Zhang Xue's motorcycle has gone viral nationwide.

"Not a single penny" went viral.

After this line was taken out of context and widely circulated, it quickly sparked a public outcry.

However, a deeper issue has come to the surface.

When it comes to government support for businesses, is “handing out money” the only measure that counts?

This question touches on the core of a paradigm shift in investment promotion.

Now is the time to redefine what it means for the government to support businesses.

The best support is letting go; the best environment is fairness; the best competition is determined by the market.

01 A single honest statement sparks profound questions

“Not a single penny”—this refers to direct financial subsidies.

No special support funds, no targeted investments, and no “special treatment” of the “backdoor” variety.

This is a fact; Zhang Xue was not wrong, but it does not mean the company received no support from the local government.

What’s even more noteworthy is that the very fact she dared to say this proves she has embraced a fundamental truth:

Success depends on products, technology, and the market—not on the government’s “subsidy-driven life support.”

Zhang Xue also said something else: “Although I didn’t know a single person in Chongqing at the time, once I stepped into the motorcycle parts market, I could basically buy every single motorcycle part there.”

The first statement refers to the government not “giving money,” while the second highlights that Chongqing provided him with exactly what he needed most to build motorcycles.

“Without Chongqing, there would be no Zhang Xue Motorcycles.” This statement also highlights another valuable form of support that local governments can provide for business development.

From this perspective, although no financial support was provided, the city offered:

a complete motorcycle industry chain, a fair business environment, efficient public services, a stable and predictable institutional framework, and an atmosphere of free competition among market entities.

This “soil” of a market economy is far more valuable than simply “handing out money.”

Clarifying the facts is not difficult, so why did this misinterpretation spread so rapidly and resonate so widely?

The fundamental reason lies in the fact that some local investment promotion efforts are still stuck in outdated thinking.

They believe that government support for enterprises means providing money, land, and preferential policies. Does not providing money mean a lack of support? Does a lack of support equate to inaction?

The Zhang Xue incident has laid this misconception bare for all to see.

02 Does Government Support Mean Only Providing Money?

First, why is the “give money” mindset so deeply ingrained?

The core issue is that some local governments have developed a path dependency.

In the past, attracting investment has always been a “competition of preferential policies.” This simplistic and heavy-handed approach is easy to implement and yields immediate results, but it has also brought about numerous drawbacks.

Some companies come solely for the subsidies; once the subsidies run out, they leave, potentially leaving behind vacant factories and idle production capacity.

Moreover, this undermines a level playing field. Giving special treatment to specific companies inevitably harms the legitimate rights and interests of other investors and distorts market fairness.

A subsidy can be quantified and compared, making it an easy yardstick for evaluating a government’s support for businesses.

In contrast, factors that are harder to quantify—such as the rationality of industrial planning, the quality of the legal environment, and the efficiency of government services—are often overlooked.

The deeper issue lies in the fact that a company surviving on subsidies has not truly refined its products or honed its technology, and its ultimate profits are not the result of competition.

If a company’s success is pinned on government financial support, it not only goes against the market’s law of survival of the fittest but also makes it difficult to foster truly competitive market entities.

When it comes to attracting investment, is “providing money” the only form of government support and assistance?

To answer this question, we must first understand what kind of relationship should be established between the government and enterprises.

Synergy within the industrial chain is often more valuable than cold, hard cash.

Chongqing is China’s motorcycle capital. From engines to carbon fiber body panels, and from electronic control systems to lightweight frames, the city’s comprehensive industrial ecosystem allowed Zhang Xue to “source everything in one place.”

He chose to launch his motorcycle business in Chongqing precisely because of the city’s strong foundation in the motorcycle industry—all the suppliers are right here.

For a motorcycle company focused on R&D, a mature industrial ecosystem and efficient supply chain collaboration are far more valuable than a one-time subsidy.

The government’s ability to plan for industrial development determines whether a company can position itself in the right market segment.

A company operating in a declining industry, no matter how many subsidies it receives, will struggle to escape the fate of being eliminated by the market. Conversely, a company in a growing industry may face a difficult start but can leverage the momentum of the industry’s development to move forward with the trend.

The protection provided by a rule-of-law environment is something no amount of money can replace.

When Zhang Xue says “not a single penny,” it implies there is no special treatment or preferential treatment—which precisely demonstrates that the business environment is fair, transparent, and inclusive, with all enterprises standing on the same starting line.

The fact that a grassroots entrepreneur—without connections or a privileged background—can start from scratch here and rise to the top of the world signifies that this soil allows the humble to grow into towering trees and enables passion to forge legends.

Is this not the strongest testament to the local manufacturing sector and industrial chain, as well as the highest affirmation of the local market mechanisms and business environment?

Improvements in service capabilities make enterprises feel respected and understood.

For a long time, a certain mindset has taken root in some regions: that government support means providing money, land, and policies. This mindset can easily lead to overstepping one’s bounds.

In fact, the participation of local state-owned capital platforms in investment is also a market-driven activity that must follow market principles and bear market risks.

Failure to operate according to market rules can easily foster enterprises with a “subsidy dependency syndrome,” which will reveal their true colors at the slightest market fluctuation.

For enterprises, the best support comes from comprehensive supporting measures, stable and predictable policies, a favorable business environment, and a market order that ensures fair competition.

It should also be clarified that venture capital funds like those from Zhejiang State-owned Assets are not merely fiscal infusions, but capital activities based on market judgment.

While acknowledging the success of the investment in Zhangxue Locomotives, we must also recognize the underlying market risks and other instances of failed investments.

From a broader perspective, the development of a unified national market also provides significant support to enterprises.

Chongqing provides the industrial chain, skilled workers, and an industrial ecosystem built up over decades; Zhejiang offers financial leverage, market-oriented operations, and brand promotion capabilities.

Coupled with Zhang Xue’s technical obsession and his all-or-nothing determination, these factors collectively propelled this private enterprise forward.

This is not a case of “Chongqing missing out,” but rather Chongqing providing the “soil,” Zhejiang acting as the “gardener,” and the people of Hunan sowing the “seeds.”

If every region insists on “keeping the benefits within the local community,” it will only hinder the free flow of resources, and ultimately, no one will be able to grow large.

03 Redefining the Relationship Between Government and Enterprise

What exactly is the relationship between the government and enterprises?

There is a deeply ingrained mindset that the government is the “giver” and the enterprise is the “recipient.”

This “give-and-take” logic may sound intuitive, but it is fundamentally misplaced—it runs counter to the logic of a market economy.

The government’s core responsibilities lie in providing institutional frameworks, maintaining the business environment, ensuring fairness, and reducing systemic transaction costs across the entire market.

From this perspective, the fact that Zhang Xue didn’t receive “a single penny” doesn’t mean the government failed to act.

Rather, it is reflected in over a decade of continuous development of the motorcycle industry chain, enabling entrepreneurs from outside the region to find suppliers immediately upon arrival; and in the implementation of a policy of equal treatment, allowing all enterprises to equally enjoy the benefits of the system.

Of course, this does not mean the government should completely “step back.”

It should not overstep its bounds when entrepreneurs do not need it; it should not be absent when entrepreneurs do need it; and it should not claim credit after entrepreneurs succeed.

For local governments, the greatest achievement is not “how much money was invested,” but how many local champions capable of competing head-to-head with global giants in the world market have been nurtured; the greatest return is not seeking short-term credit, but a steady stream of tax revenue, high-quality jobs, an industrial chain that drives upgrading, and the prestige of the city’s reputation.

What belongs to enterprises should remain with enterprises; what belongs to the government should remain with the government; what belongs to the market should remain with the market; and what belongs to the state should remain with the state.

The relationship between government and business is a topic that remains ever-relevant, yet some fundamental principles remain constant.

First, the government should support enterprise development—this is a matter of course.

This is determined by the essential nature and survival logic of both parties. Enterprises generate tax revenue and create jobs for the government, while the government provides the necessary external conditions for enterprise development; neither can survive without the other.

Government support for enterprises can be both direct and indirect.

The former includes capital investment, policy support, government procurement, and even officials “endorsing” businesses; the latter includes providing sound infrastructure, a stable social environment, and a healthy market order, as well as fostering a competitive industrial ecosystem through comprehensive measures to attract capital and businesses.

If direct support is “hard support,” then indirect support is “soft support.” In a sense, “soft support” is harder to come by and more valuable than “hard support.”

Second, the government must enhance its capacity to “provide support to enterprises.”

What does this mean? It means understanding business needs and providing timely, relevant, and useful support.

This means avoiding sluggish, slow responses; or only belatedly offering sympathy and concern after a business has weathered the storm and succeeded.

Nor should it offer assistance that misses the mark—for instance, arranging recruitment when a business needs office space, or providing idle factory space when a business needs startup capital.

Third, while the government should support business development, it must also maintain a certain distance from enterprises.

Government support for businesses does not necessarily have to be demonstrated through physical proximity.

There is no need for departments to “post signs offering support,” no need to assign “direct lines to leaders,” and certainly no need for “door-to-door services” every other day. All that is required is to treat all enterprises equally and to “not disturb them when there is nothing to do, but be there immediately when there is.”

Especially for private enterprises, we must emphasize a government-business relationship that is “close yet measured, clean yet effective.”

Ultimately, the relationship between the government and enterprises cannot be simplistically reduced to a matter of giving and taking.

After all, financial support is merely icing on the cake; the development of “soft infrastructure”—such as the industrial ecosystem and business environment—is what truly provides essential support.

Moreover, for entrepreneurs like Zhang Xue—who possess a strong personality and a spirit of adventure—what may be more important than direct subsidies is avoiding excessive interference and granting the enterprise ample room to experiment and learn from mistakes.

The government’s commitment to “non-interference” allows enterprises to focus on production, operations, and R&D innovation—which is, in itself, a powerful form of support.

In Closing

"Not a single penny"—does government support equate to "giving money"?

The answer is clearly no.

Financial subsidies may provide temporary relief, but they cannot sustain a company’s long-term stability and growth.

True government support lies in helping enterprises position themselves on the right track, fostering a level playing field, cultivating fertile ground for industrial development, and granting enterprises ample room to experiment and learn from mistakes.