In the early 1970s, General Electric began to think about building a new class of commercial aircraft engines. Although GE had most of the technical skills, it couldn’t afford to develop and produce engines by itself. Neither did it have much access to the emerging European commercial aircraft market.
The two firms struck a deal. The result: CFM International, which today produces the world’s best-selling commercial jet engine. Most business leaders understand
But I’m not as certain those same CEOs understand that what has worked so well for GE could become the single most powerful competitive weapon for the 1990s-strategic alliances.
MAKING A MATCH
When two or more firms form such an alliance, or joint venture, they pool their capital, technology, and other resources for a very specific purpose. The limited partnership allows both companies to accomplish mutually beneficial goals: fund new research and development, acquire state-of-the-art technology, or penetrate foreign markets, for example.
Most such ventures have involved companies in high-tech computer and electronics production. But the principle of companies cooperating out of mutual need can apply to a host of other industries as well: the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, retailers, telecommunications, insurance companies, and financial institutions.
Inland Steel, for example, recently agreed to a partnership with
Strategic alliances of course are nothing new. From 1979 to 1985, the number of alliances among American, European, and Japanese firms grew thirtyfold. Despite this, many American businesses are hesitant to enter into such agreements. Indeed, it is sometimes more difficult for
Ironically, American reluctance does not spring from unfair trade or investment practices of other governments, but from
The problem is: Who decides what is monopolistic? The legal definition is so vague and arbitrary that businesses often don’t know what is permissible and what isn’t. Though there are some legal exemptions for research and development projects, alliances in production and marketing can easily come under court attack. As a result, many gun-shy
Legislation before Congress would somewhat limit the threat of antitrust lawsuits among domestic companies. But to date there has been no successful bid to protect foreign ventures.
Policymakers and business leaders must recognize that restrictions on foreign partnerships hurt American businessmen in two ways: They cause retaliation against
It should come as no surprise that
Consider just a few examples of successful alliances:
- Motorola and Toshiba, two of the world’s leading electronics manufacturers, agreed in 1986 to jointly manufacture semiconductors. The alliance has since grown into a profitable partnership. Motorola ignited its production of memory chips, while Toshiba gained access to Motorola’s microprocessors, the “brain” chips of personal computers.
- Early last year, AT&T and
‘s Nippon Electric forged a strategic alliance to give both firms an edge in manufacturing electronics equipment. AT&T, the world’s largest telecommunications company, is benefiting from Japan Nippon‘s semiconductor technology. Nipponis able to become more involved in manufacturing telecommunications products.
- More recently, Apple Computer and Sony announced an agreement that blends the American firm’s easy-to-use software with the Japanese company’s hardware. Apple is gaining access to Sony’s miniaturization and manufacturing techniques, while Sony, using Apple’s computer design know-how, is expanding into laptop computers. [See “Will The
Bear Fruit?” January/February 1992.] Alliance
These initiatives stand in glaring contrast to what some policymakers and even some business executives believe to be the solution to
Or the specter of government appears in the form of trade protectionism, which assumes that shielding
Such thinking reveals its fatal flaw: the idea that
LOOSEN THE REINS
Certainly, there are no guarantees of success for the businesses involved. Like any other business strategy, an alliance may not be the best approach. A poorly designed alliance can backfire, with one of the partners gaining a technological edge to become a stronger competititor.
But the record is clear enough:
Strategic alliances can achieve goals that a single company acting alone never could. The exchange of information and technologies can be the deciding factor in winning new markets-without closely guarded corporate secrets being lost.
On the government end, the current antitrust laws are baffling-and harmful. With an integrated international economy, firms rarely are able to dominate a market. They quickly encounter rivals, both domestic and foreign, if their prices go beyond what is acceptable to buyers and sellers in the market.
If lawmakers and business leaders are determined to bolster
Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D., is president of The Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based public policy research institution. He also serves on the board of several other foundations and research institutes. Dr. Feulner is the author of Conservatives Stalk The House.