Publicité
Emerging multinational giants
Conspiracy theories often paint a picture of a world controlled by trans-national corporations, where politicians are mere stooges of a handful of private companies. In such a scenario, the people are reduced to mere customers, often controlled via the media, themselves often a tentacle of these few world rulers. This type of dystopia often funds an outlet on many websites on the Internet. But the development of multinationals in the second half of the 20th century raises a few interesting questions.
As we saw last week, Mauritius is not completely sheltered from the wheeling and dealings of the corporate world. Total gulped down ExxonMobil’s operations not only in the country but in 14 other African countries. This meant that the fourth largest oil company worldwide ate a chunk out of its biggest rival.
Suddenly, the French consortium became the second major petrol company in Mauritius and the 15th biggest overall. Such mergers have been taking place all over the world. For example, we all remember how France Telecom suddenly became a major player in the Mauritian market by acquiring a large share of Mauritius Telecom, then one of the most profitable State companies.
Similarly, around the globe, corporations have become serial shoppers. This year, for example, one of the biggest mergers was the acquisition of Gillette by Procter & Gamble (P&G) for $57 billion. Adidas’ hunger for market domination meant that it swallowed Reebok in a €3.1 billion deal. According to The Economist, there were 2 251 mergers and acquisitions involving European companies from January 1st to August 15th this year, for a total of $ 286.6 billion.
<B> Trillion-dollar deals
French companies were the most promiscuous in the market with $59.5 billion worth of acquisitions. The Americans followed next, with $55.6 billion, with the Italians a distant third at less than half that sum. European mergers account for one-third of worldwide deals, leaving the Americans two-thirds of the market. According to the magazine, if there is another mega deal this year, total transactions could attain $1 trillion for the first time since the turn of the millennium.
However, the sums are far from the lofty heights of the late 1990s. In 1999 alone, according to the Worldwatch Institute, mergers and acquisitions were worth $3.4 trillion, a third more than in 1998. There were 32 000 deals, thrice more than at the turn of that decade and 30 times as many as in 1981. But then the dotcom crash came and slammed on the brakes, bringing the corporate merry-go-round to a virtual standstill.
The new millennium was still in its cradle when two of the biggest deals took place in 2000. Time-Warner merged with America Online (AOL) for $165 billion and British Vodafone found a German partner in Mannesmann in a $183 billion deal. Both our friends, Total and ExxonMobil, were created through mergers and acquisitions. Exxon reportedly purchased Mobil for a cool $86 billion according to Worldwatch Institute. Total itself is the result of a marriage between Total, Petrofina and Elf-Aquitaine.
But what is the result of this jolly crowd coming together? According to research carried out by Corporate Watch in 2000, of the top 100 economies in the world, 51 are trans-national corporations and the other 49 are countries. The combined sales of the top 200 firms outstrip the economies of all countries except the biggest nine. This means that 182 national economies are left behind. Back then, Mitsubishi had a bigger economy than Indonesia, the fourth most populous country on the planet. Wal-Mart, the U.S retail giant, stood atop 161 countries, including Israel, Poland and Greece. Ford dwarfed the African country with the biggest Gross Domestic Product (GDP), South Africa.
Not only are the top companies getting obese in size, but the quality of their growth is also alarming. Increasingly, they are diversifying their portfolio to include different types of industry. Today, the same company that manufactures light bulbs, also provides news on television, as with General Electric, which owns NBC television network. According to Corporate Watch, the five top firms accounted for 30% of global sales in aerospace, airlines, steel, oil, personal computers, chemical and media. This concentration of ownership is set to continue, either through hostile takeovers or through mergers. No other industry reflects the trend more than the media with only five major players left to dominate the market.
Trimmed workforce</B>
But who exactly benefits from these deals? It is certainly not the workers. The top 200 firms, between themselves, employ 18.8 million people, an insignificant fraction among the nearly 2.6 billion labour force worldwide. And we have to remember that many mergers are accompanied by further trimming down of the workforce. For instance, the P&G deal for Gillette saw 6 000 workers - 4% of the 160 000 workforce - laid off. According to Corporate Watch, of the 59 US companies among the top 200, nine of them laid off over 3 000 workers in 1995. But their CEOs saw their stocks rise in value by over $25 million.
These deals often involve a fair whack of dough for the bosses, though some mergers end in fiascos. Take Time Warner, owner of CNN. Five years after its high profile merger with AOL, it is now worth $87 billion, half its value in 2000.
However, the real problem lies not in the economic dimension of the transaction but rather in the political implications. The common people are being marginalised as the CEOs of these companies, with their tight grip on the world economy, will always have the ear of politicians. There is a simple reason for this. Private companies often finance elections, thus keeping the politicians in power. It is always useful to approach large private companies with a healthy dose of scepticism. It would be interesting to know, for example, the kind of political power the top 20 firms in Mauritius wield.
<B>Diren VALAYDEN</B>
<I>Outlook Correspondent in Dublin</I>
Publicité
Publicité
Les plus récents