深度专题 | “反内卷” ：市场可能误解了什么？（申万宏观·赵伟团队）

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the rising importance of "anti-involution" in the market, highlighting significant misunderstandings regarding the concept of "involution" and its implications for supply-side reforms and economic structure transformation [2][3]. Group 1: Misunderstanding of "Involution" - "Involution" is not equivalent to "overcapacity"; it arises from strong demand leading to proactive supply increases, contrasting with passive overcapacity due to demand decline [3][4]. - The price behavior differs: "overcapacity" leads to price drops due to demand decline, while "involution" results in chaotic price competition despite strong demand [3][4]. - Supply-side reforms previously addressed overcapacity in high-energy sectors, while current "anti-involution" focuses on the middle and lower reaches of the industry, particularly private enterprises [4][5]. Group 2: Targeted Areas of "Anti-Involution" - The high-energy sector has undergone significant capacity upgrades, and traditional backward capacity is not as pronounced as during previous reforms [5][6]. - Policies may target specific industries with excessive growth, such as coal and pork, to stabilize prices, but the focus is more on aligning supply with demand rather than drastically reducing supply [6][7]. Group 3: Policy Mechanisms - Effective "anti-involution" strategies should not solely rely on self-discipline talks but should include industry mergers, raising standards, and matching supportive policies [8][9]. - Historical experiences from Japan, the US, and Germany suggest that fostering non-price competition and developing non-overcapacity sectors, like services, is crucial for addressing the root causes of "involution" [8][9]. Group 4: Equipment Update and Debt Management - Addressing the issue of equipment updates is vital, as many industries retain old equipment while acquiring new, which can lead to inefficiencies [9][142]. - The current situation shows a significant increase in overdue accounts, particularly among private enterprises, indicating a need for stricter debt management policies [152][160].