制造业“内卷式”竞争形成机制研究——基于扎根理论方法的探索

Formation Mechanisms of involutionary competition in Manufacturing: An Exploration Based On Grounded Theory

摘要:

综合整治“内卷式”竞争已成为重大现实课题,但现有研究多停留于整体性归因或行为表象分类，缺乏对其差异化生成路径的深入解析。本研究运用扎根理论研究方法,遵循理论抽样原则,选取新能源汽车、生物制药与钢铁三个典型行业进行跨案例比较分析,旨在深入揭示“内卷式”竞争的形成机制。研究发现:(1)识别出三种基于不同核心驱动因素的制造业“内卷式”竞争类型,即政策催生型、技术锁定型与存量僵持型,这三种内卷类型分别由扭曲的产业政策激励、系统性的创新能力约束以及供需两侧的结构刚性所主导,在核心矛盾、竞争互动模式与演化路径上均存在显著差异。(2)制造业“内卷式”竞争的形成机制亦因类型不同而具有差异化特质:即政策催生型内卷遵循“激励扭曲—竞赛响应”逻辑,表现为企业为追逐政策红利陷入同质化扩张与价格战；技术锁定型内卷遵循“能力约束—模仿锁定”逻辑,体现为企业因创新能力不足而扎堆于低风险赛道；存量僵持型内卷则遵循“结构刚性—生存博弈”逻辑,呈现为企业在高退出壁垒与需求萎缩的双重压力下陷入降价保量的困境。(3)尽管不同类型“内卷式”竞争的形成机制各有差异,但其演化过程遵循着一定的共性逻辑。这一过程始于激励扭曲与能力或资源约束的共同作用,引发企业竞争行为的异化,具体表现为价格血战、资源错配与创新偏离；进而在自我强化的负向循环作用下,产业最终被锁定于低水平均衡状态。本研究通过对“内卷式”竞争类型进行识别并构建其机制模型,为精准识别与分类治理“内卷式”竞争、深化相关理论提供了研究基础,同时为企业规避竞争陷阱、推动产业可持续升级提供了决策依据。

Abstract:

Comprehensively addressing “involutionary competition” has emerged as a critical practical challenge. However, existing studies largely remain at the level of holistic attribution or superficial classification of behavioral manifestations, lacking in-depth analysis of its differentiated formation pathways. This study employs the grounded theory approach, following theoretical sampling principles, and selects three representative industries which are new energy vehicle industry, biopharmaceutical industry and steel industry for cross-case comparative analysis, aiming to deeply revel the formation mechanisms of “involutionary competition”. The findings indicate: (1) Three types of manufacturing “involutionary competition” based on different core drivers are identified: policy-induced, technology lock-in, and stock stalemate types. These three involution types are respectively dominated by distorted industrial policy incentives, systemic innovation capacity constraints and structural rigidity on both the supply and demand sides, exhibiting significant differences in core contradictions, competitive interaction patterns, and evolutionary pathways. (2) The formation mechanisms of manufacturing “involutionary competition” also exhibit differentiated characteristics depending on the type: Policy-induced involution follows the logic of "incentive distortion—competition response" , manifested as enterprises pursuing policy dividends and falling into homogeneous expansion and price wars; Technology lock-in involution follows the logic of "capability constraint—imitation lock-in", reflected in firms clustering in low-risk tracks due to insufficient innovation capacity; Stock stalemate involution follows the logic of "structural rigidity—survival game", presenting as enterprises trapped in the dilemma of price cuts to maintain sales volume under the dual pressures of high exit barriers and shrinking demand. (3) Although the formation mechanisms differ across types of involutionary competition, their evolutionary processes follow a certain common logic. This process begins with the combined effect of incentive distortions and capacity or resource constraints, triggering the alienation of firms" competitive behaviors, specifically manifested as price wars, resource misallocation and innovation deviation; Subsequently, under the effect of a self-reinforcing negative cycle, the industry is ultimately locked into a low-level equilibrium. By identifying the types of involution-style competition and constructing a mechanism model, this study provides a research foundation for accurately identifying and categorically governing involutionary competition and deepening relevant theories, while also offering decision-making references for enterprises to avoid competitive traps and promote sustainable industrial upgrading.