Size matters. You cannot make small things big by making big things small. The president of the US, the epicentre of capitalism, looks set to sign an executive order (what's not to love about "executive orders" - we could do with a few) that seeks to curb the ever-increasing concentrations of corporate power and influence.
Is this a virtuous pursuit?
The US government is not alone in this quest. In China, billionaires are fast learning to shut up or get shut down. And success in China is often linked to state support, so it gets complicated.
The role of the state differs markedly from one doctrine to another, from one ruling party to another, with varying levels of "success", depending on what you define that as.
The message is almost always the same: big is bad. But the reason for becoming big is also almost always the same: success. The perverse logic (in its dumbest application) would be that success is bad. Would we prefer failure as a driver of policy? Be careful what you wish for. Failure as a subsidised refuge is already an economic factor.
The analysis is not that blunt, nor is the solution. There is a difference between inhibitors to growth, on the one hand, and bullying by established business over emerging business on the other. Our attention should focus on the growth inhibitors, particularly those purposely applied by established business.
Once these are contained (or regulated), the big players become feeding grounds and opportunities for the new entrants. Most major enterprises start life by supplying something, whether a product or a solution. What better opportunity than to have a big corporation want what you're selling? I'm sure manufacturers of microchips started this way, until they became too big, too strategic, too politically influential.
To compete in increasingly global markets, though, you have to achieve economies of scale, you have to become the low-cost producer. That simply means that you have to get big, but .
The use of non-economic force should be banned. Anti-competitive pricing and other practices should be monitored - elimination of competition stifles innovation and productivity, and eventually even the will to try, but . you cannot eliminate the possibility of significant growth and rewards for entrepreneurs who take risk and apply energy to turning ideas into successful economic models. If you do, you will put a stop to the flow of vital start-up capital that ventures into small businesses, only because it is convinced they'll get big.
Freedom of movement of skills and ideas must be sacrosanct - so de-regulate things like restraints and non-compete clauses. Find a fair solution to the differential tax treatment across jurisdictions - or at least make local tax and other regulatory environments competitive, if not favourable, for your local economy. Incentives, not restrictions. Don't force major players to share, encourage them to. Make it worth their while.
The role of the state is huge in this debate, but delicate - too much will stifle as much as too little won't enable.
I remain convinced that economic growth in SA will be founded in a thriving small business sector. But I do not subscribe to the notion that we should crush bigger entities into smaller bits. Instead of placing a limit on how big you can get, let's make the appetite infinite for how small you can start.
Capital needs to be poured into small business in SA. If the state wishes to use any economic force or political power, it should be applied at the bottom of the economy, using the gains it harvests from the taxes paid by successful major corporations.
To get that right, the government will need experienced business partners. We're ready when you are, Mr President.
• Barnes is a business leader and experienced all-rounder in financial markets and corporate strategy
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.