The author thus deserves our
thanks for the study under review even though its focus is very
limited as a business consultant, he was retained by three small
business houses to settle family business disputes of management
arising out of succession/possibility of succession. He also
advised on reorganisation and refocusing. The present book is to
theorise the experience gained. The first part deals with the
concept and the growth of this institution in the modern era
with the growth of mercantilism.
The second part
details the cases, and the third deals with the process of
transition. Last but one chapter deals with globalisation and
the book ends with the summary of the theory. The main
conclusions are: family should work more as a board, discussions
should focus on business issues rather than on family
relationships, traditional rights should be given due weight,
women should also be involved now, scope should be created for
enterprise for younger members through a special fund and family
needs should be met through another special fund etc. The
approach is of preserving the family character of ownership with
some democratisation of management kept within the family in a
small medium business. Challenge of globalisation against a
small competitive opening is met essentially through network
relationship.
In large
joint-stock companies, family control was possible due to state
policy of non-interference by FDI’s even in favour of other
small holders. Family occupies strategic points of control and
surplus is appropriated through family network of procurement
and distribution, charge of family expenses to the business and
promotion of new business through family members etc. This
creates monopolistic and restrictive tendencies promoting
inefficiencies. Here succession can be resolved only by
expansion of points of control. This necessarily subdivides the
business. In case of G D Birla, his successors carved out small
independent empires in true feudal tradition. They could not
convert themselves into simple shareholders and jointly hand
over the management to experts.
Further,
control can be retained only through political goodwill granted
through state-owned financial institutions as was seen in Swaraj
Paul’s bid to take over Escorts. The company was saved from
Swaraj Paul, but is in difficulties because of its own feudal
inefficiency. Is it any wonder that even though India has some
corporations of global size, none is a global corporation —their
size is simply the product of domestic protection and not
because of higher productivity. This has created powerful vested
interests and the state seems to have lost all manoeuverability
and is landed in a jam as far as reforms go. Mr Sampath has
nothing to say on these issues.
The most important issue before
small medium businesses in India is of their transformation into
large-scale efficient corporations by amalgamation and mergers.
We have no strategy for this. Therefore, they are sitting ducks.
They will either be killed or taken over by larger external
corporations. External takeover will be necessary to save Indian
labour and land productivity. The appeal to nationalism can not
work. We have the example of China where state encouraged
amalgamation and involvement of MNCs has created Konka like
corporations. However, Indian business only wants to follow
China in terms of its still feudal labour policies but is
totally silent on the issue of scale and delinking of control
from ownership. Mr Sampath has covered a small area. More needs
to be done.
|