热点思考 | 海外如何“反内卷”？——“反内卷”系列之五（申万宏观·赵伟团队）

Group 1 - The article emphasizes the importance of learning from overseas experiences in addressing industrial disorder and overcapacity, suggesting a combination of policies that encourage industry mergers and restructuring, improve industry standards, enhance market clearing, and implement corresponding support policies [8][42]. Group 2 - Japan's experience highlights the formation of cross-shareholding and mergers to create an industrial network, which helps avoid excessive competition and promotes economies of scale. The revision of the Antimonopoly Act in 1953 and the introduction of the "New Industrial Structure Theory" in 1963 were pivotal in encouraging mergers [2][49]. - The shareholding of financial institutions in Japanese companies increased from 30% in 1960 to 45% in 1990, and the average cross-shareholding ratio among Japan's six major groups rose from 12% in 1962 to 18% in 1998 [2][49]. - The establishment of "Keiretsu" groups in Japan, which consist of horizontal and vertical alliances, has stabilized supply chains and reduced excessive competition, thereby facilitating industrial upgrades [3][50]. Group 3 - The UK and US experiences focus on market-driven clearing while ensuring social safety nets. The UK government ceased financial subsidies and gradually exited the coal price protection system in the mid-1980s, leading to the closure of about one-third of coal mines between 1985 and 1986 [4][51]. - The US steel industry faced similar challenges, with the government eliminating tax incentives in 1986 and promoting mergers in the 1990s, resulting in a reduction of approximately 52.8 million tons of crude steel capacity from 1998 to 2003 [4][25]. - Both countries implemented support measures for displaced workers, such as the UK's "Enterprise Allowance Scheme" and the US's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), which provided retirement benefits to around 700,000 retirees by 2005 [5][32]. Group 4 - Germany's experience illustrates the establishment of high industry standards to foster differentiated competition. The Beer Purity Law of 1516 set strict quality standards for beer production, which helped protect local industries and enhance product quality [6][37]. - The German government encourages regional styles and has implemented detailed certification mechanisms to ensure product authenticity and quality, promoting a diverse competitive landscape [6][39]. - By aligning with international beer classification standards, Germany has guided the market towards high-quality, non-price competition, facilitating innovation and cultural positioning among breweries [6][54].