As the year draws to a close, the most important meetings have concluded.

"Adapting to local conditions" has been highlighted as a key priority.

When it comes to investment promotion, the very opposite of this is detachment from reality.

Scenarios where projects are launched in a frenzy only to fizzle out just as quickly are all too common.

Different regions bear different strategic missions.

In attracting investment, all regions should take “adapting to local conditions” as their starting point.

To truly break the inertia of “blindly following trends,” we must achieve a balance between differentiated development and collaborative progress.

01 Assess Resources, Reject Bandwagoning

We often hear the phrase, “Everything must proceed from actual conditions.”

This year, we are taking this principle to a deeper level of implementation.

Under the framework of a unified national market, “involutionary” competition has been halted.

For investment promotion, this ultimately boils down to development tailored to local conditions.

“Make do with what you have,” “Ask the woodcutter when in the mountains, ask the fisherman when by the water,” “A key fits a specific lock,” “Avoid the mindset that anything that fits in the basket is a vegetable”…

These vivid metaphors from senior leaders reveal the essence and direction of adapting to local conditions.

Although a consensus has been reached, in practice in some regions, incremental indicators such as GDP growth, fixed-asset investment, and fiscal revenue still occupy a prominent position in performance evaluations.

Consequently, local governments tend to favor “quick-win” projects and even blindly replicate models from other regions, thereby neglecting objective constraints such as local resource endowments, industrial foundations, and market capacity.

In some regions, there is a cognitive bias toward “reviving traditional industries,” where “high-quality” is simplistically equated with developing strategic emerging industries, while traditional industries are viewed as synonymous with “backwardness” and are being phased out through a “one-size-fits-all” approach.

Senior leaders have emphasized that industrial restructuring should be approached with the metaphor of “emptying the cage to make way for new birds” and “the phoenix rising from the ashes,” noting that “emptying the cage does not mean leaving it empty; one must establish the new before dismantling the old, and must also consider where the ‘old birds’ will go once the ‘new birds’ enter the cage.”

Between the lines, this speaks to the principle of adapting to local conditions.

Currently, traditional industries account for a significant proportion of the national industrial structure.

For example, the glass industry is both a traditional industry and an important part of the new materials industry; it plays a crucial supporting role for many strategic emerging industries, basic industries, and future industries.

Traditional industries need to develop; localities must use new technologies to transform and upgrade traditional industries, actively promote high-end, intelligent, and green industrial development, and breathe new life into them.

In particular, when developing new-quality productive forces, we must prevent a rush to start projects only to abandon them later, and ensure that investment promotion efforts remain grounded in local realities.

These local realities refer to the foundational conditions, characteristics, and actual needs of each region. Given the significant differences among regions, the foundational conditions for fostering and developing new-quality productive forces vary.

This requires charting a path for the development of new-quality productive forces that aligns with local conditions, characteristics, and actual needs, rather than following a one-size-fits-all model.

Some regions rush in without regard for objective conditions; seeing that the "low-altitude economy" has taken off elsewhere, they push ahead aggressively regardless of whether they have the necessary airspace or industrial foundation.

In other places, authorities have tried to force solutions despite their own shortcomings—blindly developing computing power industries in areas lacking electricity, even when these sectors do not fully align with the region’s long-term strengths.

Senior officials have also noted that some regions are blindly adopting the “New Three” simply because others have proposed it.

This is not a pragmatic approach; rather, it risks missing opportunities that truly belong to the region and may even lead to cutthroat competition, internalized development, and redundant construction.

From the perspective of concrete implementation, the four words “proactive and pragmatic” are particularly crucial at this Central Economic Work Conference.

“Proactive” naturally means focusing on the frontiers of technological and industrial transformation, developing and nurturing new productive forces, seizing emerging opportunities, and securing a foothold in new sectors.

"Pragmatic" means that when adopting new technologies, we should focus on real development needs and transform them into tangible growth drivers, rather than treating them as fleeting trends.

Regions with different resource endowments and at different stages of development must identify their strategic positioning within the broader national development landscape, leverage their unique strengths, and explore development paths suited to their local conditions.

02 In-Depth Research: Gaining a Clear Understanding of the Situation

Without investigation, there is no right to speak.

Undoubtedly, regional resource endowments, industrial foundations, and research conditions vary greatly.

The value of tailoring approaches to local conditions lies not in how polished the plans are, but in how thoroughly the facts on the ground are understood.

Previously, a director of an investment promotion bureau candidly told us:

“If we want investment projects to take root and bear fruit, our work must be free of formalism.”

Some regions shout about “overtaking on a curve,” yet haven’t even figured out where the bottlenecks in their own industrial chains lie.

Every year, there are delegations, promotional events, and seminars… Investment promotion campaigns are large-scale and innovative, and while there appear to be many signed agreements, few projects may actually come to fruition.

Some grassroots officials point out that certain localities have insufficiently researched their own strengths and corporate needs, and are even unclear about their own land, energy consumption, and water quotas.

Past investigations have revealed that some local governments are not unwilling to “adapt to local conditions,” but rather lack the capacity to scientifically assess their own resources and industrial trends; when formulating development plans, they fall short in forward-looking and systematic research.

In reality, they have failed to establish differentiated industrial positioning or comprehensively balance locational advantages, factor costs, and industrial foundations. They do not understand the strengths of existing industrial chains and do not know how to select industries that leverage local advantages for development.

In the absence of scientific论证 and feasibility studies, some localities engage in “bandwagon-style” investment in industrial projects without ever taking the time to ascertain what resources they possess, what they lack, and what they actually need.

Everything must be preceded by investigation and research, backed by scientific analysis, and grounded in the practical feasibility of implementation.

This is particularly true for emerging industries, which are characterized by high investment and intensive R&D, feature long upstream and downstream industrial chains, and involve highly complex processes.

If these practical realities are ignored and a “throw money at it” mentality prevails—assuming that heavy investment alone will ensure success—the outcome will most likely be a complete mess.

Some officials make decisions based solely on off-the-cuff ideas conceived while sitting in their offices, turning “adapting to local conditions” into “subjective speculation.”

Essentially, without conducting research, verification, or evaluation—acting on a whim—and lacking long-term planning and forward-thinking, this leads to “constant policy flip-flops.”

Once projects are launched, they either stall due to insufficient resource support or struggle to take root long-term because of poor integration into the industrial chain.

Once a direction has been set, we must not get carried away by fleeting enthusiasm.

Without the tenacity to stay focused on the goal or the “nail-driving” spirit of persistent effort, constantly “flipping pancakes,” “repainting walls,” or “changing channels” will lead to deviations from objectives, disjointed tasks, policy gaps, and ineffective measures.

Furthermore, in practice, due to inadequate ideological awareness and market competition, there is often a tendency to pursue innovation behind closed doors, which, in the long run, hampers the pace of local industrial development.

This mode of decision-making based on subjective assumptions deviates from the fundamental principle of “adapting to local conditions” in investment promotion, and instead leads to the idling of resources and the squandering of development opportunities.

03 Evaluate Performance and Shift Mindsets

The underlying logic of economic development is undergoing profound changes.

Many localities have fallen into the dilemma of “wanting everything but achieving nothing.”

To effectively carry out investment promotion tailored to local conditions, we must also address the issue of performance evaluation.

An official from the Yangtze River Delta region who works in foreign investment promotion candidly stated:

“For local governments, the release of economic data is essentially a ranking. In fact, in some places, the mindset toward investment promotion has not kept pace with the requirements for building a unified national market.”

In our discussions with enterprises, we also heard:

“Regions with higher levels of economic development tend to have more standardized investment promotion practices that better align with actual industrial needs. In contrast, the mindset in some less economically developed regions remains stuck in traditional ways of thinking.”

On the one hand, the number and performance of local enterprises serve as a key foundation for government performance evaluations.

On the other hand, enterprises’ ability to compete in the market is inseparable from the support and services provided by local governments.

These two factors mutually reinforce each other. Coupled with the slowdown in land sale revenues in recent years, localities have increasingly relied on investment promotion to boost their fiscal revenue streams.

Ultimately, the optimization of the cadre evaluation system has failed to keep pace with policy adjustments.

“What is evaluated” determines “what is done.” To enable local governments to participate fairly in investment competition and leverage their own strengths, corresponding evaluation mechanisms are needed.

Many investment promotion officials have noted that evaluation metrics still focus primarily on economic growth figures and lack differentiation. Some metrics and tasks “blanket-distributed” to localities consume a great deal of energy, making it difficult for them to concentrate their efforts on building their “strengths” in investment promotion.

Currently, the cadre evaluation system faces challenges such as the difficulty in setting “intangible performance” metrics and implementing differentiated evaluations. Efforts must continue to refine evaluation indicators and strengthen categorized assessments.

For example, localities have incorporated “eliminating market barriers” into municipal performance evaluations and “fairness in bidding” into business environment assessments.

We believe that breaking free from “involution-style” investment promotion is a long-term process requiring concerted efforts from multiple parties.

The transformation of investment promotion models is inseparable from the deepening of a series of reforms. Optimizing the cadre evaluation system and implementing differentiated evaluations are also key to developing new-quality productive forces tailored to local conditions.

Local governments must move beyond the “GDP race” mindset. Investment promotion should start from a context-specific approach, use factor allocation as a lever, and strictly control market entry at the investment stage to ensure projects bear fruit.

In Conclusion

Senior leaders have repeatedly emphasized that adapting to local conditions is, at its core, a matter of seeking truth from facts.

However, this does not mean acting independently or doing as one pleases.

On the contrary, it involves making precise moves within the broader national strategy.

This is akin to a symphony orchestra: violins, cellos, horn players, and drummers—though they occupy different positions and produce distinct tones—must all follow the same score to perform a harmonious piece.

Localities must find their own coordinates on this overarching blueprint, clarify what their “part” is, and understand how to play the “main melody.”

The Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, the Yangtze River Delta, and the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area have been entrusted with the mission of building international science and technology innovation centers precisely because these regions possess unparalleled innovative resources and capabilities, playing a leading “high-pitched part.”

This, in itself, represents a higher level of “adapting to local conditions.”

Meanwhile, other regions can certainly play their indispensable part in ensuring food security, strengthening ecological barriers, and promoting regional coordination.