1996 Text3In the last half of the nineteenth century “capital” and “labour” were enlarging and perfecting their rival organizations on modern lines. Many an old firm was replaced by a limited liability company with a bureaucracy of salaried managers. The change met the technical requirements of the new age by engaging a large professional element and prevented the decline in efficiency that so commonly spoiled the fortunes of family firms in the second and third generation after the energetic founders. It was moreover a step away from individual initiative, towards collectivism and municipal and state-owned business. The railway companies, though still private business managed for the benefit of shareholders, were very unlike old family business. At the same time the great municipalities went into business to supply lighting, trams and other services to the taxpayers.The growth of the limited liability company and municipal business had important consequences. Such large, impersonal manipulation of capital and industry greatly increased the numbers and importance of shareholders as a class, an element in national life representing irresponsible wealth detached from the land and the duties of the landowners; and almost equally detached from the responsible management of business. All through the nineteenth century, America, Africa, India, Australia and parts of Europe were being developed by British capital, and British shareholders were thus enriched by the world’s movement towards industrializa tion. Towns like Bournemouth and Eastbourne sprang up to house large “comfortable” classes who had retired on their incomes, and who had no relation to the rest of the community except that of drawing dividends and occasionally attending a shareholders’ me eting to dictate their orders to the management. On the other hand “shareholding” meant leisure and freedom which was used by many of the later Victorians for the highest purpose of a great civilization.The “shareholders” as such had no knowledge of the l ives, thoughts or needs of the workmen employed by the company in which he held shares, and his influence on the relations of capital and labour was not good. The paid manager acting for the company was in more direct relation with the men and their demands, but even he had seldom that familiar personal knowledge of the workmen which the employer had often had under the more patriarchal system of the old family business now passing away. Indeed the mere size of operations and the numbers of workmen involved rendered such personal relations impossible. Fortunately, however, the increasing power and organization of the trade unions, at least in all skilled trades, enabled the workmen to meet on equal terms the managers of the companies who employed them. The cruel discipline of the strike and lockout taught the two parties to respect each other’s strength and understand the value of fair negotiation.19世纪后半叶，“资方”和“劳方”按现代方式不断扩大并各自完善相互对立的组织。
许多旧式企业被有限责任公司所取代，由领薪经理构成其管理机构。
这种变革通过聘用大量专业人员来适应新时代的技术要求，并防止了效率的降低，而在过去这种低效率使得许多旧式家族企业在精力充沛的创业者之后的第二、三代手中破产倒闭。
而且这也是公司摆脱个体创造力，向集体化和市营、国营迈出的一步。
铁路公司，虽然仍是为股东谋利的私有企业，但还是与旧家族企业大不相同了。
与此同时，大城市的市政府也开始涉足实业界，为纳税人提供照明、电车及其他服务。
有限责任公司及市政企业的发展带来了重大变化。
对资本与企业的如此大规模的非个人操纵大大地增加了持股人作为一个阶层的数量及其重要性。
他们在国民生活中代表着不承担责任的财富，与土地及土地所有者责任相分离，几乎也同样与企业的经营责任相分离。
整个19世纪，美洲、非洲、印度、澳洲及欧洲的部分地区都是靠英国的资本发展起来，而英国股东则因世界性的工业化而大发其财。
像伯恩茅斯和伊斯特本这样的城市的兴起，原因在于给大批“享乐”阶层提供居住场所，这些人不工作却有丰厚的收入，除了领取红利，偶尔参加股东会议向管理人员发号施令外，他们与外界几乎没有任何联系。
另一方面，“持股”就意味着悠闲和自由，维多利亚后期许多人视之为伟大文明的最高目标。
这种股东不了解他们所持股的公司里工人们的生活、思想和需求,他们对劳资关系也不会产生积极的影响。
领取报酬后代表公司经营的经理与工人以及工人需求的关系更加直接，但甚至他也不像正在被淘汰的旧式家族企业的家长制中的雇主那样熟悉了解工人的情况。
的确，单就公司的经营规模和雇佣的工人数量而言，就使得建立这种私人关系不再可能。
然而，幸运的是，工会的势力和组织在日益壮大，至少在各个技术行业情况如此，这就使工人与雇用他们的公司经理们处于平等的地位。
罢工和封厂的严酷惩罚使双方学会了互相尊重对方的力量，理解公正谈判的含义。
2001 Text 4The 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 operatio ns capable of meeting customer’s 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?世界正在经历一场从未见过的巨大的并购浪潮。