China's ‘involution' trap is hurting nation's competitiveness, state media warns
Chinese state media has refreshed its calls for local-level governments and businesses to refrain from unhealthy, exhausting competition that is feared to be damaging the competitiveness of the nation's economy, as the issue remains a headache for Beijing.
Advertisement
A self-defeating cycle of excessive competition – known as
neijuan , or involution – has remained prevalent, distorting market dynamics and hindering sustainable growth, the Economic Daily warned in a commentary on Wednesday, as the issue has been a focal point in the past year.
Explaining the term as 'the harder you work, the less you gain', the state-owned newspaper focusing on economic reports urged government officials and business owners to focus on long-term economic health rather than short-term gains.
Such a phenomenon 'traps all kinds of entities in a vicious cycle of low-price, low-quality, and ineffective repeated competition, ultimately damaging the overall competitiveness of related industries in China', it said.
Among local governments, that type of self-defeating competition includes misguided efforts to attract businesses through unsustainable policies – such as offering excessive incentives like tax breaks and subsidies – resulting in rising debt and long-term risks, the newspaper noted.
Advertisement
For businesses, 'involution' manifests in excessive price wars, a lack of differentiation, and a focus on short-term profits at the expense of long-term innovation, which leads to resource waste, stagnation and lowered overall competitiveness.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
HKFP
10 hours ago
- HKFP
Hong Kong leader defends new national security conditions for restaurant licence
Hong Kong leader John Lee has defended new national security conditions for licences issued to restaurants and other food and entertainment-related businesses. Speaking at a weekly press conference on Tuesday, the chief executive described the new conditions as 'appropriate and the right thing to do.' The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) is bound by law to safeguard national security, he said, and the 'offending conduct' against national security is 'clearly stated' in the conditions. Lee shrugged off worries raised by some businesses in the city that they may run afoul of the law unwittingly. 'Offending conduct means any offence that endangers national security, or acts and events that are contrary to national security and public interest in Hong Kong. It is very clear,' he said in Cantonese. 'Security is the foundation for development, and we will continue to revamp the laws and the mechanisms of safeguarding national security, he added. FEHD letter Local media reported on Monday that since the end of May, restaurants, entertainment premises, and other businesses had received a letter from the FEHD. According to the FEHD letter, if business licence holders and 'related persons' engage in 'offending conduct' against national security or public interest, authorities could revoke their licence. 'Related persons' include directors, management, employees, agents, and subcontractors, the letter read. One restaurant owner told HKFP on Monday that both of his eateries received the FEHD's letter, postmarked Thursday, May 30. Some eatery owners told Ming Pao that they feared the new conditions were too vague and that they could lose their licence over false allegations. Lee said on Tuesday that the conditions also applied to licences for stalls in Chinese New Year markets. Every Chinese citizen is obliged to safeguard national security, including residents of Hong Kong, he said, citing China's constitution. The government is bound to protect national security, the chief executive added, citing the Beijing-imposed national security law and the homegrown Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, known locally as Article 23. Beijing inserted national security legislation directly into Hong Kong's mini-constitution in June 2020 following a year of pro-democracy protests and unrest. It criminalised subversion, secession, collusion with foreign forces and terrorist acts – broadly defined to include disruption to transport and other infrastructure. The move gave police sweeping new powers and led to hundreds of arrests amid new legal precedents, while dozens of civil society groups disappeared. The authorities say it restored stability and peace to the city, rejecting criticism from trade partners, the UN and NGOs.
HKFP
10 hours ago
- HKFP
Two Chinese aircraft carriers seen in Pacific for first time, Japan says
Japan said Tuesday that two Chinese aircraft carriers had been seen operating in the Pacific for the first time as Beijing boosts its military capability in far-flung areas. On Monday, China's Shandong carrier and four other vessels, including a missile destroyer, sailed inside the Japanese economic waters surrounding the remote Pacific atoll of Okinotori, Tokyo's defence ministry said. Its fighter jets and helicopters conducted take-offs and landings there, the ministry said. The fleet of five warships was also seen sailing on Saturday 550 kilometres (340 miles) southeast of Miyako Island near Taiwan, it added. China's other operational aircraft carrier Liaoning and its fleet entered Japan's exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Pacific over the weekend, before exiting to conduct drills involving fighter jets, Tokyo previously said. 'This is the first time two Chinese aircraft carriers were spotted operating in the Pacific at the same time,' a defence ministry spokesman told AFP on Tuesday. 'We believe the Chinese military's purpose is to improve its operational capability and ability to conduct operations in distant areas,' he said. China's use of naval and air assets to press its territorial claims has rattled the United States and its allies in the Asia-Pacific region. Japanese and US defence officials say China wants to push the American military out of the so-called 'first island chain' from Japan down through the Philippines. Eventually, its strategy is to dominate areas west of the 'second island chain' in the Pacific between Japan's remote Ogasawara Islands and the US territory of Guam, they say. The Liaoning's recent cruise eastwards marked the first time the Japanese defence ministry has said a Chinese aircraft carrier had crossed the second island chain. In September, the warship sailed between two Japanese islands near Taiwan and entered Japan's contiguous waters, an area up to 24 nautical miles from its coast. At the time, Tokyo called that move 'unacceptable' and expressed 'serious concerns' to Beijing. Under international law, a state has rights to the management of natural resources and other economic activities within its EEZ, which is within 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres) of its coastline.
Asia Times
15 hours ago
- Asia Times
US-China: what's really at stake in London
A high-stakes showdown is unfolding this week in London—far from the manufacturing plants of Shenzhen or the trading floors of Wall Street, yet central to the global economic order. Senior US and Chinese officials will hold a second day of talks today (Tuesday) aimed at de-escalating the most consequential economic rivalry of our time. After Monday's first day of talks, US President Donald Trump said, 'We are doing well with China. China's not easy…I'm only getting good reports.' China is negotiating for looser US tech controls while the US wants China to ease limits on rare earth mineral exports. But for investors watching from Singapore to Silicon Valley, these meetings aren't just about tariffs. They're about who writes the rules of the 21st-century global economy. Both sides are seeking to revive the Geneva framework established last month—an agreement that temporarily eased a volatile tariff standoff by rolling back US import duties on Chinese goods from 145% to 30%, and slashing Chinese tariffs from 125% to 10%. The compromise was a ceasefire, not a peace treaty. Since then, fiery accusations of non-compliance have resumed. Washington says Beijing is dragging its feet on critical mineral exports. Beijing accuses the US of doubling down on tech restrictions, particularly on semiconductors and AI. The talks in London are significant because the stakes have never been higher. China and the US are no longer just competing powers—they are operating two fundamentally divergent systems, each trying to shape the global economic architecture in its own image. This is a full-spectrum competition that spans data flows, digital currencies, energy policy, national security, and ideology. Investors ignore this at their peril. To understand the gravity of this week's negotiations, you have to look beyond the tariff tables and see the wider trajectory. Under Trump, the US is doubling down on strategic protectionism. The re-imposition of sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs in April was not an isolated action—it was the next phase in a broader effort to reshape American economic exposure. China, under President Xi Jinping, is responding in kind by accelerating self-reliance campaigns, boosting its military-industrial complex and tightening control over capital flows and foreign technology. The two economic giants are hurtling toward a split system of parallel supply chains, competing standards, rival digital currencies and mutually exclusive rules for artificial intelligence. The old model—interdependence through globalization—is unraveling in real time. From a market perspective, this fracturing introduces volatility but also extraordinary opportunity. Strategic sectors are being rapidly repriced. Defense tech, AI, cybersecurity, semiconductor manufacturing and rare earths have all emerged as proxies in this economic power contest. Recent capital flows tell the story: US and European investors are ramping up exposure to domestic chip production, while China is injecting vast state funding into its own tech champions and weaponizing industrial policy. Just last week, China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology announced a new 500 billion yuan (US$69 billion) investment initiative focused on dual-use technologies—those with both civilian and military applications. Simultaneously, the US Commerce Department expanded its export restrictions to cover quantum computing components and AI training data sets. The message from both sides is unmistakable: dominance in tomorrow's tech is national security today. The London talks, then, a theater where the future is being negotiated—or not. With US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer facing off against China's Vice Premier He Lifeng, these are the most senior discussions since the Geneva reset. Both capitals know what's at stake, and neither wants to look like it's blinking. Investors are caught in a strange double bind: exposed to the risks of fragmentation, but positioned to benefit from the rush to secure the commanding heights of the future economy. That's why the London talks are being watched as closely in corporate boardrooms as in diplomatic circles. If the talks succeed in holding the Geneva line, it could stabilize sentiment and breathe life into cross-border dealmaking that's been paralyzed by policy uncertainty. If they fail—and signs point to fundamental misalignments in trust and expectation—then the decoupling will accelerate. Supply chains shift faster, capital reallocates at scale and inflation risks in key inputs like semiconductors and rare earths will spike again. Investors will need to think in terms of dual portfolios: one optimized for the Western bloc, the other for the Chinese sphere of influence. However, there is another, deeper implication that should not be overlooked. The current rivalry is not just about GDP or tech leadership; it's about two economic visions vying for legitimacy. One is anchored in democratic capitalism, now reasserting control over trade and industrial policy after decades of liberalization. The other is a centralized, state-driven model that promises order, speed and resilience. This isn't the Cold War redux, it's something newer, more fluid—and potentially longer-lasting. That's why framing these talks purely as tariff negotiations misses the point. This is about system design and every conversation about chips, data or critical minerals is, in reality, a conversation about who gets to define economic power in the coming decades. Some investors have already begun adjusting to this reality. Sovereign wealth funds are shifting long-term allocations away from passive indices and toward strategic sectors. Venture capital is increasingly split along ideological lines. Private equity is retreating from cross-border deals in politically sensitive industries. The smart capital knows this is the macro megatrend. What London offers this week is a readout not just of policy positions but of political will. Are the world's two largest economies capable of coexisting with guardrails, or are we headed toward a fully bipolar economic order? Markets have always priced in risk. But this is something more fundamental. This is about pricing in rival worldviews. And the London talks are where the next chapter begins.
