反内卷与供给侧改革有何不同？

Group 1 - The core contradiction behind both "anti-involution" and supply-side reform is structural imbalance between supply and demand, leading to decreased capacity utilization, falling prices, declining corporate profits, and increased economic downward pressure [2][3][4] - Industrial capacity utilization in China has significantly declined, from 76.8% in Q4 2013 to 72.9% in 2016 before supply-side reform, and from 77.4% in Q4 2021 to 74.0% by Q2 2025 during the anti-involution phase [2][3] - The Producer Price Index (PPI) has experienced prolonged negative growth, with a record 54 months during the supply-side reform and 34 months during the anti-involution period, starting from October 2022 [2][3] - Corporate profits have declined, with industrial profits dropping by 1.8% year-on-year in the first seven months of 2025, marking a profit margin low of 5.15%, lower than during the supply-side reform [3][4] Group 2 - The macroeconomic environment differs significantly between the two phases, with the anti-involution period facing more severe demand shortages due to population decline and a downturn in the real estate market, while the supply-side reform period had resilient demand [6][7] - In the anti-involution phase, real estate investment, sales area, and government land transfer income saw declines of 12.0%, 4.0%, and 4.6% respectively in the first seven months of 2025, indicating a prolonged downturn [7] - The anti-involution phase has a broader industry coverage, affecting upstream, midstream, and downstream sectors, including new fields like "new three samples" and platform economies, unlike the supply-side reform which focused on traditional industries [8][9][10] Group 3 - The reasons behind the two phases differ, with supply-side reform primarily driven by excess capacity from previous stimulus policies, while anti-involution is influenced by a range of macro and industry factors, including deep adjustments in real estate [13][14] - The anti-involution phase is characterized by rapid technological updates and a lack of established industry structures, leading to a unique dilemma where companies must continue investing despite short-term losses to maintain market share [17] - The implementation paths also vary, with supply-side reform focusing on traditional industries and utilizing administrative measures, while anti-involution emphasizes legal and market-based approaches to regulate competition [18][20][21]