Limited research has been devoted to investigating assumptions about competition dynamics established through a neoliberal lens. Advocates argue that competition fosters innovation and benefits consumers by incentivizing private enterprises to develop better products or services at competitive prices compared to their rivals. Critics argue that competition exacerbates inequality by disproportionately rewarding high achievers. Rewarding high achievers reflects the meritocratic aspect of competition, which has been widely assumed to be rooted in the individualistic culture of Western countries. Contrary to this assumption, the ideology of meritocratic competition thrived in ancient collectivist Asian countries. Moreover, the assumed linear relationship between individualism, competition, and inequality is contradicted by economic literature, which suggests more individualistic nations display lower income inequality. Despite extensive economic and cultural examination of competition, competition’s political dimensions remain understudied. This interdisciplinary book challenges conventional assumptions about competition, synthesizing evidence across economics, culture, and politics.

In this chapter, I explore competition among students and parents in a North Korean elementary school. Despite the perception that competition is discouraged in socialist countries like North Korea, it is prevalent as a means to motivate citizens to increase productivity. During my childhood in North Korea, competing with friends was commonplace. Teachers encouraged competition as a method to motivate students to study hard. While capitalist societies openly embrace competition, in North Korea, it exists in a visible but unspoken form. People are encouraged to compete to "praise the Great leaders" rather than for personal goals. The norms and meaning of competition tend to vary depending on the context, as illustrated by my childhood experiences. I highlight competition in three areas: (a) competition in classes through publicized performance scores, (b) competition among students to meet material quotas (e.g., papers, apricot stones, copper, etc.) through "mini assignments," and (c) competition for student leadership positions among parents through bribery.

The economic reforms of China in 1978 and Vietnam in 1986 have spurred the emergence of privately owned enterprises, leading to increased competition across state-owned and privately owned enterprises under communist authoritarian regimes. Upon joining the World Trade Organization (WTO), both countries faced unavoidable international competition, particularly excelling in labor-intensive manufacturing industries due to low labor costs. China’s pragmatic approach to market-oriented forces has resulted in a growth gap favoring China over Vietnam. Despite this, both nations have made significant economic strides, transitioning to fast-growing middle-income countries and reducing global inequality. The onset of the US–China trade war in 2018 has seen Vietnam emerge as a major beneficiary, challenging China’s dominance in labor-intensive manufacturing industries. This shift highlights the potential for hegemonic transitions in competition dynamics. Additionally, this chapter illuminates pre-reform competition in both countries, where shortages of goods led to resource competition among citizens – an aspect often overlooked in existing literature focused on market competition post-reform.

Little is known about how competitive attitudes differ between refugees and their host citizens. Study 1 investigated the relationship between refugee background and competitive attitudes, alongside demographic characteristics, social comparison concerns, and exposure to competition, using data from 190 North Korean refugees (NKRs) and 445 South Koreans (SKs). Refugee background and social comparison concerns had significantly more effect on competitive attitudes compared to other demographic characteristics and the ranking variable. In Study 2, cultural scores based on Hofstede’s theory were examined, alongside demographic factors, refugee background, and social comparison concerns. Refugee background and social comparison concerns showed stronger associations with competitive attitudes than cultural scores. Study 3 divided the sample into NKRs and SKs, revealing social comparison concerns’ predominant influence on competitive attitudes in both groups. However, the impact of the ranking variable varied between NKRs and SKs. These findings underscore the importance of understanding the experiences of refugees in shaping their competitive attitudes, from migration to resettlement.

Using the World Value Survey from Wave 2 (1989–1993) to Wave 7 (2017–2020), Study 1 demonstrates that individuals in individualistic regions exhibit more anti-competition attitudes compared to those in collectivist regions. Additionally, individuals in authoritarian, socialist, and collectivist Asian regions show the highest level of pro-competition attitudes, followed by those in democratic, capitalist, and individualistic Western regions and those in democratic, capitalist, and collectivist Asian regions. Study 2 reveals that competition is more likely to be endorsed by individuals who prioritize the individual’s responsibility over the government’s responsibility, value private ownership of businesses over government ownership of businesses, emphasize hard work for success, and prefer income incentives over income equality. Moreover, individuals with higher levels of materialism and self-determination are also inclined to endorse competition. Notably, variations exist in the relationship between individual difference variables and attitudes toward competition among the regions.