The investment promotion conference remained bustling.

Figures on contract values, the number of projects, and the project commencement rate were presented one after another.

A review of the investment promotion policies in the top 50 cities by GDP reveals a common trend.

This year, only three cities—Zhengzhou, Nantong, and Quanzhou—have issued new policy documents specifically titled “Investment Promotion.”

In addition, Shenzhen’s “Implementation Measures for Further Increasing the Attraction and Utilization of Foreign Investment” took effect this year.

This article focuses on specialized investment promotion policies, innovative investment promotion plans, and the 15th Five-Year Plan Outlines, incorporating all three types of documents into the analysis. A total of 63 policies were reviewed, while industrial directions were assessed using the “15th Five-Year Plan Outlines” from 50 cities.

By comparing these policies across regions, the current trajectory of investment promotion transformation has become evident.

There has been a noticeable reduction in investment promotion policies, with routine efforts to curb “involutionary” competition—essentially establishing rules and setting red lines.

Scenario-based investment promotion and fund-driven investment promotion are being pursued by 21 and 27 cities, respectively, as local authorities reach a consensus on adopting innovative approaches to investment promotion.

According to the “15th Five-Year Plan” guidelines, biopharmaceuticals/healthcare, new energy/new energy storage, and smart connected new energy vehicles rank as the top three sectors.

01 Decline in Special Investment Promotion Policies; Adjustments to Some Performance Evaluation Criteria

Since the beginning of the year, the number of special investment promotion policies announced and made public by various regions has decreased.

The low number itself is telling. A horizontal comparison reveals even more noteworthy differences.

Zhengzhou’s “22 Measures for Investment Promotion” takes a firm stance in the document.

It aims to standardize investment promotion efforts, effectively curb “cutthroat” competition, and avoid blindly pursuing project volume and investment amounts.

A document titled “Work Plan for Investment Promotion” proactively sets clear boundaries on what it will not do.

Shenzhen’s “Implementation Measures for Further Increasing the Attraction and Utilization of Foreign Investment” primarily focuses on encouraging the attraction of foreign investment.

Although both are special initiatives for investment promotion this year, one establishes rules while the other offers incentives.

The difference lies in the fact that the two documents target different types of projects.

The Shenzhen document is ostensibly aimed at attracting foreign investment, which falls under a direction explicitly encouraged by the state; the Zhengzhou document targets domestic industrial projects, leaving much less room for specific provisions.

This shift in policy scope has been advancing throughout the first half of the year.

In March, the State Council Executive Meeting set the tone for establishing a nationwide unified negative list for local fiscal subsidies; in June, Minister of Finance Lan Fo’an proposed using the integrated budget management system to precisely monitor non-compliant subsidies.

Li Chunlin, Deputy Director of the National Development and Reform Commission, stated that the boundaries of investment promotion activities must be further clarified, with incentives for correct actions and accountability for violations.

With the narrowing of the scope for subsidies, the section of a traditional investment promotion document that was once the easiest to draft has disappeared.

We have observed that performance evaluation criteria have followed suit, with four cities incorporating hard targets into their documents.

Zhengzhou requires that at least 70% of newly signed projects break ground within one year, while Xuzhou mandates that investment attraction in development zones at the provincial level or above account for at least 50% of total investment.

Yulin provides land transfer fee subsidies based on the percentage by which per-mu investment exceeds the average, while Taizhou requires that projects related to “new-quality productive forces” account for more than 40% of the total.

The criteria for evaluating investment promotion in these regions have shifted, with a focus now on project implementation.

Previously, Foshan offered an alternative approach by publishing its Investment Promotion Measures last year.

This is the nation’s first government regulation on investment promotion at the prefecture-level city tier, which states:

The government implements transparent investment promotion by promptly publishing investment policies, application procedures, and a guidance catalog for key industries; the municipal government provides ex post rewards and subsidies from the municipal budget at a rate not exceeding a certain percentage of the project’s actual investment.

The tightening of top-down oversight, combined with bottom-up model innovation, is creating a synergistic effect. A system for investment promotion that emphasizes practical results, adheres to bottom lines, and ensures sustainable development is gradually taking shape across the country.

02 Key Statements on Investment Promotion Primarily Appear in Three Types of Documents

An analysis of the top 50 cities by GDP reveals that content related to investment promotion has not decreased; rather, it has shifted to three other types of documents.

First, let’s look at “scenarios.”

In April 2026, Qingdao issued the “Action Plan for Accelerating the Innovation and Application of Scenarios to Promote the Development of New-Quality Productive Forces (2026–2028),” which identifies scenario innovation as a scarce resource for investment promotion under the new circumstances.

Specifically, the six supporting flagship application scenarios are projected to unlock cumulative market opportunities exceeding 300 billion yuan: approximately 120 billion yuan for offshore renewable energy, 68 billion yuan for artificial intelligence, 60 billion yuan for the “China Health Bay” healthcare sector, over 50 billion yuan for deep-sea and offshore development, 22 billion yuan for the new power system, and 10 billion yuan for the low-altitude economy.The plan also requires that member units of the special promotion mechanism facilitate the establishment of at least five innovative enterprises each year.

Hangzhou’s “Implementation Plan for Accelerating the Cultivation and Opening of Application Scenarios to Promote the Large-Scale Adoption of New Scenarios (2026–2027)” sets an annual timeline.

Each year, no fewer than 200 application scenarios will be cultivated and opened to the public, and no fewer than 60 scenario-based cooperation projects will be facilitated; by 2027, more than five scenario landmarks with national influence will be established.

Wuxi has laid out its list directly,with its first batch of 2026 application scenarios opening 45 application opportunities and providing 105 application capabilities, focusing on artificial intelligence, brain-computer interfaces, and the low-altitude economy. It has also set a target to release no fewer than 150 application opportunities and no fewer than 300 application capabilities at the municipal level by 2028.

Xuzhou released its first batch of scenario opportunities and capabilities for 2026; Hefei has set even broader goals, aiming to open no fewer than 1,000 scenario opportunities throughout the year and create no fewer than three “super scenarios” with national influence.

Why are application scenarios proving so effective?

Because what they offer enterprises is precisely what subsidies cannot provide. A real-world scenario provides a testing environment, early adopters, authentic feedback, and demonstration orders—all of which help enterprises navigate the most uncertain phase of new technology commercialization.

For cities, public needs, the demands of leading enterprises, and urban governance requirements already exist. Organizing these into a list of opportunities for collaboration requires no additional subsidy spending and does not violate any negative lists.

Now, let’s talk about funds.

In January, Taizhou introduced the “Ten Measures for Capital,” officially titled *Several Policy Measures to Promote High-Quality Development of the Capital Market and Support the Construction of the ‘Dahai Xincheng’ Industrial System*, adopting a strategy of attracting business through capital.

Shenzhen’s “Action Plan for Promoting the High-Quality Development of Venture Capital and Private Equity (2025–2026)” has set a “Double Ten-Thousand” framework: a cluster of 20+8 industrial funds totaling one trillion yuan, and the number of registered equity investment and venture capital funds exceeding 10,000, with the scale of funds investing in early-stage, small-scale, and hard-tech startups growing at an average annual rate of 15%.

In its “30 Measures for Improving the Business Environment” released in April, Guangzhou announced two government-backed investment funds—the Guangzhou Industrial Development Fund and the Guangzhou Science and Technology Innovation Fund—each with a scale of 20 billion yuan, targeting artificial intelligence, the low-altitude economy, and biopharmaceuticals.

Nanjing is building a “4+N” industrial fund cluster with a total scale exceeding 200 billion yuan, while providing up to 5 million yuan in support for recognized scenario-building projects. Behind Zhengzhou’s 22-point plan lies a fund-of-funds with a total phased scale of 200 billion yuan.

Another category consists of local key project plans.

Chengdu’s “2026 Chengdu Key Projects Plan” lists 1,134 projects with a total investment of 2,661.43 billion yuan and an annual planned investment of 350.01 billion yuan.

Chongqing’s 2026 municipal-level key projects include 1,382 projects that have started construction, are under construction, or have been completed, with a total investment of approximately 2.9 trillion yuan and an annual planned investment of approximately 501.2 billion yuan. Tianjin has allocated 824 municipal-level key construction projects and 288 key reserve projects, with a total investment of 1.82 trillion yuan.

Shenyang’s “Four Batches” special campaign for key projects involves a total investment of over 5.5 trillion yuan. Quanzhou has designated 1,100 municipal key projects with a total investment of 1,345.7 billion yuan.

These types of documents no longer explain “what I can promise you”; instead, the current project lists answer the question “what I have available right now.” By laying out their resources, they allow enterprises to assess the situation for themselves.

Another category consists of business environment improvement plans, which represent the most active area of focus in 2026.

In April, Guangzhou released 30 measures to optimize the business environment, focusing on six major areas—government services, production factors, industrial ecosystems, openness, regulation, and implementation mechanisms—and plans to introduce more than 500 high-quality reform case studies.

In March, Suzhou issued an action plan to build a first-class business environment—dubbed “Business Environment 9.0”—featuring 90 measures across 28 areas.

In May, Wuxi introduced its 2026 Action Plan, comprising 28 reform tasks across four areas; Chongqing’s 2026 Work Task List includes 158 tasks across nine special campaigns.

Hangzhou released 20 new measures for the business environment; Fuzhou rolled out 74 tasks across seven major areas. Quanzhou incorporated its strategic direction into the title: “Action Plan for Building an Industry-Friendly Business Environment (2026–2028).”

Jinan’s 2026 edition contains a detail worth singling out: standardizing investment promotion practices, curbing “involutionary” competition, and ensuring that all types of business entities enjoy equal market rights have been incorporated into the business environment document.

The inclusion of behavioral guidelines for government investment promotion in business environment documents is perhaps the move that best illustrates the trend in 2026.

03: Increasingly Similar and Lengthy Industry Lists; Cutting-Edge Sectors Continue to Expand into Lower-Tier Cities

Industrial priorities are scattered across various documents, and the degree of convergence in investment promotion policies is hard to quantify.

Using the framework of each city’s “15th Five-Year Plan” guidelines, we included every city ranked among the top 50 by GDP.

Virtually every region has its own locally developed industrial system.

Shenzhen’s “20+8,” Chongqing’s “33618,” Guangzhou’s “12218,” Suzhou’s “1030,” Chengdu’s “9+9+10,” and Hangzhou’s “296X.”

After reviewing the industrial planning directions of all 50 cities, several key trends emerged.

Biopharmaceuticals were mentioned in 39 cities, new energy in 32, smart and connected new energy vehicles in 27, and the low-altitude economy and new materials in 26 each.

The low-altitude economy serves as the most representative example: 26 cities have included it in their 15th Five-Year Plans, with the list ranging from Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Suzhou, and Nanjing all the way to Yulin and Harbin.

In 2024, this sector was included for the first time in the State Council’s “Government Work Report,” and within two years, it had made its way into the five-year plans of more than half of the cities.

Not only are the lists repetitive, but they are also getting longer.

The documents all emphasize focus and differentiated development. However, within the industrial system, some cities are trying to keep an eye on more than ten industrial chains at the same time.

For example, cities are tasked with “strengthening and expanding” four key industrial chains—electronic information, automotive, high-end software, and modern pharmaceuticals; “cultivating and expanding” five distinctive industrial chains—high-end CNC machine tools and robots, specialized equipment, steel, advanced materials, and food and biomanufacturing; and “vigorously developing” four emerging and future industrial chains—artificial intelligence, integrated circuits, aerospace and the low-altitude economy, and new energy equipment.

The industries that truly drive scale, however, remain traditional sectors such as chemicals, food, and textiles.

Green petrochemicals and chemicals are listed as leading industries in 17 cities, accounting for 34 percent; modern food in 14; and textiles, apparel, and light industry in 9.

Yantai’s “Three-Tier, Five-Cluster” strategy identifies five leading industries: green chemicals, non-ferrous and precious metals, equipment manufacturing, deep-processing of food, and modern services, with emerging industry clusters ranked at the second tier.

Quanzhou’s “955” strategy features nine 100-billion-yuan-level manufacturing clusters: textiles and apparel, footwear, petrochemicals, building materials and home furnishings, machinery and equipment, food and beverages, handicrafts, paper and printing, and electronics and information technology; new materials, biopharmaceuticals, artificial intelligence, new energy, and the low-altitude economy are grouped under the “5” category.

Dalian’s two 500-billion-level clusters are green petrochemicals and equipment manufacturing; within Huizhou’s “2+1” framework, the output value of the petrochemicals, energy, and new materials sectors from enterprises above designated size totals 430 billion.

Future industry sectors are also expanding into lower-tier cities.

Seven cities have included quantum technology and brain-computer interfaces in their plans; 6G development covers eight cities; and five cities are developing nuclear fusion-related industries.

The list of cities includes not only industrial hubs like Beijing, Shenzhen, and Suzhou, but also cities such as Weifang, Jinhua, Yangzhou, Shaoxing, and Shijiazhuang, which are securing their positions in cutting-edge sectors.

Weifang stands out in particular, simultaneously developing multiple future industry sectors including quantum technology, brain-computer interfaces, 6G, embodied intelligence, and future energy.

These sectors, once considered the exclusive domain of first-tier cities, are now spreading to other regions.

While the list of industrial directions is replicable, the conditions required to support them constitute a set of elements that cannot be replicated.

In Closing

Returning to the beginning—that investment promotion conference.

The total contract value and number of projects were still being read aloud, but the metrics actually recorded in official documents—and used for performance evaluations—had shifted to construction commencement rates, investment per mu, and contribution rates.

Any region can list the most cutting-edge industrial sectors. At the level of official documents, localities are becoming increasingly similar.

What sets them apart lies buried beneath the documents.

A list of scenarios that requires sifting through department by department; a fund capable of understanding technical roadmaps; a project pipeline built up over the years; and a reputation earned by consistently delivering on promises.

True competitiveness in investment promotion lies in what a city actually has to offer to ensure that corporate investment projects come to fruition.