Mega-mergers Would Mean Less Competition When What Europe Needs Is More

大型并购可能会削弱竞争，而欧洲需要加强竞争

No company founded in Europe in the past four decades has gone on to be worth over $100bn today. Entrepreneurs in America have managed the feat a dozen times, including the founders of Amazon, Cisco and Home Depot. China will soon have more such corporate leviathans than the European Union does. Angela Merkel of Germany and Emmanuel Macron of France are among those who think they have found a solution to this relative impotence: let European companies merge their way into the top leagues.

过去40年间在欧洲创立的公司没有一家如今市值超过1000亿美元。在美国，有十多家企业做到了这一点，包括亚马逊、思科和家得宝（Home Depot）。中国很快也将比欧盟拥有更多这样的企业巨头。包括德国总理默克尔和法国总统马克龙在内的一些人自认为找到了补救这一相对弱势的方法：让欧洲企业通过合并走向顶尖行列。

Only the most hidebound politicians still yearn for the state-owned “national champions” of yore. But an increasing number see a need for “European champions” able to compete globally. Mrs Merkel has called for eu competition guidelines to be “modernised” so that European titans can emerge. Mr Macron says he wants the issue to feature prominently in the upcoming European election campaign. From eyeglasses to steelmaking, from stockmarkets to railways, proposed cross-border mergers are being backed by politicians as the only way to take on Chinese and American rivals. That should set alarm bells ringing, for two reasons.

只有最顽固的政客仍渴望拥有昔日的国有“全国领军企业”。越来越多人认为需要打造有能力参与全球竞争的“欧洲领军企业”。默克尔呼吁把欧盟的竞争指导方针“现代化”，以便让欧洲的大型企业崛起。马克龙表示，他希望在即将到来的欧洲议会选举活动中突出强调此问题。从眼镜到炼钢，从股票市场到铁路，多个行业的跨境并购方案得到了政客的支持，被认为是对抗中美竞争对手的唯一途径。然而对此应该敲响警钟，理由有两点。

The first is that Europe already has a competition problem. A forthcoming study by Chiara Criscuolo and colleagues at the OECD, a club of mainly rich countries, shows that the average market share of the top four firms in Europe in each industry has risen by three percentage points since 2000. The free cashflow of non-financial firms as a share of GDP is well above its 20-year average. When concentration is rising and profits are high and persistent, the answer is not to make big firms even bigger.

首先是欧洲市场本身就已经存在竞争方面的问题。经合组织（OECD，成员主要为富裕国家）的齐亚拉·克里斯库奥洛（Chiara Criscuolo）及其同事即将发表的一项研究表明，自2000年以来，欧洲各个行业的前四强企业的平均市场份额上升了三个百分点。非金融公司的自由现金流占GDP的比重远高于20年平均水平。当集中度上升且利润持续高企，对策不该是让大公司进一步坐大。

Industrialists argue that added size will make them more efficient, and so likelier to thrive globally. Sometimes sheer size pays off: Airbus, an aerospace giant, is a cross-border success story. But big deals often throttle competition. Take the mammoth proposed merger between the operations of Germany’s Siemens and France’s Alstom that make rolling stock and train-track signals. In some rail markets the combined firm would be three times bigger than its largest rival. Margrethe Vestager, the EU’s independent-minded competition commissioner, seems sceptical that a Siemens-Alstom tie-up will be good for consumers. She is right to be wary.

实业家们辩称，合并令规模扩大，将带来更高的效率，因而更有可能实现全球拓展。有时单凭规模就能带来回报：航空航天巨头空客就是一个跨境合作的成功案例。但是大型合并往往会扼杀竞争。以德国西门子的轨道交通业务与法国阿尔斯通（铁路机车及轨道信号设备制造商）之间的庞大合并提案为例。在一些铁路市场上，二者合并后的公司将比其最大竞争对手规模大三倍。中立派欧盟竞争事务专员玛格瑞特·维斯塔格（Margrethe Vestager）似乎对这项合并是否有利于消费者持怀疑态度。她有理由保持警惕。

The second reason to worry is political. As Mrs Merkel and Mr Macron become keener on the logic of big mergers, pro-competitive voices in Europe risk being drowned out. Britain, historically a stalwart defender of free markets, is consumed by the Brexit mess. The European Commission has a strong record of standing up to governments on issues such as state aid, but Ms Vestager’s term ends next year. Suspicion of Chinese investment, though often warranted, can be exploited to hinder any foreign company taking over an eu firm.

第二个疑虑在政治方面。默克尔和马克龙愈发坚信大型合并是可行之道，这可能致使提倡促进竞争的声音在欧洲被淹没。英国历来是自由市场的坚定捍卫者，但目前深陷脱欧进程的泥沼。欧盟委员会在国家援助等问题上向来敢于质疑各国政府，但维斯塔格的任期将于明年结束。中国对欧投资受到怀疑，虽说往往也不是事出无因，但这份质疑可能被利用来阻碍一切外国公司收购欧盟企业。

If competition-sapping mergers are not the way to create world-beating companies, what is? Above all, European firms struggle compared with their American and Chinese rivals because the continent’s markets are so fragmented. Making it so that an Irish firm can serve a Portuguese client as easily as a Texan one can serve a New Yorker would be good for businesses of all sizes. The EU’s “single market” is designed for goods. It works less well for services – which make up over 70% of the European economy. Talk of greater integration of capital markets and digital services urgently needs to be turned into action. More funding for basic research is also needed to help foster innovation.

如果扼杀竞争的合并不是打造世界一流公司的正道，那什么才是？首先，与中美竞争对手相比，欧洲公司表现不佳是因为欧洲大陆的市场非常分散。创造条件让一家爱尔兰公司能便捷地为葡萄牙客户服务，就像美国德州的公司能轻松地服务纽约的客户那样，那么这对各种规模的公司都有好处。欧盟的“单一市场”是为货物贸易设计的，对服务业帮助没那么大，而服务业占到欧洲经济的70%以上。资本市场和数字服务更大程度的整合亟需从纸上谈兵化为实际行动。此外还需要向基础研究投入更多资金以促进创新。

European bosses complain that China and America tilt the playing field in favour of their own companies, whether through “America first” trade policies or Chinese soft loans. That is no reason to follow suit. Mercantilism benefits favoured companies but not economies and consumers. The answer to other countries giving their citizens and taxpayers a raw deal is not to emulate them. It is to foster competition.

欧洲的企业老板抱怨说，无论是通过“美国优先”的贸易政策还是中国的软贷款，中美都在操纵竞争环境以偏袒本国企业。但这不是欧洲效仿它们的理由。重商主义令受偏爱的企业受惠，但无益于经济体和消费者。在其他国家不公平对待本国国民和纳税人时，对策不是以其人之道还治其人之身，而是促进竞争。

英文、中文版本下载：http://www.yingyushijie.com/shop/source/detail/id/1967.html