Discuss the motives underlining M&A and compare the outcomes of the Essay

Discuss the motives underlining M&A and compare the outcomes of the different methodologies used to analyse M&A - Essay Example There are two types of acquisitions; â€Å"private and â€Å"public†. This depends on whether the company acquiring is or is not listed on a public stock market. The difference between Merger and Acquisition is that Merger deals with two companies joining to become one while Acquisition has one company, which is doing the buying (Sherman and Hart, 20016:11). The work that follows discusses the motives underlying M&A, and compares the outcomes of the different methodologies used to analyze M&A. All companies that engage in any business are under one rule: grow or die. Those companies that plan to grow take away market share from their competitors look for the creation of economic profits and provide returns to shareholders (Sherman and Hart, 2006: 1). Those that lack plans on growth are stagnant, do not plan any growth strategies, they end up losing customers and market share and lose shareholder value. Mergers and Acquisitions contribute a lot to these two conditions. It help s the stronger company to grow faster than the competition and ensures quick swallowing of the weaker companies or them making irrelevant through exclusion (Sherman and Hart, 2006:1). Motives underlying M&A Different business enterprises and companies have used Mergers and Acquisitions as a means of growth strategies. ... The three differ according to the ideas behind them (Schmidt, 2010: 67) Economic motives Different authors have devised different theories to explain economic motives that encourage people to engage in Merges and Acquisitions; Efficiency theory This theory presents the motive of benefiting shareholders and managers of the acquiring company (Farschtschian, 2012:18). According to this theory, companies plan and execute Mergers and Acquisitions to achieve financial, operational and managerial synergies (Faulkner, Teerikangas and Joseph, 2012). The shareholders with this motive aim to benefit from net gains through synergy. Monopoly theory Under this theory, companies engage in Mergers and Acquisition with the motive of achieving market power. Mergers and Acquisitions under this motive may allow companies to cross-subsidize products, at the same time limit competitions in more than one market, and discourage potential entrants from the market. All of this result to monopoly power for the company. The shareholders under this motive aim at the wealth transfers from customers. Managerial Motives Theories that explain managerial motives include; Empire/Agency building theory This theory shows the motive aimed at benefiting managers. In this motive, managers plan for Mergers and Acquisitions aiming at maximizing their own utility instead of shareholders’ value (Karenfort, 2011: 9). The managers, according to this theory, plan to engage the company in mergers and Acquisition aiming at benefiting or creating their own reputation. Another motive is the need to transform to a corporate identity or recognition. This is where companies merge to gain popularity (Sherman and Hart, 2006:13). Financial motives The following theories explain the

Why do some protest groups use violence in the context of collective Essay - 1

Why do some protest groups use violence in the context of collective action - Essay Example Social change may render certain social groups to flourish or become powerful, and politically relevant; nevertheless, the availability of political opportunities does not automatically and immediately yield to heightened protest (Tarrow 1998, p.16). Collective action mainly focuses wholly on the behaviour and/or the authenticity of certain individuals. Collective identity draws from the recognition and the establishment of connectedness, which heralds a sense of common purpose and commitment to a certain cause. Social protests performances mainly emerge from marginalized peoples and oppositional struggles, whereby individuals utilize protests to counter hegemonic strategic via which underrepresented groups challenge the dominant social order and source of change. The representational apparatus provided by social protests serves to reinforce, re-articulate, and re-imagine the objectives of both social and political resistance (Oliver 1993, p.271). Traditional explanations to why indi viduals engage in political violence emphasize that deprivation, characteristically in the form of economic inequality generates grievances and discontent that trigger rebellion and social revolution (McCarthy and Zald 1977, p.1212). The paper explores why some protest groups utilize violence within the context of collective action. Background The contentious politics that were prominent in the 1960s and early 1970s heralded fresh energy to a subject that, for an extended period, has dominated scholarly and political legitimacy. In the 1970s, two prominent paradigms emerged from the welter of studies triggered by the disorderly politics of the 1960s, namely: the resource mobilization (RM) approach to social movement organizations within the US and the new social movement (NSM) approach within Western Europe (Thompson 1971, p.76). Historically, breakdown theory was the dominant theory that guided sociological study of collective action; nevertheless, this theory as deemed to be incre asingly incapable of accounting for the contemporaneous events (Useem 1998, p.215; Aminzade et al. 2001, p.12). Resource mobilization theory replaced breakdown theory as the dominant paradigm. Both resource mobilization and breakdown theories explain diverse forms of phenomena, and both are pertinent in helping account for the full range of forms of collective action (Goodwin and Jasper 2009, p.10). Use of Violence in the Context of Collective Action Collective action represents actions by group members directed at enhancing the conditions of the group as a unit such as petitions, demonstrations, riots, boycotts, and sit-ins. There are numerous explanations to collective action such as relative deprivation, intergroup, social identity, intergroup emotion, and resource mobilization theories. Classical theories indicate that people mostly protests to express their grievances emanating from frustration, relative deprivation, or perceived injustice. Scholars of social movements have hig hlighted that efficacy, opportunities, and resources can be utilized to predict protest participation (Tilly 2008, p.8). Politics within networks enhance efficacy and transform individual grievances into shared grievances and group-based anger that yields protest participation. At the heart of social movement phenomena is the protest event, whereby protest events are in numerous ways the front line of action within social movements. It is essential to recognize that social protests represent a collective action that is not synonymous with collective behaviours such as riots. Collection