Concentration and Diversification of Production by Example of Major Indian Business groups

The goal of this work is to show that in contrast with the dominating economic concept, that concentration and expansion of production in one or several neighboring industries is the natural and economically reasonable mechanism for business growth, there is an alternative model of big business development, such as the industrial diversification. In this paper we analyze the phenomenon of big capital diversification on example of Indian business groups. We assume that diversification appears to be a necessary, and sometimes the only possible way of big business development amid imperfect market competition, inherent in emerging markets. We show that the main feature of big business formation in India, due to some conditions of colonial and postcolonial development, is that capital concentration was not accompanied by industrial concentration. The factors which condition the absence of industrial concentration in the Indian business groups are: the activity of managing agencies and other specifics of primitive capital accumulation, state regulations and licensing policy, state limitations on the scale of production, tough Monopoly Act, various market distortions etc. The paper also postulates that heterogenic industrial structure predetermines organizational and managerial forms big business takes. It resumes that industrial diversification enables big business to better adjust to market and legal imperfections as well as to hedge transnationalisation risks. As a business strategy diversification is common not only to India, but to other big vibrant rapidly developing economies. The success of Asian and Latin American business groups and conglomerates is worthy of a comprehensive investigation to adopt their experience in Russia.

industrial diversification, concentration, business-groups, conglomerates, managing agencies, the Indian economy, market, imperfect competition

1. Левковский А.И. Некоторые особенности развития капитализма в Индии до 1947 года. М.: Изд-во восточной литературы, 1963. 419 с.

2. Левковский А.И. Особенности развития капитализма в Индии. М.: Изд-во восточной литературы, 1963. 588 с.

3. Маляров О.В. Роль государства в социально-экономической структуре Индии. М.: Наука, 1978. 286 с.

4. Медовой А.И. Иностранный капитал в Индии. М.: Международные отношения, 1966. 136 с.

5. Balakrishnan K. A Comparative Study of the Growth and Strategy of Two Large Indian Business Houses (Birlas and Tatas). New Delhi: Indian Institute of Management, 1980. 301 р.

6. Bouquet T., Ousey B. Cold Steel: L. Mittal and the Multi-billion dollar Battle for Global Empire / T. Bouquet. Paris: Abacus Software, 2009. 360 р.

7. Brozen Y. Concentration, Mergers and Public Policy (Studies of the Modern Corporation). N.-Y.: Free Press, 1982. 328 р.

8. Burman D. Mystery of Birla House. New Delhi: Juabani Sahitya Chakra, 1950. Р. 114.

9. Damodaran H. India's New Capitalists: Caste, Business and Industry in a Modern Nation. N.-Y.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. 341 р.

10. Ferreira P., Facchini G. Trade Liberalization and Industrial Concentration: Evidence from? Brazil // The Quaterly Review of Economics and Finance. 2005. R 515-534.

11. Hazari R.K. Essays on Industrial Policy: Concept Publishing Coi// Concept Publishing Co. 1964. №. 4. R 623 - 700.

12. Karunakar B. Corporate Champions: Excellent Companies of India. New Delhi: SAGE Publications, Pvt. Ltd. 2011.401 р.

13. Kohli A. Poverty Amid Plenty in the new India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. 427 р.

14. Markovits C. Merchants, Traders and Entrepreneurs. Indian Business in the Colonial Period. N.-Y.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. 492 р.

15. Roschanek C., Churanek D.L. Innovation at the Base of Pyramid: How Tata and Godrej tap the Poor. Amsterdam: VDM Verlag Dr. Muller, 2011.373 р.