Showing posts with label sectors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sectors. Show all posts

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Retail sector: top 10 globally

Pursuant to our immediately preceding blog-entry, we shift to another sector of the global economic order via a note in Christian Science Monitor's daily email newsletter (Apr25,2k7; no link):
Retail wonders of the world: Surely you've shopped a few Ever stood in line at a major retailer and contemplated all the sales in even one business day? If so, consider this: Receipts at the world's 250 largest chain stores were $5.7 million a minute, or - if you prefer - $95,000 per second, during the latest period for which data are available. That's what global accounting giant Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, in conjunction with STORES magazine, found in compiling a list of megaretailers. The biggest of the big, based on revenue, was Wal-Mart Stores of Bentonville, Ark., which has about 6,400 outlets worldwide and reported more than $300 billion in sales revenues for the fiscal year ending Jan. 31, 2006. The world's largest retailers with the home country of each:

1.) Wal-Mart Stores ..... US - I've never been in one - E
2.) Carrefour SA .................... France
3.) Home Depot .... US - great store; one near my home Canada
4.) Metro AG ......................... Germany
5.) Tesco PLC ........................ Britain
6.) Kroger Co. ....................... US - Never
7.) Target Corp. .................... US - Never
8.) Costco Wholesale Corp. ........ US - Never
9.) Sears Holdings Corp. .. US - Customer both US and Canada
10.)Lidl&Schwarz Stiftung&Co .. Germany
There's a discernible pattern here, of course whereby a corporation whose governing offices are embedded in the national economy of one country by various means are sucessfully operative also in many other countries (where presumably those operations are also subject to that/those other/s/'s laws).

The subsidiary companies operative in other countries do not necessarily obey all the laws to which the mother company is held in the home country. This creates many problems, and provokes not only protests but also a juridical gap. There is no effective global law by which all mite be held accountable equally in a systematic economic way.

Update (Apr29,2k7): Noticing that all the top-ten listed are not online retailers, and using the common distinction between "brick-box retailers" and "online retailers" to establish two different subsectors of retailers, let's add an eleventh company not anywhere near the top-ten of the overall retail-sales sector. Our candidate is Amazon.com which is indeed very active internationally from its US hub with subsidiary companies in many other national economies, and plays a significant role in its sector as part of the global economic order. This insertion also allow us to anticipate and prepare for material in our next blog-entry:

11.) Amazon.com .... US - I'm a customer

Now, let's return to our original text for this blog-entry:

[For convenience, let's shift from the term "mother company" to "holding company" by which only Sears on our list designates itself.]

There is no effective systemic global economic law for the global economic order. Rather, binational and multinational treaties provide frameworks for out-of-country powers of the holding companies often subject only at home to the home country's laws, in many cases. Contracts are entered-into between companies in different countries, but it is often difficult for outsiders to those companies themselves, including the outsider-bureaucracies and law-enforcement agencies of the states involved, to determine where actually policy-making authority and agreements are actually concluded, from company to company, at the holding company level or the subsidary company level.

In passing, I note that Roman Catholic subsidiarity theory seems to offer no particular guidance or rationale for relations within companies operating under various guises on various levels of the global economic order. It remains to be seen whether Dooyeweerdian legal theory can offer uniquely any further lite on these problems around its contrasting theory (actually, priciple) of sphere specificity (sphere universality, sphere sovereignty).

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Business categories a la Times [London, UK]

Following up on our previous blog-entry to establish as part of the pragmatics associated with our economics theorizing for USE (Utilize Synergic Enterprises--a game we are inventing as we go), we put forward a working set of bizcats regarding "sectors" (in various contexts we discovered expressions "economic sectors," "industrial sectors," and "business sectors" can all mean what we want simply to call "sectors"). In our usage/s, sectors are sectors of an economy (whether it's the global economic order or a specific national or regional economy); an economy is usually composed of sectors (in a hypothetical pure-monocultural economy there would be only one sector--let's say coffee cultivation, harvesting, and export).

Now, for symmetry's sake, we hypthesize that all sectors are composed of industries (so, strictly speaking, in our framework here there are no "industrial sectors," rather only sectors, subsectors perhaps, both in turn being composed of specific industries). Thus, in my extreme hypothetical of a pure mono(agri)culture, we could entertain an economy with only one sector where three industries derive from

1.) coffee growing (let's say, this subsector or particular industry is composed of 3,000 small-grower family-farms with hired hands,

2.) coffee-harvesting (let's say there are 20 companies that contract to harvest or that rent machinery for mechanized harvesting for some of the growers); and

3.) coffee-exporting (let's say, there are 4 companies that send trucks to the growers' farms with which they have contracts to load the sacked coffee beans, transport the product to the port city where only the same companies' ships harbour, load the unprocessed beans onto the coffee-export ships). And away they sail, let's say, to Bordeaux, France.

We could call this a single-sector coffee economy (monocultural) with three diverse industries within it--the coffee industry of small growers who are family-farmers (compare Herman Dooyeweerd, NCTT on the "family farm" as a hybrid of two different societal spheres ... the family and the farm as a business) some of whom employ hired hands seasonally, the second industry of mechanized coffee-harvesting companies, and the coffee industry specialized as trucking-shipping companies.

For any economy, judgment calls will have to be made to sort out what constitutes a sector, perhaps subsectors and/or industries, and finally companies. Of course the further complication arises often enuff, of multi-sectoral companies, multi-subsectoral companies, and multi-industry companies. The term "diversification" is often used to designate companies that exhibit these phenomena, these larger structural relationships to an economy from within it.

With all the foregoing discussion in mind, please now consider The Times's construction of a set of bizcats that, from my point of view here, wobbles between concepts of sector, subsector, and industry. How would you hierarchize an economics classifaction for each of the items below?

* Banking & Finance

* Construction & Property

* Consumer Goods

* Engineering

* Health

* Industrials

* Leisure

* Media

* Natural Resources

* Retailing

* Support Services

* Technology

* Telecoms

* Transport

* Utilities