罗志恒：反内卷与供给侧改革都是在什么背景下提出的？

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the concept of "anti-involution" as a new phase of supply-side reform, highlighting the structural imbalance between supply and demand as a core issue, leading to declining capacity utilization, falling prices, shrinking corporate profits, and increasing economic downward pressure [5][15]. Group 1: Similarities between Anti-involution and Supply-side Reform - Both anti-involution and supply-side reform are driven by structural supply-demand imbalances, resulting in significant declines in industrial capacity utilization. For instance, industrial capacity utilization fell 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 [5][6][13]. - Industrial prices have also seen substantial declines. During the supply-side reform period, the Producer Price Index (PPI) experienced negative growth for 54 consecutive months starting from March 2012. Similarly, the PPI has been in negative growth since October 2022, continuing for 34 months as of July 2025 [6][10]. - Corporate profits have declined due to falling demand and prices. In 2015, industrial profits fell by 2.3%, marking the first negative growth since 1998. In the anti-involution period, industrial profits have been in negative growth since 2022, with a 1.8% decline in the first seven months of 2025 [7][10]. - Economic downward pressure has intensified, with declining capacity utilization and industrial prices leading to reduced corporate revenues and profits, which in turn decrease investment and increase unemployment. GDP growth fell from 8.1% in Q4 2012 to 6.9% in Q4 2015 during the supply-side reform, while the growth rate has stabilized around 5% during the anti-involution period [13][19]. Group 2: Differences between Anti-involution and Supply-side Reform - The macroeconomic environment differs significantly. While both periods face demand shortages, the anti-involution phase is characterized by a more severe demand shortfall due to population decline and a downturn in the real estate market. In contrast, the supply-side reform period saw resilient demand supported by post-financial crisis recovery and real estate market upturns [16][19]. - The industry characteristics also vary. Supply-side reform primarily targeted traditional industries like steel and coal, while anti-involution encompasses a broader range of sectors, including emerging industries and platform economies. This shift indicates a new phenomenon where "involution" competition is prevalent across various industries [21][24]. - The reasons behind the two phases differ. Supply-side reform was largely a response to overcapacity resulting from stimulus policies, while anti-involution is influenced by a wider array of macroeconomic and industry-specific factors, including the deep adjustment in the real estate sector and the transition to new production forces [30][32]. - The implementation paths diverge as well. Supply-side reform focused on traditional industries with administrative measures to cut capacity, while anti-involution emphasizes legal and market-based approaches to regulate competition and foster innovation [40][43].