect on the level of rule of law government construction is significantly stronger compared to the influence of individual factors. Specifically, after the two-factor interaction, at least 75% of the explanatory power for the level of rule of law in government construction is at least 50%, with 33% at least 70%, and 14% at least 80%. Notably, the ratio of average wages of employed persons in the urban non-private sector to those in the private sector exhibits a “catalytic” effect, enhancing explanatory power even when individual significance tests are not passed. Lastly, we observe a complex mechanism of interaction among influencing factors, with the impact of interaction increasing as the practice of building a rule of law government deepens.

Discussion

From the perspective of legal geography, this study systematically examines the spatiotemporal differentiation of rule-of-law government construction in China and its underlying influencing mechanisms. The findings reveal that, under the continued advancement of the central government’s rule-of-law strategy, the overall level of rule-of-law government construction has improved significantly, exhibiting a spatial evolution trend that extends progressively from the southeastern coastal regions to the central and western areas. However, the pronounced spatial imbalance, along with disparities in regional resource allocation and institutional foundations, remains a key constraint to the coordinated development of rule-of-law governance nationwide—thereby, to some extent, hindering the realization of social equity. Based on the empirical results and spatial mechanism identification, this study offers the following in-depth discussions:

  1. (1)

    The spatial imbalance in the construction of a rule of law Government is essentially a manifestation of the geospatial “institutional friction” between economic foundations, institutional resources, and governance capacity. Although most provinces have reached a high level, there may be significant shortcomings in the provision of rule of law resources and the level of governance specialization in the central and western regions, especially in the border areas (e.g., Xinjiang, Tibet, Gansu). This imbalance is not a short-term deficiency, but rather the outcome of long-standing interactions among resource concentration, institutional path dependence, and geographical constraints. To address this issue, it is necessary to implement institutional “reallocation” and spatial governance strategies to correct these structural deviations. Efforts should center on the goal of “public satisfaction” by strengthening key areas such as “emergency response mechanisms” and “digital rule-of-law government” in order to further enhance the overall level of rule-of-law governance (Xie, 2023).

  2. (2)

    It is found that economic factors (e.g., GDP per capita, share of public enterprises) and indicators of government governance capacity (e.g., number of government agencies per 10,000 people) have significant explanatory power, and that the interaction is much stronger than the one-way effect. This suggests that there is a “synergistic nested effect” between economic development and institutional supply. That is, the construction of the rule of law government not only relies on financial security, but also on the degree of institutionalization of the internal structure of the governance system. Therefore, in regional construction, local governments should adhere to the main position of the public sector economy and pay attention to the quantity and quality of the development of public enterprises (Yang and Du, 2021), so as to provide a good economic foundation for the construction of the rule of law government, and to realize the coordinated development of the economy and politics. In addition, efforts should continue to promote urbanization, with a focus on addressing the asymmetric pattern in which land urbanization has outpaced population urbanization, as well as the institutional and spatial inequities between urban and rural areas, and between registered and resident populations (Zhang, 2016; Ye, 2001). With regard to the internal development of the rule-of-law government’s primary actor—the government itself—it is also essential to further advance institutional reforms aimed at streamlining and enhancing the efficiency of governmental structures.

  3. (3)

    The results of the interaction probes show that several social structural variables (e.g., proportion of urban population, number of permanent residents, number of government agencies) exhibit significant “nonlinear enhancement” effects under specific combinations, indicating that the improvement of the rule of law government is the result of the triad resonance of “population-governance-institution.” Especially in the stage of rapid urbanization, the rule of law resources can not be synchronized to follow up, it is very easy to cause “governance imbalance,” exacerbating urban social discontent and governance friction. Therefore, to improve the level of rule of law government construction, it is necessary to take into account the demographic structure, the carrying capacity of the city, and the matching degree of rule of law governance. With the further development of China’s economy and society, as well as entering the era of negative population growth (Feng et al., 2017), regional competition between districts will become more and more intense, shifting from the previous economic competition to a multi-oriented and comprehensive competition in terms of economy, environment, and rule of law conditions. The level of the rule of law in government construction is very critical to the competition and attraction of talents (Carmeli, 2004). Lagging behind in the construction of the rule of law government will have a comprehensive and far-reaching negative impact, thus restricting the further development of the local economy and society.

  4. (4)

    The long-standing spatial lag in the construction of rule-of-law government in western China is not merely a matter of resource scarcity; it also reflects a deeper dilemma rooted in the unidirectional nature of institutional diffusion pathways. Although national-level paired assistance policies have been implemented, they largely rely on top-down institutional transplantation, with limited emphasis on localized innovation or the adaptation of institutions to regional, socio-political, and cultural contexts. Continuing to deepen national strategies, such as the development of the western region and increasing the depth and breadth of exchanges between the east and the west in various areas, including the building of a government based on the rule of law. The Western Development Strategy should not only leverage market mechanisms to channel more resources from economically developed regions to the west, but also facilitate the transfer of advanced governance and public service experiences—including those related to rule-of-law government construction, through measures such as talent support and targeted institutional initiatives. Relevant paired provinces should shift away from the traditional one-way assistance model and promote a two-way flow of institutional experience. Greater efforts should be made to facilitate cadre exchanges from regions such as Tibet and Xinjiang to economically developed areas. At the same time, it is essential to strengthen the local capacity for rule-of-law governance in western regions, fostering a leapfrogging model of legal development through institutional absorption, adaptation, and endogenous evolution.

  5. (5)

    The study also finds that high-level regions in terms of rule-of-law government construction—such as the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei area, the Yangtze River Delta, and the Pearl River Delta—not only possess “hard power” advantages in legal resources, but have also accumulated substantial “soft power” in terms of institutional culture and governance philosophy. In the future, a “regional rule-of-law leadership and diffusion” mechanism may be established to promote collaborative innovation in areas such as digital governance, environmental enforcement, public participation, and legal education. Through such rule-of-law-based “soft connectivity,” the overall resilience of the national governance system can be enhanced, leveraging the soft power of high-level rule-of-law regions to drive broader progress in rule-of-law government construction.

Overall, the construction of a rule-of-law government should not be regarded merely as a single administrative performance goal, but rather as a comprehensive institutional development process embedded in the broader dynamics of political systems, economic structures, and social transformation. From the perspective of legal geography, its spatial evolution is intricately coupled with economic configurations, social institutions, and patterns of resource allocation. Sustained improvement in the level of rule-of-law government requires coordinated efforts from both top-level institutional design at the national level and adaptive governance mechanisms at the local level, in order to achieve genuine “rule-of-law equilibrium” and “spatial justice.”

Based on the research perspective of legal geography, this paper systematically analyzes the spatial and temporal evolution characteristics of the level of rule of law government construction in China and its multidimensional influence mechanism. It enriches the research content of legal geography and makes certain innovations in theoretical exploration and empirical methods. But at the same time, we also recognize that the study still has some limitations. First, regarding the evaluation of rule-of-law government, due to the absence of an officially unified assessment system and measurement data, this paper primarily relies on evaluations conducted by academic institutions. While these assessments are representative, they may lack sufficient authority. Second, in terms of the selection of influencing factors, given the inherent complexity of rule-of-law government construction and the limitations of publicly available data, certain potentially important factors—such as historical traditions and institutional culture—could not be incorporated into the analytical framework. As a result, the influencing mechanisms identified in this study may not be entirely comprehensive. In addition, although the geographical detector method applied here effectively reveals the explanatory power of various factors behind spatial differentiation as well as their interaction effects, its ability to identify causal mechanisms remains limited. Future research could integrate “multi-level spatial econometric models” and “causal inference tools” to enhance both the depth and precision of mechanism identification.