You are on page 1of 9

Smith 1

Karissa Smith
Competition in America Assessed
According to Kohn, competition is mutually exclusive goal attainment (Wray,
2001,62). This definition means in order for one to reach success, another person must fail.
Every day competition occurs in the United States: in sporting games, school, businesses,
between family and friends, and in the political world. A competition can easily be spotted when
a loser comes out of the situation, and almost always competitions have more losers than
winners. More losers generating from competition than winners shows that competition could
create problems and negativity. Americans display a degree of ignorance on the potential effects
of the now central and valued concept of competition. Questioning the benefits of competition
seems senseless because since birth we are told competition is good and natural; however, a
closer look at competition shows America may emphasize this trait too much. Most Americans
accept and extend the conventional view that competition is naturaland seen as good simply
because it is natural, that it builds character, and that is the midwife of progress (Wray, 2001,
63). These conventional views that we have learned may have misguided our society to place a
huge impact on competition, more than any other country, that could hurt not only citizens
individually, but also America as a whole.
Various ideas and perceptions exist across the board on the positive and negative effects
of competition in America. In literature, many sources explain the importance of competition and
the competitive spirit of the United States serving as a vital role in our past and future success.
America in the past has encouraged competition by enacting laws, such as the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890. This act ensured that competition occurred, and private efforts to eliminate
competition shall be prohibited(Lewtin, 1965, 3). The value Americans place on competition as

Smith 2
an integral part of our culture is displayed through this act. Sherman says the act has been used
to oppose the combination of entities that could potentially harm competition, such as
monopolies or cartels(Lewtin, 1965, 10). Americans from 1890 until today want to have high
levels competition and do not want to see it fade away, which is why not only things that harm
competition, but also things that potentially harm competition must be illegal in our society. In
1914, the Clayton Act was enacted and further supported the Sherman Anti-trust Act in ensuring
competition in America remained present and fair (2009, 1). The addition of this Act shows
Americas will continue to enforce and add new laws to keep competition in America occurring.
Many Americans support the purpose of these acts, and believe that safeguarding
competition is necessary to have a progressing country domestically and internationally. In the
speech America in Transition, Baliles states We must develop our best - our entrepreneurial
spirit, our vast resources, our talented people - to build a base of competition for our domestic
markets as a springboard for our efforts elsewhere in the world (1991, 2). This speech shows
that in order for America to be competitive across the nations, we must continue to encourage
competition in our own country, and having a high competitive spirit will only help Americans in
the future. Baliles believes that increasing competition in the United States will lead to further
innovation and progress, which will then lead to further success across the borders (4). Other
academics agree with Baliles, such as Benjamin Ryberg, who states, Preserving competition in
Americas free market economy enables firms to compete even-handedly through innovation,
improving efficiency, and price- cutting. In turn, these firms provide consumers with a wide
range of higher quality, lower cost goods (2010, 528). Deprived of competition, companies
could produce low quality goods, and Americans would buy them because there is nothing else
to buy. As Jacob Morgan says in Why Competition is a Good Thing, without competition Apple

Smith 3
would have never created their iPod, Microsoft would have never created Windows, and Google
would probably be non-existent. Competition is essential because it leads to one very important
thing, innovation (2008, 10).
However, the novel Sense and Non-Sense: American Political Culture and Politics
presents an argument explaining the negative components of Americans idealized competitive
concept and refutes areas of the concept with support of other credible academics. Innovation
could be prohibited because of information hoarding that occurs with increased competition.
Two companies might each have solved a piece of the puzzle, but without sharing information,
the puzzles answer remains a mystery(Wray, 2001, 76). As society faces more difficult tasks,
such as finding a cure for cancer, cooperation should occur between researchers to compile
pieces of the puzzle, rather than keep the pieces separated through competition. In order for this
compilation of the pieces, the old use of monopolies, now illegal because of the Sherman Antitrust Act, would have to become legal again. Also, people most qualified for a job or sports team
may not apply or tryout for the job/team because people hoard the information about the job
interview or tryout. People hoard this information because they want to have a better chance to
win. This hoarding potentially halts innovation, rather than furthering it because the sharing of
ideas is decreased.
The idea that Americans produce higher quality products and enhance the economy
because of competition is also a misconception. For example, GE is a successful business, but
with fewer than half its workers based in the United States and less than half its revenues coming
from U.S. operations, G.E.s fortunes have very little to do with U.S. prosperity (Krugman,
2011, 1). Since businesses always need to get ahead and beat someone out they use methods that
could hurt Americans and the American economy. Competition encourages more business that in

Smith 4
turn creates more jobs. However, business want to get the most work for the least amount of
money to remain competitive, which leads to downsizing and outsourcing that in turn creates less
jobs for Americans. The fact that externalities and political economy factors can produce
negative welfare effects in regulatory competition shows that enforcing competition does not
always produce the best outcome (Stephen, 2013, 5). A vicious cycle exists where too much
competing, which makes people use any means necessary to win, can be harmful, and at the
same time having no competition may cause Americans to become complacent and stagnant.
It is truly difficult to accurately measure the large role competition plays in the United
States, except by the fact that it is everywhere. We see it in the electoral vote, family homes,
sports games, colleges, and businesses domestically and internationally. This broad way of
measurement however, only measures how prevalent this concept is in America, and does not
measure if Americans incorporating competition with everything is good or bad.
However, we can attempt to measure the negative effects of competition through research
that shows competition negatively affects humans individually, in turn hurting the human race as
a whole. After reviewing numerous studies from 1924 to 1980, a professor at the University of
Minnesota, David Johnson discovered sixty-five of the studies found that children learn better
when they work cooperatively as opposed to competitively, eight found the reverse, and 36 found
no significant difference. The more complex the learning task, the worse children in a
competitive environment fared(Kohn, 1987, 2). Another research study showed that creativity is
diminished with the addition of competition. Through Brandeis University psychologist Teresa
Amabiles study competition shows a inverse relationship with creativity. Amabile concluded
the children who were trying to win produced collages that were much less creative -- less
spontaneous, complex and varied -- than the others(Kohn, 1987, 3). Also, the WOFOwork

Smith 5
and family orientedscale measures three areas: mastery that measured the preference for
challenging tasks, work orientation that measured the desire to work hard, and competitiveness
that measured the desire to win (Wray 73). People are ranked on each area after a series of
questions, and it has been used to measure affects of competition in students and the business
world. A study involving students places 1,300 college students on this scale their first year in
college, and the results showed that students scoring low on all three groups has the lowest
GPAs. Students whose GPAs were highest scored high in Work and Mastery scales, but low on
competition. This group did better than those scoring high on all three scales (Wray, 2001, 73).
This study shows that competition is not needed to be successful, and students are more
successful without it. Businessman were also held in another study using the WOFO scale, and
once again showed the negative relationship between competitiveness and attainment (Wray 73).
The individual problems that arise from competition have an affect on humans at a collective
level. Sociologist Rosabeth Moss Kantor investigated the competitive model in corporations and
revealed much inefficacy, including widespread shirking, and hoarding informationas well as
people being nervous, anxious, and resentful(Wray, 2001 ,76).
Through sports Americans can see competition creates unnecessary problems. The
NCAA has dealt with various unfair recruitment problems, and teams cheating to win. The
reason the cheating and unfairness occur is due to the high importance our society puts on
winning. A recent case at Indiana University depicts two freshman athletes, Peter Jurkin and
Hanner Perea, who received between $6,000 to $8,000 dollars during recruiting visits illegally
because of the schools competitive drive to get these two good players (NCAA 1). These cases
happen often in college sports because every University wants to bring in the best players to
improve the teams chances of being competitive in their league, regionally, and nationally.

Smith 6
Competition virtually has endless impacts on our society. The golden rule taught to
kindergarteners do unto others as you would want others to do unto you, changes as one
matures and realizes the golden rule our society now follows is do unto others before they do
unto you(Wray, 2001, 63) Competition has enforced this new golden rule and since Americans
cherish competition, the rule does not appear un-moral to many Americans. In order for more
people to recognize the common sense they believe they have about competition is flawed
more research must be done. More research on enhancing cooperation and decreasing
competition affects should be done to determine if cooperation should become a more prominent
part of American culture over time than competition. Thinking of a society with no competition
seems un-feasible, and more evidence must be given in order to change the conventional thought.
According to Hubert Spencer, state aid to the poor was pernicious because it weakened the
species by artificially supporting those who could not compete (Wray, 2001, 64). Today
America unknowingly shows the hidden fear and discomfort of competition by allowing people
to file for bankruptcy, supporting the poor, having social welfare, and other social programs that
all basically help the weak. These programs our society implements serve as a failure cushion.
It encourages one to try because the government will help one escape his or her failure.
Whether Americans believe competition is good or bad, it still exists in every aspect of
human life and American citizens build their life around competition. Political parties compete
against one another to win elections. Businesses compete for the consumers dollar. Sports teams
compete for the national trophy. Employees compete for the newest promotion. Students
compete for the highest grade and acceptance into the most revered institutions. Schools compete
for the top students and faculty. Children compete to win the board game against their friends.

Smith 7
Overall no matter what age, race, political party an American is a part of, competition will play a
role in various aspects of their life until death because of the American culture.

References/ Works Cited

Smith 8

Allen, Franklin, and Douglas Gale. "Competition and Financial Stability." Journal Of Money,
Credit & Banking (Ohio State University Press) 36, no. 3 (June 2, 2004): 453-480. Business
Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed April 24, 2013).
Baliles, Gerald L. 1991. "America in Transition." Vital Speeches Of The Day 57, no. 11: 337342. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed April 18, 2013)
Kohn, Alfie. "The Case Against Competition." Alfie Kohn Homepage. Sept. 1987. Web. 05 Apr.
2011.
Krugman, Paul. January 23, 2011. The Competition Myth New York Times.
Lewtin, Williams. Law and Economic Policy in America: The Evolution of the Sherman Antitrust
Act. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965.
Morgan, Jacob. "Why Competition Is a Good Thing." 11 Feb. 2008. Web. 05 Apr. 2011.
NCAA. 2012. NCAA appeals committee decides IU case. Latest News.
Ryberg, Benjamin. 2010. "PRO-COMPETITIVE OR PROTECTIVE? THE CHINESE ANTIMONOPOLY LAW, IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES, AND BILATERAL
ANTITRUST COOPERATION AS AN EFFECTIVE RESPONSE." Cardozo Journal Of
International & Comparative Law 18, no. 2: 527-560. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost
(accessed April 18, 2013).
Shilbury, David. 2012. "Competition: The Heart and Soul of Sport Management." Journal Of
Sport Management 26, no. 1: 1-10. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed April 24,
2013).
Shufeldt, Gregory, and Patrick Flavin. 2012. "Two Distinct Concepts: Party Competition in
Government and Electoral Competition in the American States." State Politics & Policy
Quarterly 12, no. 3: 330-342. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed April 24,
2013).
Stephan, Paul B. 2013. "Regulatory Competition and Anticorruption Law." Virginia Journal Of
International Law 53, no. 1: 53-70. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed April 20,
2013).
Wray, Harry J. Sense and Non-Sense: American Culture and Politics. New Jersey: Prentice Hall,
2001.
2009. "Clayton Anti-Trust Act of 1914." Clayton Anti-Trust Act Of 1914 1. Academic Search
Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed April 20, 2013).

Smith 9

You might also like