At a recent national urban planning conference, Chinese President Xi Jinping made a rare public criticism of local governments for flocking to invest in artificial intelligence, computing power, and new energy vehicles. He questioned whether “every province in the country needs to develop the same industries.” His blunt remarks broke from the usual cautious official tone and signaled Beijing’s growing concern over excessive competition and redundant projects at the local level.
The speech comes as the Chinese government promotes a campaign against “involution” (inefficient internal competition), including revisions to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. It suggests a shift away from China’s long-standing model of a “big government driving big market” approach. The three industries Xi criticized are now showing signs of structural problems: AI is facing bubble warnings, the EV market is plagued by second-hand vehicles with almost no mileage, and many computing infrastructure projects suffer from idle resources and mismatched supply and demand.
Over the past decade, under plans like “Made in China 2025,” government funds and subsidies poured into strategic emerging industries. While this led to some breakthroughs, it also fueled homogeneous investment and fierce local competition. Local governments, eager for political achievements and capital attraction, often launched similar projects—worsening industrial duplication and wasting resources. Troubled firms like Hozon Auto were heavily backed by local governments, while many data centers are underused and inefficient.
Scholars and industry insiders say this performance-driven investment model harms healthy industry development and distorts market competition. Some argue that state-led initiatives help China catch up internationally, but more observers worry that they lead to falling corporate profits, overcapacity, trade frictions, and dumping disputes abroad.
Xi’s comments may mark a new phase in China’s industrial policy—moving toward “deflating bubbles and controlling pace”—and reflect the challenges of shifting from a government-led to a market-driven development model.