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.

Since the North Korean Famine in the mid-1990s, survivors have turned to cross-border activities for sustenance, evolving into commercial activities in black markets known as jangmadang. With the collapse of the socialist Public Distribution System, the majority of North Koreans now rely on these black markets to earn money and meet their basic needs. However, such commercial activities for personal gain are illegal in the country, symbolizing the emergence of North Korea’s hidden market economy. This hidden economy is characterized by various types of “shadowy private enterprises (SPEs),” ranging from entities officially registered as state-owned enterprises but run by private individuals to home-based enterprises. These SPEs sustain their operations and evade punishment by bribing bureaucrats. However, systematic corruption poses threats to the survival, safety, and well-being of marginalized groups who struggle to pay bribes, exacerbating inequality between privileged and unprivileged segments of society. Consequently, the hidden economy engenders various forms of competition, spanning from market competition to an invisible competition for safety and wellbeing.

Physical education in the Soviet Union, initially focused on health and military readiness, shifted toward producing athletes for international competitions by the early 1950s, peaking in the 1970s/1980s. This shift led to increased investment in sport psychology. To analyze this history, particularly the use of sports to promote communist values, and challenge other political systems, I synthesized peer-reviewed articles using keywords like "Soviet Union," "sport(s) psychology," and "Puni." As social scientists, we decided to analyze this specific history with an emphasis on psychological theories to better understand how the Soviet Union’s communist ideology impacted scientific study within the Soviet Union and sports competition abroad. Thus, I explored the life of the most prominent sports psychologist in the Soviet Union, Avksenty Cezarevich Puni, and his theory of Psychological Preparation for Competition (PPC), which serves as an example of the Soviet Union’s approach to applied sports. Additionally, I examined how Soviet Olympic successes spurred investment in sports and sport psychology, reflecting efforts to compete with the West and asserting the superiority of communism.

The dominant assumptions positing a linear relationship among individualism, capitalism, competition, and inequality are often rooted in the perspectives of social scientists, whose focus is frequently confined to the West in modern times. I argue that these dominant assumptions have been formulated without sufficient opportunities or willingness to consider societies with cultures and systems different from those of the West. In this regard, this book challenges these dominant assumptions by presenting compelling counter-evidence that (1) competition occurs in every society throughout history whenever humans seek to survive and thrive; and (2) competition does not necessarily lead to inequality, but often serves as a tool to mitigate it, as competitions prevent absolute hegemony and allow individuals to challenge incumbent powers or privileged groups across cultures, systems, and eras. This closing chapter encourages readers to reassess their existing beliefs about the sources and consequences of competition and to strive for a deep understanding of competition arenas that they may choose to enter or inadvertently launch.

The ideology of Marxism–Leninism seemingly contradicts competition, yet competition was prevalent in former communist countries to foster productivity and economic growth. The Stakhanovite movement, originating in the Soviet Union, incentivized laborers to excel as an economic propaganda tool, while also honoring them as socialist heroes but also penalizing dissent as a political propaganda tool. Competition extended to managers of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) vying for government resources. Consumer competition arose from pervasive shortages, driving black market economies. Underground enterprises, which were protected from competition, resisted economic reform from a planned economic system to a more market-oriented system to maintain their privileged status. Post-World War II, some SOEs adopted market-based approaches, competing domestically and globally. This chapter argues that such forms of competition emerge when humans struggle for survival amid perceived inequalities in the existing system, prompting them to seek opportunities and thrive.

Through this chapter, I explored life in a competitive arena during socialist mass movements in North Korea. Since liberation from Japanese rule at the end of World War II, North Korea has implemented mass movements to increase labor productivity, known as "Socialist Efforts toward Competition Movements." These movements have permeated various settings, including individuals, workplaces, enterprises, and cooperative farms. The Chollima movement, initiated in December 1956, symbolizes North Korea’s path toward economic development. It has promoted labor competition through mass movements such as "Speed War" and "Learning to Follow Hidden Heroes." Socialist mass movements influenced my daily life, fostering competition in schools and workplaces. Through the lens of my lived experiences, I share stories covering my life journey from North to South Korea, historical backgrounds of North Korea’s competition movements, a comparison analysis before and after the North Korean Famine in the mid-1990s, and characteristics of competition in North Korean society.

Little attention has been paid to competitive dynamics from a political perspective, despite numerous instances of political competition across cultures and systems. In liberal democratic societies, political competition is legalized, allowing citizens to elect leaders who represent their ideas. Conversely, in totalitarian societies, citizens lack voting rights, and political authority is not challenged through democratic means. However, political competitions still occur among ruling elites, often through purges to seize power. This chapter explores political competition, particularly in totalitarian regimes, where purges eliminate rivals among ruling elites. The collapse of such regimes has marked an evolution toward freedom and equal opportunities for all individuals, regardless of background, which aligns with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Highlighting the lack of research on political competitions from an evolutionary psychology perspective, this chapter underscores the need for future research on human emotions and competitive behaviors in the political arena.

International legitimacy established by international law is related to the fundamental principles of international law. Through these principles and their relations, international law expresses and projects legitimacy internationally. In the process, it establishes a hierarchy of rights holding and rights holders. This chapter focuses on three aspects of this situation. First, it examines the key principles or values of international law and indicates how each of them represents a form and part of legitimacy and how, as a whole, they outline an overall conception of legitimacy at the international level. Second, it analyzes the relations of compatibility, competition, and hierarchy that exist among them. Third, it shows that the fundamental principles and their relations translate into a ranking and hierarchy of rights holding and rights holders—and argues that the international top rights holder, the state, plays a central role in the changes that can affect this ranking/hierarchy.

This chapter examines the specificities at work at the international level and their implications for the issue of legitimacy, concentrating on the contemporary context. These specificities have to be understood in relation to the notion and experience of the international community. There are five distinctive features that characterize the international level in connection with the sense of international community. Although the interactions of these characteristics make the international system what it is, this chapter addresses them individually to identify clearly their nature and respective significance for international legitimacy. These features include the ambiguity of the international community; the national bent of international life; cultural diversity and disparity of development; the hegemonic and yet fragmented and contested conception and exercise of power; and the extent to which actors (states and individuals, in particular) have the possibility of ownership—that is, of being represented and of participating at the international level, including in terms of consent.

This chapter argues that there was significant competition for junior senatorial positions during the early-imperial period. The number of eligible candidates in Italy alone exceeded the available positions with a wide margin. Moreover, the inclusion of increasing numbers of provincials further intensified the competition. Selection occurred across several stages—the latus clavus, vigintivirates, and quaestorship—mitigating potential friction that could arise among competing candidates and their supporters.

It would be remiss to have a discussion of innovation without addressing the role that entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship can play in it. To begin that discussion, we turn first to Schumpeter’s early work and its enthusiastic (almost theatrical) celebration of the entrepreneur and Baumol’s historical analysis of what it is about our current economic system that leads entrepreneurship to take particularly productive forms and not the unproductive and destructive forms that might have dominated earlier epochs. Then, we problematize. With Gans et al., we explore what conditions might contribute to entrepreneurship spurring Schumpeter’s gale of Creative Destruction and think about why any rational entrepreneur would even attempt to do so. To close the chapter, Nightingale & Coad lay bare the counterintuitive argument that entrepreneurs, for all the bravado and cultural celebration, typically really don’t do that much. Much of what most people believe to be true about entrepreneurs, it turns out, is just a result of survivorship biases and other methodological problems.