The world is going through the biggest wave of mergers and acquisitions ever witnessed. The process sweeps from hyperactive America to Europe and reaches the emerging countries with unsurpassed might. Many in these countries are looking at this process and worrying: “Won't the wave of business concentration turn into an uncontrollable anti-competitive force?"
There's no question that the big are getting bigger and more powerful. Multinational corporations accounted for less than 20% of international trade in 1982. Today the figure is more than 25% and growing rapidly. International affiliates account for a fast-growing segment of production in economies that open up and welcome foreign investment. In Argentina, for instance, after the reforms of the early 1990s, multinationals went from 43% to almost 70% of the industrial production of the 200 largest firms. This phenomenon has created serious concerns over the role of smaller economic firms, of national businessmen and over the ultimate stability of the world economy.
I believe that the most important forces behind the massive M&A wave are the same that underlie the globalization process: falling transportation and communication costs, lower trade and investment barriers and enlarged markets that require enlarged operations capable of meeting customers' demands. All these are beneficial, not detrimental, to consumers. As productivity grows, the world's wealth increases.
Examples of benefits or costs of the current concentration wave are scanty. Yet it is hard to imagine that the merger of a few oil firms today could re-create the same threats to competition that were feared nearly a century ago in the U.S., when the Standard Oil trust was broken up. The mergers of telecom companies, such as WorldCom, hardly seem to bring higher prices for consumers or a reduction in the pace of technical progress. On the contrary, the price of communications is coming down fast. In cars, too, concentration is increasing—witness Daimler and Chrysler, Renault and Nissan—but it does not appear that consumers are being hurt.
Yet the fact remains that the merger movement must be watched. A few weeks ago, Alan Greenspan warned against the megamergers in the banking industry. Who is going to supervise, regulate and operate as lender of last resort with the gigantic banks that are being created? Won't multinationals shift production from one place to another when a nation gets too strict about infringements to fair competition? And should one country take upon itself the role of “defending competition" on issues that affect many other nations, as in the U.S. vs. Microsoft case?
全文翻譯
世界正在經(jīng)歷一場(chǎng)前所未有的的的并購浪潮。這個(gè)浪潮從異?；钴S的美國開始，橫掃歐洲，并以不可比擬的威力影響到正在崛起的國家。這些國家的許多人面對(duì)這個(gè)浪潮，倍感憂慮：“商業(yè)集中的浪潮會(huì)不會(huì)演變成一股無法控制的反競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的力量？”
無疑，大企業(yè)正在變得更大、更強(qiáng)。1982年，跨國公司占國際貿(mào)易不到20％的份額。而如今，這個(gè)數(shù)字已經(jīng)超過25％，并且還在迅速上升。在那些對(duì)外開放并鼓勵(lì)外資的經(jīng)濟(jì)體中，國際分公司在生產(chǎn)中也正占據(jù)一個(gè)越來越大的份額。比如，在阿根廷，經(jīng)過90年代初的改革之后，跨國公司在200家大型企業(yè)的工業(yè)生產(chǎn)中從43％增加到幾乎70％。這個(gè)現(xiàn)象使人們開始重視小型企業(yè)和民族資本的作用以及世界經(jīng)濟(jì)的最終穩(wěn)定。
我認(rèn)為，日趨下降的運(yùn)輸與通訊費(fèi)用，較低的貿(mào)易與投資壁壘，以及市場(chǎng)的擴(kuò)大和為滿足市場(chǎng)需求而進(jìn)行的擴(kuò)大生產(chǎn)，是推動(dòng)這股巨大的并購浪潮的最主要的力量，也是推動(dòng)全球化進(jìn)程的力量。所有這些對(duì)消費(fèi)者來說都是有益而無害的。隨著生產(chǎn)力的提高，世界的財(cái)富也在增長(zhǎng)。
這股合并浪潮是帶來益處還是弊端的實(shí)例還很少。但是很難想像當(dāng)今的幾個(gè)石油公司的合并能夠再次造成像100年前美國標(biāo)準(zhǔn)石油托拉斯對(duì)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)形成的威脅，人們當(dāng)時(shí)很害怕這家公司，結(jié)果導(dǎo)致了它最終的解散。像世通這樣的通訊公司的合并似乎不會(huì)抬高消費(fèi)價(jià)格，或者減緩技術(shù)進(jìn)步的速度，與之相反的是通信的價(jià)格的快速下降。汽車行業(yè)的合并也同樣在增加——瞧瞧戴姆勒與克萊斯勒，雷諾與尼桑的合并——但看起來消費(fèi)者并未受到傷害。
但是有一個(gè)事實(shí)，那就是合并必須受到密切關(guān)注。就在幾星期以前，格林斯潘對(duì)銀行業(yè)的大規(guī)模合并發(fā)出了警告。正在創(chuàng)建的這樣的巨大的銀行一旦出現(xiàn)，誰來充當(dāng)最終的借貸者，誰來發(fā)揮監(jiān)督、規(guī)范和運(yùn)作的作用呢？當(dāng)一個(gè)國家對(duì)破壞公平競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的行為的處理過于嚴(yán)厲時(shí)，跨國公司會(huì)不會(huì)把它們的生產(chǎn)從一地轉(zhuǎn)到另一地呢？在那些將會(huì)影響許多其他國家的問題上，一個(gè)國家是否應(yīng)該發(fā)揮“保護(hù)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)”的作用，就如同美國政府對(duì)微軟公司案例那樣？
There's no question that the big are getting bigger and more powerful. Multinational corporations accounted for less than 20% of international trade in 1982. Today the figure is more than 25% and growing rapidly. International affiliates account for a fast-growing segment of production in economies that open up and welcome foreign investment. In Argentina, for instance, after the reforms of the early 1990s, multinationals went from 43% to almost 70% of the industrial production of the 200 largest firms. This phenomenon has created serious concerns over the role of smaller economic firms, of national businessmen and over the ultimate stability of the world economy.
I believe that the most important forces behind the massive M&A wave are the same that underlie the globalization process: falling transportation and communication costs, lower trade and investment barriers and enlarged markets that require enlarged operations capable of meeting customers' demands. All these are beneficial, not detrimental, to consumers. As productivity grows, the world's wealth increases.
Examples of benefits or costs of the current concentration wave are scanty. Yet it is hard to imagine that the merger of a few oil firms today could re-create the same threats to competition that were feared nearly a century ago in the U.S., when the Standard Oil trust was broken up. The mergers of telecom companies, such as WorldCom, hardly seem to bring higher prices for consumers or a reduction in the pace of technical progress. On the contrary, the price of communications is coming down fast. In cars, too, concentration is increasing—witness Daimler and Chrysler, Renault and Nissan—but it does not appear that consumers are being hurt.
Yet the fact remains that the merger movement must be watched. A few weeks ago, Alan Greenspan warned against the megamergers in the banking industry. Who is going to supervise, regulate and operate as lender of last resort with the gigantic banks that are being created? Won't multinationals shift production from one place to another when a nation gets too strict about infringements to fair competition? And should one country take upon itself the role of “defending competition" on issues that affect many other nations, as in the U.S. vs. Microsoft case?
全文翻譯
世界正在經(jīng)歷一場(chǎng)前所未有的的的并購浪潮。這個(gè)浪潮從異?；钴S的美國開始，橫掃歐洲，并以不可比擬的威力影響到正在崛起的國家。這些國家的許多人面對(duì)這個(gè)浪潮，倍感憂慮：“商業(yè)集中的浪潮會(huì)不會(huì)演變成一股無法控制的反競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的力量？”
無疑，大企業(yè)正在變得更大、更強(qiáng)。1982年，跨國公司占國際貿(mào)易不到20％的份額。而如今，這個(gè)數(shù)字已經(jīng)超過25％，并且還在迅速上升。在那些對(duì)外開放并鼓勵(lì)外資的經(jīng)濟(jì)體中，國際分公司在生產(chǎn)中也正占據(jù)一個(gè)越來越大的份額。比如，在阿根廷，經(jīng)過90年代初的改革之后，跨國公司在200家大型企業(yè)的工業(yè)生產(chǎn)中從43％增加到幾乎70％。這個(gè)現(xiàn)象使人們開始重視小型企業(yè)和民族資本的作用以及世界經(jīng)濟(jì)的最終穩(wěn)定。
我認(rèn)為，日趨下降的運(yùn)輸與通訊費(fèi)用，較低的貿(mào)易與投資壁壘，以及市場(chǎng)的擴(kuò)大和為滿足市場(chǎng)需求而進(jìn)行的擴(kuò)大生產(chǎn)，是推動(dòng)這股巨大的并購浪潮的最主要的力量，也是推動(dòng)全球化進(jìn)程的力量。所有這些對(duì)消費(fèi)者來說都是有益而無害的。隨著生產(chǎn)力的提高，世界的財(cái)富也在增長(zhǎng)。
這股合并浪潮是帶來益處還是弊端的實(shí)例還很少。但是很難想像當(dāng)今的幾個(gè)石油公司的合并能夠再次造成像100年前美國標(biāo)準(zhǔn)石油托拉斯對(duì)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)形成的威脅，人們當(dāng)時(shí)很害怕這家公司，結(jié)果導(dǎo)致了它最終的解散。像世通這樣的通訊公司的合并似乎不會(huì)抬高消費(fèi)價(jià)格，或者減緩技術(shù)進(jìn)步的速度，與之相反的是通信的價(jià)格的快速下降。汽車行業(yè)的合并也同樣在增加——瞧瞧戴姆勒與克萊斯勒，雷諾與尼桑的合并——但看起來消費(fèi)者并未受到傷害。
但是有一個(gè)事實(shí)，那就是合并必須受到密切關(guān)注。就在幾星期以前，格林斯潘對(duì)銀行業(yè)的大規(guī)模合并發(fā)出了警告。正在創(chuàng)建的這樣的巨大的銀行一旦出現(xiàn)，誰來充當(dāng)最終的借貸者，誰來發(fā)揮監(jiān)督、規(guī)范和運(yùn)作的作用呢？當(dāng)一個(gè)國家對(duì)破壞公平競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的行為的處理過于嚴(yán)厲時(shí)，跨國公司會(huì)不會(huì)把它們的生產(chǎn)從一地轉(zhuǎn)到另一地呢？在那些將會(huì)影響許多其他國家的問題上，一個(gè)國家是否應(yīng)該發(fā)揮“保護(hù)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)”的作用，就如同美國政府對(duì)微軟公司案例那樣？