高大伟David Gosset

法国里昂商学院高级顾问
法国里昂商学院美好商业中心学术委员会成员
中欧美全球倡议发起人
《中国与世界》三卷书主编
“灵感”系列发起人

法国里昂商学院高级顾问，中欧美全球倡议发起人，《中国与世界》三卷书主编，“灵感”系列发起人，该系列书籍旨在向世界介绍中国。

▲Kandinsky (1866-1944), Composition VII, Tretyakov Gallery

The evolution of human civilization, particularly in the West but not exclusively, has been shaped by a powerful principle that has often driven scientific, technological, institutional, and social progress: competitive polycentrism. This concept refers to a system in which multiple centers of power, authority, and economic production coexist and compete within a broader framework. At its core, competitive polycentrism encourages diversity, experimentation, and innovation, while avoiding the pitfalls of both forced imperial homogeneity and complete fragmentation among rival powers. It is this dynamic that propelled Europe's historical development, and it is this same paradigm that could be applied to globalization and human progress today.

The roots of competitive polycentrism can be traced back to Ancient Greece, a civilization that emerged on relatively small islands and a peninsula bordered by the clear blue waters of the Mediterranean Sea. This cultural space was characterized by a collection of independent city-states, such as Athens, Sparta, and Thebes, each with its own unique political system, set of values, and intellectual pursuits. While these city-states shared common cultural and religious traits, they were constantly in competition with one another. However, this competition was not purely adversarial; rather, it fueled a period of remarkable creativity and intellectual flourishing, which laid the foundations of European civilization, the West, and, to a certain extent, modernity.

In this environment, philosophical thought, mathematics, the arts, and scientific inquiry all thrived. The great works of Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, and Hippocrates emerged from a rich intellectual exchange between these city-states, with each one influencing and challenging the others. There was no single, centralized authority imposing uniformity on the entire Greek world. This decentralization allowed for a vibrant intellectual climate that fostered debate and innovation without the stifling constraints of a unified empire. Greek culture did not simply survive; it flourished precisely because it was allowed to compete and diversify within a system of many voices.

This pattern of decentralized power and competition continued to shape Europe throughout its history, particularly after the fall of the Roman Empire. In the centuries that followed, Europe became a patchwork of kingdoms, city-states, and principalities, each with its own political and cultural identity. Unlike the Roman Empire, which imposed uniformity through centralized bureaucracy, post-Roman Europe was fragmented but dynamic. This fragmentation, though often marked by conflict, ultimately created a fertile environment for progress in science, technology, trade, and political institutions.

The competition between feudal kingdoms, as well as between city-states, spurred advances in commerce, navigation, and the arts. The Renaissance period, in particular, saw intense rivalry between various European powers active on the Italian peninsula, in Northern Europe up to the Baltic Sea, within the Holy Roman Empire, and in France, Spain, and England—leading to an explosion of intellectual and artistic achievements.

The competition was not only military or economic; it was also intellectual and cultural. Universities in different parts of Europe competed to attract the brightest minds, and patrons of the arts vied to sponsor the most revolutionary artists and thinkers. Figures like Copernicus, Erasmus, and Leonardo da Vinci were products of this environment, where ideas were constantly challenged and refined through competition.

In the modern era, the birth of nation-states in the 19th century further institutionalized competitive polycentrism. European powers vied for political and economic dominance, and this rivalry became the engine of industrialization, colonial expansion, and scientific discovery. The competitive pressures between countries pushed innovation to new heights, from the development of steam engines and the telephone to breakthroughs in medicine and physics. The more decentralized and competitive the system, the more progress and innovation flourished.

Thus, Europe's historical trajectory was marked by competitive polycentrism—a system where multiple centers of power interacted, often in rivalry, but often in a way that promoted growth and change. This system prevented stagnation, as no single entity could impose a one-size-fits-all solution. The result was a Europe that continually reinvented itself, driving forward scientific, cultural, and political evolution.

The principle of competitive polycentrism is not just an artifact of European history; it holds significant relevance for the contemporary world. In today's globalized landscape, the world is increasingly multipolar. There are multiple centers of power, whether political, economic, or cultural, that coexist and interact on the global stage. The United States, China, the European Union, Japan, India, and other rising powers each hold varying degrees of influence, and this diversity can be seen as a modern manifestation of competitive polycentrism.

In this new era, the idea of a singular, all-encompassing global empire is unrealistic and, perhaps more importantly, undesirable. A global empire, governed by a single authority, could impose uniformity, stifling creativity and innovation. Historically, empires that sought to impose absolute homogeneity often led to stagnation, as seen in the later stages of the Roman Empire or in the bureaucratic systems of the Soviet Union. The centralization of power in such systems tends to crush dissent and creativity, and progress slows as a result.

On the other hand, complete fragmentation without a framework of cooperation can lead to destructive conflict, as seen in many parts of the world where rival powers clash over resources, ideologies, or territorial claims. However, competitive polycentrism, as a principle, offers a middle ground. It allows for healthy competition between powers while promoting cooperation and respect for diversity. This system encourages innovation without risking the collapse of the entire global order.

It must be emphasized that the undeniable rivalry between the United States and China, for example, need not result in war or widespread economic instability. The notions of a new Cold War or the Thucydides Trap are merely narratives, among others, and do not necessarily reflect reality. Instead, Sino-US competitive coexistence could fuel a race for technological innovation, with each nation striving to outdo the other in fields such as artificial intelligence, quantum, space exploration, and renewable energy. These rivalries could act as a powerful engine for global progress, as long as they are tempered by diplomacy, cooperation, and a long-term perspective that humanity is the true horizon.

Just as the competition among European city-states, kingdoms, and nations led to scientific discoveries and artistic achievements, global competition can help address the world's most pressing challenges, from environmental problems to finding new cures for human diseases, without neglecting poverty alleviation and growing inequalities. A world with many competing centers could drive more creative solutions, as each region brings its own perspective and expertise to the table.

It is often said that the uncertainties of geopolitics are back. But geopolitical tensions do not have to lead to regression; they can also result in collective advancement. From this perspective, it is highly valuable to embrace the lessons of competitive polycentrism. In a world where multiple centers of power coexist and compete, humanity has the potential to reach new heights of progress—provided that competition does not evolve into destructive conflict.