In recent days, local two-session meetings have been held in rapid succession.

The "mandates" to boost the economy and attract investment have been passed down through the ranks to the desks of platform companies.

The more critical the situation, the more platform companies are expected to step up and shoulder the burden.

But the reality is heartbreaking: though they intended to make a big impact, they find themselves caught in the tug-of-war between administrative mandates and market forces.

On one hand, they must carry out the government’s mandatory tasks, rushing to acquire land and build factories;

on the other, they seek to break through via market-driven approaches, yet their hands are tied, leading to stumbling blocks in subsequent investment promotion efforts.

01 Redefining Roles

Previously, platform companies primarily acted as agents for the government—acquiring land, constructing buildings, and building roads.

Today, although the responsibility for attracting investment has been “handed over,” the resources and authority remain within the administrative system.

Consequently, situations like this may arise:

The capital chain cannot keep pace with the decision-making chain, as approvals for large-scale investments require reporting through multiple layers of bureaucracy.

By the time the process is complete, the company may have already invested in a neighboring industrial park.

Industrial development often requires 3 to 5 years to take root.

Yet hanging over the heads of platform companies is the sword of annual performance evaluations.

To meet short-term financial and investment attraction targets, it is inevitable that they will “prioritize quantity over quality.”

Even more frustrating is the red line regarding the preservation and appreciation of state-owned assets.

This is particularly true for industrial investment platform companies: even with official documents outlining error-tolerance mechanisms, they often hesitate to invest because the authority to grant liability exemptions lies elsewhere.

Simply put, the government delegates the tasks of “identifying, negotiating, and signing projects” to platform companies; yet resources and authority—such as “funding approval, planning formulation, and liability exemption”—often remain firmly in the government’s hands.

Burdened with the responsibilities of market competition yet constrained by administrative limitations, this predicament of “dancing with shackles on” leaves many platform companies struggling to move forward.

To break this deadlock, the key lies in redefining roles.

Rather than rigidly executing government directives, the focus should be on effectively “monetizing resources.”

The government should bundle and authorize platform companies to manage non-tradable assets such as concessions and public data; platform companies, in turn, should use market-based methods to transform these resources into conditions that attract investment.

During the 15th Five-Year Plan period, investment promotion will no longer be a simple competition of policies, but rather a battle of resource matching.

This requires platform companies to move beyond the “construction and holding on behalf of the government” mindset and drive government-enterprise collaboration by “securing authority” from the government.

02 Securing Resources from Higher Authorities

This is not about haggling, but rather about obtaining exclusive government authorization to package administrative resources into tangible bargaining chips at the negotiation table.

On one hand, keep scarce resources under their own control.

Target the production factors that enterprises care about most and strive to become the “master agent” for regional resources.

Specifically, this includes policies, funding, operational environments, orders, research and development, talent, and data. A key characteristic is scarcity.

To elaborate, these are resources that are unique to the government—unavailable to purely market-based entities—and directly linked to industrial development.

For example, procurement orders from local state-owned enterprises, city-level franchise rights, or even the authority to distribute industry subsidies. Or, the right to allocate application scenarios and business orders held by the government, state-owned enterprises, and universities; as well as the right to access and utilize industrial big data.

When these resources are exclusively allocated by the park’s platform company, the bargaining chips for attracting investment gain “uniqueness.”

Companies come here not just to rent factory space, but to tap into a local, unique industrial ecosystem—a value that other parks cannot provide.

On the other hand, leveraging special policies to create unique advantages that others lack.

Universal policies are essentially standard offerings in local investment promotion. What truly sets a park apart are differentiated policies tailored to specific industries.

For example, for the intelligent driving or low-altitude economy sectors, can we help companies secure fully open, unmanned testing environments? Can enterprises achieve “first flights” and routine operations within previously restricted airspace? Or, for the life sciences and healthcare sector, can we secure a “pilot program” fast track? Can we ensure that cutting-edge medical devices are prioritized for launch here?

Every industry or enterprise has its own core needs. These might include certification authority for specific roles, regulatory approval for data exports, or tariff policies for imported components.

The role of the park’s platform company is to collaborate with the government to translate these specific needs into concrete policy guidelines. With this unique competitive advantage—offering what others lack—the company gains the upper hand in both park operations and industrial investment.

Additionally, learn to strategically combine policy-based funding sources.

Developing an industrial park is a marathon; relying solely on market-based financing is costly and makes it difficult to sustain operations until the end.

Outstanding park platform companies often transcend the simple mindset of “borrowing money” and leverage their portfolio of projects to apply for special-purpose bonds, special government bonds, or guidance funds.

By collaborating with various government departments and agencies, they combine low-cost “long-term funds” with market-based capital to form a more cost-effective and stable financial safety net.

Ultimately, investment promotion is not merely about attracting enterprises, but about facilitating resource exchange.

By playing the cards of “controlling core elements, formulating special policies, and securing long-term funding,” park platform companies transform the government’s administrative resources into an absolute competitive advantage in the market, thereby ensuring controllable risks and achieving efficient investment promotion.

The first step in investment promotion during the 15th Five-Year Plan period is not to blindly chase projects, but to first streamline government-enterprise relations and ensure effective coordination.

Only in this way can platform companies break free from the tug-of-war between administrative and market-oriented approaches, transitioning from “dancing in shackles” to dynamically adapting resources, and thereby seizing the initiative in the investment attraction game.