Less Involution, More Innovation: Why China Is Tackling Nèi Juǎn?

This article is composed of paragraphs from Zhejiang Publicity, People's Daily, Study Times, and Capital News.

In the 1960s, anthropologist Clifford Geertz coined the term “involution” to describe a pattern of agricultural development on Indonesia’s Java Island, where labor input kept increasing but productivity did not. Although few people acknowledge the origin of the concept of involution, the word has gone viral in China’s social media and society for years. Actually, in China, the public hype for using the word “involution” (“内卷” Nèi Juǎn) initially started from the education sector. 

Historically, Chinese society has always placed a high value on education. Ancient poems described scholars studying under dim oil lamps at midnight, and the story of “Mencius’s mother moving three times” (“孟母三迁”， Mèng Mǔ Sān Qiān) is widely known. According to records over two thousand years old, Mencius’s mother relocated their home from beside a cemetery and then a slaughterhouse—both unsuitable environments—to a place near a school, hoping to give her son a better upbringing. It is believed that these moves significantly contributed to Mencius’s later success as a great thinker.

These deeply rooted traditions continue to shape Chinese families’ emphasis on education today. But this emphasis has now spiralled into an involutionary cycle. In the preschool stage, some parents push their children to learn primary school content in advance. In compulsory education (in China, it refers to the period from first grade in primary school to the third grade in junior school), “studying ahead” has become an unspoken rule—students master junior high content in primary school, and high school content in junior high, leaving excessive time for drilling and test prep. Outside academics, competition extends to extracurriculars: when other children learn piano or calligraphy, parents feel theirs must do the same to avoid falling behind.

This endless comparison and competition have become the hallmark of involution in China’s education system.

The term “involution” has since taken on a broader meaning in Chinese society, becoming almost synonymous with destructive over-competition. Beyond education, it has become increasingly visible in the business realm.

Competition is a core principle of market economies and a key driver of progress. Healthy competition—through quality products, cutting-edge technology, and sound management—can inspire innovation and optimize resource allocation. However, involution distorts this logic.

The “theater metaphor” aptly illustrates the problem: imagine a packed theater where the first row stands up for a better view. Others follow suit, and eventually everyone is standing. The viewing experience hasn’t improved, people are exhausted, and the order is disrupted. In business, involutional competition similarly fails to increase profits or improve consumer experience. Industries overwhelmed by copycat products, price wars, and short-term tactics may appear active but actually suffer from stagnation. Some firms cut costs recklessly or jump on trending buzzwords without regard to their own capabilities. When the hype fades, only chaos remains.

Why does involution emerge so easily in China? Returning to Geertz’s definition, involution refers to a stage where a system reaches a developmental ceiling and cannot evolve into a higher form. It implies intensifying internal competition over limited resources without generating meaningful progress.

In China, this manifests in education as a fight over unequal resources and rigid evaluation metrics; in business, as intensified rivalry in saturated markets with limited innovation. Thus, resolving involution requires expanding new resources and identifying new growth points.

In response to involution in education, China introduced the “Double Reduction” policy in 2021. Its aim is to reduce excessive homework and after-school tutoring for students in compulsory education. The policy targets both core causes: single-track evaluation standards and uneven distribution of educational resources.

As People’s Daily, China’s most influential official newspaper, emphasized, this policy seeks to ease the conflict between education for human development and education for exam performance—giving students time and space for self-directed and personalized growth. It represents an effort to diversify how talent is evaluated in Chinese schools.

It also responds to the public’s call for greater educational equity. The same article notes: “Educational fairness is the foundation of social justice. Educational development should benefit all people more equally.” The policy thus also aims to reduce disparities across regions, between urban and rural schools, and among different institutions—lowering education costs and psychological pressure for families. 

In short, “Double Reduction” gets to the root of educational involution.

SPONSORED

See the world from a multidimensional perspective with BeijingReviewDossier!

Subscribe

As for economic involution, the issue first appeared in an official document during a CPC Leadership Meeting in July 2024, where leaders emphasized the need to “prevent involutional competition.” Later that year, the Central Economic Work Conference—a key annual meeting held in December every year, that will set China’s economic direction in the coming year—reaffirmed this goal by listing “rectifying involutional competition” as a top priority for 2025. The phrase also appeared in the Government Work Report at the National People’s Congress, reflecting strong policy commitment.

Whether in the field of education or in the business sector, the government’s efforts to curb involution are aimed at the same objective: promoting innovative development and advancing industrial upgrading in China.

In education, reducing excessive competition is not merely about easing students’ burdens—it is also about nurturing creative and independent individuals. By adjusting evaluation systems and redistributing resources, the government seeks to cultivate diverse talents rather than forcing all students into uniform molds. This lays a vital foundation for building an innovative society.

Meanwhile, in business, eliminating involution-style competition encourages companies to move beyond low-end strategies and instead explore new paths for growth. Through targeted regulations and support policies, the government is steering firms toward high-quality development, technological breakthroughs, and value creation—discouraging short-sighted tactics and promoting long-term resilience.

By targeting involution across both education and business, China is laying the foundation for a more vibrant, innovative, and upward-moving industrial ecosystem. When young people with critical thinking skills and diverse capabilities step into the workforce, they can transform the knowledge and skills developed in school into what China calls “new quality productive forces”. Liberated from exhausting overtime or endless price wars, they can focus on meaningful work with transformative potential. This will help position the country as a future hub of cutting-edge technological innovation, enabling it to make lasting contributions to global development.

After all, China’s ultimate development goal is not to “defeat rivals,” but to make the world more abundant and diverse. True prosperity lies not in homogenized battles, but in differentiated co-existence. As one popular phrase puts it: “Don’t stay stuck in endless competition—run forward and break free.” That’s how new possibilities will emerge on the horizon.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of BeijingReviewDossier.