1、 The 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?"

　　世界正在經歷一場前所未有的巨大的并購浪潮。這個浪潮從異常活躍的美國席卷到歐洲，并以不可比擬的威力影響到正在崛起的國家。這些國家的許多人面對這個浪潮開始憂慮：“企業合并的浪潮會不會變成一股不可控制的反競爭的力量？”

　　2、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.

　　無疑，大企業正在變得更大、更強。跨國公司在1982年只占有國際貿易不到20％的份額。而現在，這個數字上升到25％強，并且還在迅速上升。在那些對外開放并鼓勵外資的國家的經濟中國際分公司在國民生產中成為一個快速增長的部門。比如，在阿根廷，經過90年代初的改革之后，跨國公司在200家大型企業的工業生產中從43％增加到幾乎70％。這個現象造成了人們對小型企業和民族資本的作用以及世界經濟的比較終穩定的嚴重憂慮。

　　3、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 operations capable of meeting customers' demands. All these are beneficial, not detrimental, to consumers. As productivity grows, the world's wealth increases.

　　我認為，推動這股巨大的并購浪潮的比較主要的力量，也是推動全球化進程的力量，包括日趨下降的運輸與通訊費用，較低的貿易與投資壁壘，以及市場的擴大和為滿足市場需求而進行的擴大生產。所有這些對消費者來說都有益而無害的。隨著生產力的提高，世界的財富也在增長。

　　4、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 US, when the Standard Oil trust was broken up. The mergers of telecom companies, such as World Com, 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.

　　目前證明這股合并浪潮是帶來利還是弊的實例并不多。但是很難想像當今的幾個石油公司的合并是否會重新造成約100年前美國標準石油公司對競爭造成的同樣的威脅，那時由于人們對該公司的這種擔心而導致了它比較終的解散。像世界通訊這樣的通訊公司合并似乎沒有給消費者帶來更高的價格，或者降低技術進步的速度。相反，通信的價格在迅速下降。在汽車行業，合并也同樣在增加——比如戴姆勒與克萊斯勒，雷諾與尼桑的合并——但消費者看起來并未受到傷害。

　　5、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 US vs. Microsoft case?

　　但是合并運動必須受到嚴密監視這個事實仍然存在。就在幾星期以前，格林斯潘對銀行業的巨大合并發出了警告。如果合并后如此巨大的銀行出現，誰來充當比較終的借貸者，發揮監督、規范和運作的作用呢？當一個國家對破壞公平競爭的行為的處理過于嚴厲時，跨國公司會不會把它們的生產從一地轉到另一地呢？在那些將會影響許多其他國家的事情中，如美國政府與微軟公司的訴訟案，一個國家是否應該擔負起“保護競爭”的責任呢？