In this blog post, we’ll examine the pros and cons of competition and cooperation, and explore how sustainable social development is possible when these two approaches work in harmony.
Why has competition become a fundamental principle of society?
Today, we live in a competition-driven era. Students compete with one another each semester to earn good grades, and companies compete through their products and marketing strategies to gain a competitive edge in the market. We have come to naturally accept that competition distinguishes winners from losers, determines appropriate rewards, and serves as a standard for evaluating the capabilities of individuals or groups. Most of the resources people desire—such as wealth, desirable jobs, and attractive spouses—are limited, and using competition as a criterion for distributing these resources appears, to a certain extent, reasonable.
Furthermore, competition serves as a stimulus to increase the productivity of individuals. To increase productivity—that is, the efficiency of output relative to labor input—stimuli such as coercion or motivation are necessary, and many people know from experience that a reward system based on competition is a sustainable and effective method. Given that terms such as “interpersonal competition,” “corporate competitiveness,” and “national competitiveness” are widely used, it can be said that competition is recognized as one of the fundamental principles of social development.
However, even while acknowledging the benefits of competition, it is difficult to view it as the best solution to all problems. This is because competition inevitably creates both winners and losers. While the effort to avoid becoming a loser can serve as an incentive for participants and boost overall efficiency, it is also inevitable that some will fall behind in the process, which gives rise to various social problems.
A prime example is the series of suicides among students at KAIST, a prestigious South Korean university, in 2011. At the time, there was widespread public debate that various policies—such as the tuition fee system and the expansion of English-language courses—had placed a heavy burden on students. However, it is difficult to attribute the cause of this incident to a single policy; it is also necessary to consider that a complex interplay of various factors—including the educational environment, the culture of competition, and personal factors—played a role.
Of course, the KAIST case is a relatively extreme example when discussing competition. However, even without citing this specific instance, many of us have likely experienced a sense of exhaustion—wondering, “Is this really the only way?”—due to the constant competition we face in school, the workplace, and social life. These experiences alone provide sufficient grounds for the need to find ways to mitigate competition or explore new paths for development.
Just as countless human institutions have drawn inspiration from nature, competition is not a new concept either. Living organisms in nature—including animals, plants, and fungi—have evolved through constant competition for survival. Carnivores compete with other predators for prey, while herbivores compete with other herds to secure food. Plants also compete with neighboring plants for sunlight and nutrients, and some even secrete substances that inhibit the growth of other plants.
The idea that competition is a principle of survival originating in nature is largely based on Charles Darwin’s book ‘On the Origin of Species’. In Chapter 3 of this book, Darwin presented the principle of natural selection by explaining how, in the struggle for survival, individuals with advantageous traits survive and pass those traits on to the next generation.
“In the struggle for existence, any variation that is even slightly advantageous to an individual increases that individual’s chances of survival in a complex environment, and such traits are generally passed on to its offspring. I call this principle ‘natural selection’ to distinguish it from human selection.”
In other words, Darwin explained that individuals possessing traits advantageous for survival survived, passing those traits on to subsequent generations, and that this process has created species diversity. For this reason, ‘On the Origin of Species’ has often been cited as the basis for arguments emphasizing competition.
However, we must exercise some caution regarding interpretations that conclude, based on ‘On the Origin of Species’, that competition is a fundamental principle of nature. In particular, it has long been pointed out in South Korea that a misunderstanding stemming from the translation process has existed for some time. If we examine Darwin’s original text, the title of Chapter 3 is “Struggle for Existence,” and a literal translation of this is closer to “struggle for survival” or “struggle to survive” rather than “competition for survival.”
Darwin explains in that chapter as follows:
“… All these results, as we shall see more fully in the next chapter, follow inevitably from the struggle for life. Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. …” C. Darwin, ‘The Origin of Species’, Chapter 3, “Struggle for Existence”
Furthermore, a review of Chapter 3 as a whole reveals that the term “struggle” is used far more frequently than “competition.” Considering this, the prevailing interpretation today is that Darwin emphasized not mere competition itself, but rather the various adaptive processes necessary for survival.
Nevertheless, in Western society thereafter, this concept was broadly interpreted as social Darwinism, and the phrase “survival of the fittest” was even used as a rationale to justify competition between societies and nations. In particular, the forced application of biological evolutionary concepts to social phenomena—especially to justify imperialism, colonialism, and racism—has historically drawn significant criticism. This reminds us once again of the limitations of competition: accepting it as the sole principle governing society risks creating a logic in which the winners dominate the losers.
The argument that the principles of social development cannot be explained by competition alone has been raised for a long time. In his work ‘Mutual Aid’, the Russian thinker Kropotkin argued that mutual aid through cooperation and solidarity played a crucial role in the evolution of human society and living organisms. He explained that species that help and cooperate with one another had an advantage in survival and prosperity, and that such mutual aid is confirmed by biological and historical examples.
Mutual aid can also be described as a symbiotic or cooperative relationship, and it is easily observable in our surroundings. Representative examples include the relationship between organisms that clean the bodies or teeth of large animals and their hosts, the symbiosis between corals and fish, and cases where productivity was increased through cooperation, such as medieval guilds and associations. When two or more members cooperate rather than acting alone, they can compensate for each other’s weaknesses and maximize their strengths. Furthermore, since mutual aid aims for shared achievement rather than victory or defeat, it does not necessarily result in losers or those left behind, as is often the case in competition.
When comparing competition and cooperation in this way, cooperation may seem like the more ideal approach. In fact, we have long known from experience that cooperation is just as important as competition. So why have we come to live in a society centered on competition rather than cooperation?
First, this is because most of the resources that people desire are limited. While it would be ideal if everyone could obtain as many resources as they wanted through cooperation alone, reality often does not work that way. Just because everyone studies hard does not mean they can all get into the university of their choice, and just because everyone works hard does not mean everyone will become wealthy. Of course, this explanation is the most basic logic emphasizing the necessity of competition, but since it risks falling into circular reasoning, it is difficult to justify competition based on this alone.
A more practical reason lies in the methods of evaluation. Competition provides relatively clear results. There are clear winners and losers, and achievements can be quantified and ranked. In modern society, where the sharing and exchange of information is active, these quantified results are easy to use and persuasive to the public. In contrast, it is difficult to clearly distinguish the individual contributions of each participant in cooperation. The outcomes of cooperation often result from the collective efforts of all members, and measuring individual contributions accurately requires highly sophisticated criteria. Furthermore, since the process of cooperation involves various elements that are difficult to quantify, it is not easy to evaluate them objectively. Ultimately, the very act of overly scrutinizing individual contributions can lead to yet another form of competition, which may undermine the original meaning of cooperation.
The second reason is that competition and cooperation motivate people in different ways. In competition, the fear of falling behind and the desire to secure greater rewards serve as key motivators. If everyone received the same reward regardless of their effort, a significant number of people would be reluctant to put in extra effort. In contrast, voluntary participation by members is paramount in cooperation. Since cooperative relationships are often formed based on the judgment that they are mutually beneficial, as long as there are minimal rules and agreements in place to prevent the relationship from degenerating into one where only one side benefits, the members’ voluntary participation plays a greater role than external coercion.
In other words, extrinsic motivation plays a relatively more important role in competition, while intrinsic motivation plays a relatively more important role in cooperation. This difference also has a significant impact on the conditions under which the two approaches can be established. In modern society, where the pace of change is rapid and interpersonal relationships are short-lived, it is not easy to build cooperative relationships in which members fully share their mutual interests. On the other hand, the method of selecting the most outstanding individuals through competition for a limited number of positions—which many people desire—is relatively easier to implement.
However, this does not mean that competition must be accepted as inevitable. While cooperation is a way for everyone to grow together, it can sometimes be at a disadvantage compared to competition in terms of the pace of change or efficiency. Conversely, while competition can enhance the dynamism of society as a whole, it has the limitation of creating those who fall behind. Therefore, modern society is striving to mitigate the negative effects of competition through social security and welfare systems. Furthermore, as evidenced by the experiences of various countries that adopted planned economic systems in the past, it is a historical fact that economic systems in which competition was excessively excluded also revealed numerous limitations.
Therefore, summarizing the discussion so far, it is more reasonable to understand competition and cooperation as complementary rather than opposing concepts. One of the most important principles humans can learn from nature is that we have adapted to environmental changes through diverse survival strategies. Similarly, neither competition nor cooperation is the sole correct answer; rather, when these two approaches are appropriately balanced, they can further enhance the sustainability and development potential of society as a whole. Natural selection, as explained by Darwin, was also the result of various adaptive processes for survival, and in that process, not only competition but also cooperation and symbiosis have played important roles.
Is a society where competition and cooperation are in harmony possible?
Finland’s education policy serves as an example of a system where competition and cooperation have been successfully balanced. However, since this manuscript was written, the Finnish education system has undergone several changes, and its current form differs somewhat from what it was at that time. Nevertheless, its fundamental philosophy—equal educational opportunities, cooperation among students, and a high degree of teacher autonomy—is still regarded as a key characteristic.
Over a long period of educational reform, Finland has established an educational environment at the compulsory education level that prioritizes cooperation and equality over competition among students. The goal was to raise overall academic standards by providing early support to students falling behind and encouraging students to learn from and cooperate with one another. In contrast, at the higher education level, education and assessment are designed to enable students to demonstrate a higher level of expertise and competitiveness based on their individual aptitudes and abilities. This balance has long been highlighted in assessments such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and has been a key factor in the global attention Finland’s education system has received.
However, there are clear reasons why these principles are not widely implemented in practice. Human greed, institutional limitations, the inertia of existing systems, and resistance to change all make it difficult to strike a balance between competition and cooperation. While competition allows for visible results within a relatively short period, cooperation requires a long-term process of building trust and establishing institutional frameworks. Expanding a culture of cooperation in a society already centered on competition demands continuous consensus and patience from its members. The fact that Finland’s educational reforms were not achieved overnight but were implemented gradually over a long period clearly illustrates this point.
Of course, such change is by no means easy. However, if we abandon change simply because of the difficulties involved, a society that prioritizes competition alone is likely to eventually hit a wall in its growth. The reason living organisms have been able to survive in an ever-changing natural world is that they have adapted to their environment rather than clinging to a single approach. Human society, too, can build a more sustainable and healthy society not by treating either competition or cooperation as an absolute principle, but by developing in a way where the two elements complement each other.
