Why I picked up:
The column of Schumpeter has an article of “Big and clever” last year.
It suggests large firms are often more inventive than small ones. I was
interested because this suggestion is differ from our normal perspective. We
tend to think innovation comes from small firms or periphery. Economically, big is beautiful but big firms often become
bureaucratic, inefficient and slow to make decisions. As a consumer, there is
only one conclusion: Nothing ever gets better by becoming bigger.
Discussion
1.Do you think it’s true that large firms
are more attractive than small ones?
2.Do you think large can firms make or
adopt disruptive innovation?
The economist point of view:
The popular fetish for small business is at odds with economic reality.
Big firms are generally more productive, offer higher wages and pay more
taxes than small ones. Economies dominated by small firms are often
sluggish.
1. Greece has lots
of small firms and failed its economy. Firms with at least 250 workers account
for less than half the share of manufacturing jobs in these countries than they
do in Germany.
2. Big firms can reap economies of scale. Manufacturers in Europe with 250 or more workers are
30-40% more productive than “micro” firms with fewer than ten employees.
Everyone might think small firms
create more jobs than big ones. But many small businesses stay small
indefinitely. Only new start-ups create new jobs. so
The Economist suggests:
1. Policymakers
should look at growth rather than focusing on size.
2. Governments
should concentrate on removing
barriers to expansion, rather than spooning out subsidies and regulatory
favours to small firms.
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿