Human Development Report?
>
> I recently came across HDR 1999, p. 67, that refers to global
> concentration ratios of the top 10 firms, 1998: commercial seed: 32% of
> $23b, 35% for pharma., vet medicine 60%, computers almost 70%, pesticides
> 85% and telecomm. more than 86%.
>
>
>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Anthony P. D'Costa
> Associate Professor Ph: (253) 692-4462
> Comparative International Development Fax: (253) 692-5718
> University of Washington Box Number: 358436
> 1900 Commerce Street
> Tacoma, WA 98402, USA
>
>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:21:34 -0400
> > From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [PEN-L:22235] Re: Re: query
> >
> > Michael Perelman wrote:
> >
> > >Interesting question. Wouldn't that be very difficult to track over time
> > >now with all the spin offs and strategic combinations?
> > >
> > >Rudy Fichtenbaum wrote:
> > >
> > >> Can anyone point me in the direction of some data on the growing
> > >> concentration of capital in the U.S.? I would also like some data on
> > > > the number of mergers.
> >
> > What do you mean by "concentration of capital"? Of ownership? Share
> > of product markets? On the latter, see an article in the current
> > Harvard Business Review
> > <http://www.hbsp.harvard.edu/products/hbr/julaug00/R00405.html>,
> > which reports no increasing concentration of market share:
> >
> > >The Dubious Logic of Global Megamergers
> > >
> > >by Pankaj Ghemawat and Fariborz Ghadar
> > >
> > >The almost universal belief among executives today is that bigger is
> > >better: companies are entering into huge, pricey cross-border
> > >mergers at an unprecedented rate. Common wisdom is that industries
> > >will become more concentrated as they become more global. This idea
> > >has persistently dominated business -- from Karl Marx's "one
> > >capitalist kills many" theory to the more recent "one, two, or three
> > >shall dominate" logic put forth by business practitioners.
> > >
> > >In this article, the authors debunk the myth of increased
> > >concentration; the perceived links between the globalization of an
> > >industry and the concentration of that industry are weak. Empirical
> > >research shows that global -- or globalizing -- industries have
> > >actually been marked by steady decreases in concentration since
> > >World War II. The authors present the biases that managers often
> > >have about consolidation and offer alternative strategies to
> > >pursuing the big M&A deal. There are better, more profitable ways of
> > >dealing with globalization than relentless expansion, they say.
> > >
> > >Those strategies include buying up cast-off assets from merging
> > >rivals; focusing more on domestic or regional growth rather than on
> > >global expansion; taking advantage of merging rivals' weakened
> > >market position during integration and launching an aggressive
> > >marketing campaign; and building alliances with other companies
> > >rather than buying them up.
> > >
> > >In an era that is witnessing technological discontinuities, managers
> > >shouldn't focus on size as a goal; instead, they should focus on the
> > >development of new business models that help them compete.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Doug Henwood
> > Left Business Observer
> > Village Station - PO Box 953
> > New York NY 10014-0704 USA
> > +1-212-741-9852 voice +1-212-807-9152 fax
> > email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html>
> >
> >
>
>
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
