Core Viewpoint - The Chinese government is focusing on combating "involution" in competition by regulating local government behaviors and promoting orderly market practices to ensure a unified national market [3][5][6]. Group 1: Government Regulation and Market Order - The central government has emphasized the need to strengthen industry self-discipline and prevent "involution" in competition, with a focus on regulating local government and enterprise behaviors [4][5]. - The State Development and Reform Commission highlighted the importance of combining effective market mechanisms with proactive government actions to address issues of disorderly competition and market failures [5][6]. - Local governments are seen as both maintainers of market order and potential instigators of harmful competition due to performance pressures and fiscal decentralization [6][7]. Group 2: Local Government's Role in Involution - Local governments engage in "involution" through practices such as creating "policy lowlands," homogeneous industrial layouts, and setting market barriers to attract investments [6][7]. - The competition among local governments often leads to resource wastage and market disorder, driven by a GDP-centric performance evaluation system [6][8]. - The central government aims to standardize government behavior and clarify acceptable practices in investment attraction to mitigate systemic risks associated with local government competition [5][6]. Group 3: Long-term Solutions and Market Environment - Experts suggest that a shift from "zero-sum" policy competition to "positive-sum" institutional innovation is necessary for high-quality development [8][9]. - There is a call for the establishment of a regulatory framework that encourages long-term business environment assessments rather than short-term economic metrics [9][10]. - The government should create conditions for innovation-driven development by expanding market opportunities and supporting regional cooperation [14][15]. Group 4: Price Wars and Competition Dynamics - Price wars, often seen in the platform economy, are viewed as aggressive competition strategies that can lead to market instability and consumer dependency on subsidies [10][12]. - The long-term effects of price wars include reduced merchant profitability, market homogenization, and increased operational risks for platforms [12][13]. - The need for a balanced approach to competition is emphasized, where platforms are encouraged to focus on value creation rather than solely on price competition [20][21].

8月的第一天，多家外卖平台纷纷发文：抵制恶性竞争，规范促销行为，承诺不强制或变相强制商家参 与补贴活动。继两周前的监管约谈后，这场一度狂热的"外卖补贴大战"再迎来新的转折点。 如何看待平台的补贴大战？明知"价格战"难以持续，企业仍不惜亏本补贴的原因何在？广东省法学会反 垄断与反不正当竞争研究会秘书长、暨南大学法学院/知识产权学院副研究员仲春长期关注竞争法、网 络法。她认为，"价格战"本质上是一种短期内争夺市场份额和用户资源的激进竞争方式。之所以在平台 经济领域反复上演，究其根本在于背后存在结构性动因与博弈逻辑。 通过补贴引流，是新平台开拓市场、实现用户冷启动的快速路径。而在位平台为防御市场份额流失，也 会出手应对。受"跟随式竞争"心理驱动，一些不愿错失"红利窗口期"的中腰部平台和商家同样会被裹挟 入局，进而加剧了整个行业的竞争激烈程度。 广东省法学会反垄断与反不正当竞争研究会秘书长、暨南大学法学院/知识产权学院副研究员仲春（受 访者供图） 仲春告诉南都·反垄断前沿，尽管这种竞争不可持续，但由于平台经济中的"流量逻辑"与"竞争路径依 赖"，"价格战"往往演变为一种制度性惯性，最终形成"内卷式" 竞争的常态化表现 ...