Markets are welcoming Chinese technology giant Alibaba’s plan to split into six independent entities. The reason might seem obvious. Because smaller autonomous units appear likely to be nimbler and more adaptable, one might expect the restructuring to help to revitalize the massive company and boost productivity. One might also assume that dividing the company would alleviate the monopoly concerns that have made Alibaba a primary target of regulators, but, as compelling as this logic seems, it is deeply flawed.
Breaking up a firm can help to stimulate internal competition if the firm has a genuine monopoly that prevents others from exposing it to competitive pressure, but Alibaba operates in cutthroat sectors — e-commerce, entertainment, cloud computing and logistics — where competition is fierce. As large as Alibaba is, its operations are subject to strong external pressure.
In any case, Alibaba would most likely retain significant control over the new “units” it is creating, even if some go public. So, from an antitrust standpoint, Alibaba would still be regarded as a single entity, with the same market power it already possessed.
Illustration: Tania Chou
Expectations that the company would become more agile — a vision that Alibaba chief executive Daniel Zhang (張勇) repeatedly touted during a call with investors — are similarly misleading. Yes, smaller entities with greater autonomy can adapt to changing conditions more quickly than a single sprawling entity, but Alibaba’s planned restructuring is neither the least costly nor the least disruptive way to boost agility.
If a firm is split into independent units, resources are likely to be replicated across those units, especially in areas such as computing, risk management, legal affairs and government relations. Compliance costs would probably rise, owing to increased oversight from the board, investors and financial regulators. Moreover, each unit would seek to advance its own interests, without accounting for the interests of the company as a whole. This might lead to incentives mismatches, causing one unit to act in ways that hurt another — or the business as a whole.
By contrast, a multidivisional — or M-form — structure would prevent both resource duplication and the misalignment of incentives. First adopted by DuPont a century ago, and embraced by countless companies since, the M-form structure empowers division heads to make their own personnel, budgeting and operating decisions, while corporate headquarters offer strategic direction, support and oversight.
With full access to internal information about the operation of the divisions, the company’s headquarters can use tools such as bonuses to align incentives across divisions and optimize resource allocation. A holding company is unlikely to have the same access to information about independent units as a company headquarters has about the divisions it oversees, let alone the same ability to leverage such information to optimize resource allocation.
An M-form structure offers another advantage — the headquarters can adjust the degree of different divisions’ autonomy as business needs change. A well-functioning company should constantly adjust the extent of centralization in response to evolving market conditions.
Alibaba’s restructuring plans would not allow for such fine-tuning. In the future, it might well become desirable for Alibaba to revert to a more centralized structure, but after it is split into independent units — and especially after some of its subsidiaries go public — responding to this need could be very costly. Alibaba’s organizational structure could therefore become more rigid over time, even as its operational decisionmaking becomes nimbler.
If Alibaba’s restructuring does not seem likely to alleviate antitrust concerns, and there is no strong business justification for the approach it has chosen, why did the market react so favorably to the news?
The answer lies in the implications of the restructuring for Alibaba’s relationship with the Chinese government.
For any business operating in China, a good relationship with the state is hugely important. By pursuing what is effectively a “soft breakup,” Alibaba appears to be addressing government concerns about its size and influence. This, coupled with the return to China after a year overseas of Alibaba cofounder Jack Ma (馬雲), sent a strong signal to the market that the firm has mended fences with the government, removing what is arguably the biggest obstacle to the firm’s continued success.
Alibaba’s restructuring might serve as a template for other Chinese technology firms seeking to appease a government that fears their growth and influence, but, as with Alibaba, it could carry significant costs while failing to address fundamental antitrust concerns in any meaningful way.
Li Jin is area head, professor of management and strategy, and professor of economics at the University of Hong Kong. Angela Huyue Zhang is an associate professor of law and director of the Center for Chinese Law at the University of Hong Kong.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Speaking at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit on May 13, former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said that democracies must remain united and that “Taiwan’s security is essential to regional stability and to defending democratic values amid mounting authoritarianism.” Earlier that day, Tsai had met with a group of Danish parliamentarians led by Danish Parliament Speaker Pia Kjaersgaard, who has visited Taiwan many times, most recently in November last year, when she met with President William Lai (賴清德) at the Presidential Office. Kjaersgaard had told Lai: “I can assure you that ... you can count on us. You can count on our support
Denmark has consistently defended Greenland in light of US President Donald Trump’s interests and has provided unwavering support to Ukraine during its war with Russia. Denmark can be proud of its clear support for peoples’ democratic right to determine their own future. However, this democratic ideal completely falls apart when it comes to Taiwan — and it raises important questions about Denmark’s commitment to supporting democracies. Taiwan lives under daily military threats from China, which seeks to take over Taiwan, by force if necessary — an annexation that only a very small minority in Taiwan supports. Denmark has given China a
Many local news media over the past week have reported on Internet personality Holger Chen’s (陳之漢) first visit to China between Tuesday last week and yesterday, as remarks he made during a live stream have sparked wide discussions and strong criticism across the Taiwan Strait. Chen, better known as Kuan Chang (館長), is a former gang member turned fitness celebrity and businessman. He is known for his live streams, which are full of foul-mouthed and hypermasculine commentary. He had previously spoken out against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and criticized Taiwanese who “enjoy the freedom in Taiwan, but want China’s money”
A high-school student surnamed Yang (楊) gained admissions to several prestigious medical schools recently. However, when Yang shared his “learning portfolio” on social media, he was caught exaggerating and even falsifying content, and his admissions were revoked. Now he has to take the “advanced subjects test” scheduled for next month. With his outstanding performance in the general scholastic ability test (GSAT), Yang successfully gained admissions to five prestigious medical schools. However, his university dreams have now been frustrated by the “flaws” in his learning portfolio. This is a wake-up call not only for students, but also teachers. Yang did make a big
RSS