In the past two and a half years, it has been a good thing for large companies. Since the mid-1990s, although the share of the private sector in OECD countries has remained relatively stable, the share of companies with annual revenues of more than US$1 billion has increased by 60% since 1995. The rich have become richer. However, as the new white paper of the McKinsey Global Institute shows, behind this headline trend, there are big geographical and socio-economic differences.

Researchers looked at the economic contribution of private and public companies in wealthy countries over the past 25 years. After reading this article, I have learned five important lessons for policymakers and business leaders. These lessons should provide a reference for the debate on the role of business in society.

First, the loss of labor relative to capital is even more extreme than previously thought. Since the mid-1990s, productivity growth has actually reached 25%, while wages have only increased by 11%. At the same time, capital income increased by two-thirds. If anyone suspects that the link between productivity and wages has been broken, they should stop.

This strengthens the argument about the wider sharing of capital wealth. Currently, the top 10% of U.S. households own 87% of stocks. James Manyika, Director of MGI, said: “It is vital that more people participate in the capital income channel, because although labor income is still the most important for most people, capital income It is becoming more and more important in the pursuit of value.”

Companies can provide equity to more or even all employees. But the public sector may also tax the wealth of company stocks. This is a recent proposal by University of California, Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman.Otherwise it may pay Digital dividend Individuals representing part of the wealth of data collected by the largest and richest companies (especially the Big Tech platform).

This points to another key lesson: the intangible asset rule. Of all the ways in which a company can affect the economy, from wages and taxes paid, to consumer surplus generated at lower prices, to negative external factors such as environmental spillovers, this impact grows throughout the economy The fastest. The past 25 years have been investments in intangible assets such as technology, software, patents, etc. An increase of 200%.It makes the company more productive, but it also Related to unemployment benefits In the short to medium term-a major political issue.

This brings me to the third lesson, that is, the impact of different types of companies on the family and the economy is very different. The MGI paper divides companies into eight prototypes: discoverers (for example, biotech companies that advance the frontiers of science); technicians, including platforms for building a digital economy; experts (professional services, hospitals and universities); distributors, responsible for distribution and Selling products; manufacturer (manufacturer); builder; Tanker; and finance.

For most of the 20th century, manufacturers and builders were outstanding. In the past 25 years, they have lost their foundation in other prototypes. Although manufacturers accounted for 56% of large companies in the 1995 data, by 2016-2018, they accounted for only 41%. But as they decline, good employment opportunities will also decline. Due to the supply chain, the demand for physical space, and the investment in tangible goods, manufacturers contribute 20% more to labor income than average, employ the most people, and have the widest geographic distribution of value.

No wonder they are at the center of the national competitiveness debate. Some countries, such as Japan and Germany (where manufacturers have not declined at all), have made specific policy decisions to support them. Other countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, have different degrees.

This is the fourth lesson: The interests of companies in different countries are very different. Technicians are pushing the United States and South Korea, while manufacturers are ruling Germany. The leading positions of financial players in the Netherlands and France are all related to discoverers and deliverers, especially in the luxury goods sector.

Although the study did not specifically study small and medium-sized companies, it does hint at their difficult times. Compared to 25 years ago, large companies now pay a lower percentage of their revenue to suppliers, many of which are small and medium enterprises. Given that such companies are labor-intensive companies, and are usually more labor-intensive than large companies, they have important social and political significance.

This brings me to the last lesson: competition is important.We know we live in a Superstar economy. In many ways, this is a natural result of globalization, financialization and the rise of platform giants, and platform giants have been criticized worldwide because of the monopoly power they exercise. In the past 25 years, large companies (especially in the United States) have been the biggest economic winners.

However, for the commercial sector to enjoy another 25 years of free development, it needs to prove that it can enrich a wider range of stakeholders. The consumer surplus driven by the falling prices of products and services created by technicians and manufacturers cannot fully compensate for the loss of employment caused by automation. High-income families (especially in the United States) are taking the largest share of corporate wealth.

The past 25 years have shown that business can generate a lot of wealth. The next 25 must show that it can share these wealth more equally.

[email protected]