4 ms·

> favours businesses that trade across borders so are larger You are right about the first part of that sentence, but wrong about the second. In many contexts

> favours businesses that trade across borders so are larger You are right about the first part of that sentence, but wrong about the second. In many contexts the EU makes the international market more accessible for small businesses - it greatly reduces overhead that large companies can afford and small companies cannot. For example, having one central safety or health standard for all countries is a lot cheaper than qualifying for each country on an individual basis. That benefits every business involved, but for smaller ones this fixed overhead is a much more significant hurdle than for big ones.

bewo001 8y ago
While this is all true, there is a tendency that big markets create big players. Eg. in the 1950s/60s, many European countries had several independent car manufacturers. The cheap car in your country may have been worse than a cheap car of your neighboring country, but it cost less for the lack of tariffs. The local manufacturer had your business. When the borders came down, the smaller companies could no longer compete.
- 0815test 8y ago
  The general pattern is that big markets create big players, but also increase the amount of "effective" diversity and competition at the local level. The smaller automakers of the 1950s and 1960s were essentially monopolies in their own countries; whereas with the borders coming down, manufacturers are incented to both compete and diversify in a meaningful way, so that some fraction of them can hold on to their share of the bigger, unified market.
- heavenlyblue 8y ago
  >> Eg. in the 1950s/60s, many European countries had several independent car manufacturers. The chance is that your point has nothing to do with the borders being open though.
  - bewo001 8y ago
    Borders were certainly not the only factor. As car development became more expensive, only bigger players had the capital to do it. But different national regulations (eg in France head lights had to be yellow instead of white) and tariffs played a role.
- kelnos 8y ago
  Not sure that was necessarily a good thing. Were I a consumer in a country with a crappy car manufacturer, I'd definitely not be pleased that I couldn't buy a better car simply because my government was protecting the crappy car manufacturer's business.

bewo001 8y ago

While this is all true, there is a tendency that big markets create big players. Eg. in the 1950s/60s, many European countries had several independent car manufacturers. The cheap car in your country may have been worse than a cheap car of your neighboring country, but it cost less for the lack of tariffs. The local manufacturer had your business. When the borders came down, the smaller companies could no longer compete.

0815test 8y ago
The general pattern is that big markets create big players, but also increase the amount of "effective" diversity and competition at the local level. The smaller automakers of the 1950s and 1960s were essentially monopolies in their own countries; whereas with the borders coming down, manufacturers are incented to both compete and diversify in a meaningful way, so that some fraction of them can hold on to their share of the bigger, unified market.
heavenlyblue 8y ago
>> Eg. in the 1950s/60s, many European countries had several independent car manufacturers. The chance is that your point has nothing to do with the borders being open though.
- bewo001 8y ago
  Borders were certainly not the only factor. As car development became more expensive, only bigger players had the capital to do it. But different national regulations (eg in France head lights had to be yellow instead of white) and tariffs played a role.
kelnos 8y ago
Not sure that was necessarily a good thing. Were I a consumer in a country with a crappy car manufacturer, I'd definitely not be pleased that I couldn't buy a better car simply because my government was protecting the crappy car manufacturer's business.