primer on Amartya Sen

Tyler Cown of Marginal Revolution has answered some important and relevant questions in the language of Amartya Sen.

the new multinationals are remaking the old?

The recent issue of the Economist discusses the Globalisation's offspring.

....Indian and Chinese firms are now starting to give their rich-world rivals a run for their money. So far this year, Indian firms, led by Hindalco and Tata Steel, have bought some 34 foreign companies for a combined $10.7 billion. Indian IT-services companies such as Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services and Wipro are putting the fear of God into the old guard, including Accenture and even mighty IBM. Big Blue sold its personal-computer business to a Chinese multinational, Lenovo, which is now starting to get its act together. PetroChina has become a force in Africa, including, controversially, Sudan. Brazilian and Russian multinationals are also starting to make their mark. The Russians have outdone the Indians this year, splashing $11.4 billion abroad, and are now in the running to buy Alitalia, Italy's state airline.
These are very early days, of course. India's Ranbaxy is still minute compared with a branded-drugs maker like Pfizer; China's Haier, a maker of white goods, is a minnow next to Whirlpool's whale. But the new multinationals are bent on the course taken by their counterparts in Japan in the 1980s and South Korea in the 1990s. Just as Toyota and Samsung eventually obliged western multinationals to rethink how to make cars and consumer electronics, so today's young thrusters threaten the veterans wherever they are complacent.
...newcomers have some big advantages over the old firms. They are unencumbered by the accumulated legacies of their rivals. Infosys rightly sees itself as more agile than IBM, because when it makes a decision it does not have to weigh the opinions of thousands of highly paid careerists in Armonk, New York. That, in turn, can make a difference in the scramble for talent. Western multinationals often find that the best local people leave for a local rival as soon as they have been trained, because the prospects of rising to the top can seem better at the local firm.

First, count your blessings

But the newcomers' advantages are not overwhelming. Take the difference in company ethics, for instance, which worries plenty of rich-world managers. They fear that they will engage in a race to the bottom with rivals unencumbered by the fine feelings of shareholders and domestic customers, and so are bound to lose. Yet the evidence is that companies harmonise up, not down. In developing countries (never mind what the NGOs say) multinationals tend to spread better working practices and environmental conditions; but when emerging-country multinationals operate in rich countries they tend to adopt local mores. So as those companies globalise, the differences are likely to narrow.
Nor is cost as big an advantage to emerging-country multinationals as it might seem. They compete against the old guard on value for money, which depends on both price and quality. A firm like Tata Steel, from low-cost India, would never have bought expensive, Anglo-Dutch Corus were it not for its expertise in making fancy steel.
This points to an enduring source of advantage for the wealthy companies under attack. A world that is not governed by cost alone suits them, because they already possess a formidable array of skills, such as managing relations with customers, polishing brands, building up know-how and fostering innovation.

The world is bumpy

The question is how to make these count. Sam Palmisano, IBM's boss, foresees nothing less than the redesign of the multinational company. In his scheme, multinationals began when 19th-century firms set up sales offices abroad for goods shipped from factories at home. Firms later created smaller “Mini Me” versions of the parent company across the world. Now Mr Palmisano wants to piece together worldwide operations, putting different activities wherever they are done best, paying no heed to arbitrary geographical boundaries. That is why, for example, IBM now has over 50,000 employees in India and ambitious plans for further expansion there. Even as India has become the company's second-biggest operation outside America, it has moved the head of procurement from New York to Shenzen in China.
As Mr Palmisano readily concedes, this will be the work of at least a generation. Furthermore, rich-country multinationals may struggle to shed nationalistic cultures. IBM is even now trying to wash the starch out of its white-shirted management style. But today, General Electric alone seems able to train enough of its recruits to think as GE people first and Indians, Chinese or Americans second. Lenovo's decision to appoint an American, William Amelio, as its Singapore-based chief executive, under a Chinese chairman, is a hint that some newcomers already understand the way things are going.
IBM's approach is possible only because globalisation is flourishing. Many of the barriers that stopped cross-border commerce have fallen....Increasingly, success for a multinational will depend on correctly spotting which places best suit which of the firm's activities. Make the wrong bets and the world's bumps will work against you. And now that judgment, rather than tariff barriers, determines location, picking the right place to invest becomes both harder and more important.
....And consumers, wherever they are, will gain from the contest.

marginal utility measured?

We can measure the marginal utility of wealth by observing people's responses to risk. Incidentally, since utility is only an ordering of preferences, it doesn't really make sense to talk about the 'marginal utility' of money; more money is simply always preferred to less. So we can only talk about the marginal utility of money in the context of a trade-off involving money and risk; the shape of the U(w) function measures the risk-reward trade-offs that people find worthwhile.

Poor people seem to do much better to maximise their profits than their wealthier counterparts at finding optimal strategies when small sum of money is on the line, revealed in the recent issue of Scientific American.

... law of diminishing marginal utility states that while accumulating a good—pretzels, pencils, nickels, whatever—each successive unit of that good will be less satisfying to acquire than the one before it. ...[R]esearchers at the University of Cambridge in England ... designed a study to see if the haves catch on more slowly than the have-nots when it comes to reward-based learning.... that when a small sum of money is on the line, poorer people learn quickly how to maximize their profits, leaving their wealthier counterparts in the dust.
In a Pavlovian paradigm, a number of abstract shapes flashed in front of 14 participants. After each shape appeared for three seconds, a picture of either a 20-pence coin (roughly 40 cents) or a scrambled image followed. A card of one particular shape was always followed by the coin, and subjects were told that they could take a 20-pence piece home if they could accurately predict when the money card was the next one up.
The participants had in personal assets an average of about $1,700 in their bank accounts, which ranged from zero to nearly $6,000. The group's average income was just over $20,000, spanning from no income for students to the equivalent of about $60,000 for the most well-off of the bunch.
By measuring response time, the researchers got a sense of how quickly people learned which one of the abstract pictures indicated money would follow. They noticed an inverse correlation between how much money a person had (assets and income) and the swiftness with which they were conditioned. The poorer people tended to figure out which card signaled money ahead within about 12 trials, says neurobiologist Philippe Tobler, the study's lead author, whereas the richer people took about 35 trials.
The team next repeated the experiment while the subject's brains were scanned by an fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) machine. Researchers focused their scans on the midbrain (which contains neurons or nerve cells that produce dopamine, a neurotransmitter central to reward-based learning), and the striatum, another reward-based center located under the cerebral cortex. ...
Once again, an inverse association between wealth and learning appeared, with poor people displaying more increased activity in the midbrain and striatum when compared with the more affluent subjects.
Tobler says the study, which is one of the first to try to measure marginal utility in a laboratory setting, challenges the notion held by many economists that utility comparisons cannot be made between people, because they likely value objects differently. He says, however, "It is possible that these kinds of comparisons are more easily done with money, because money is on an absolute scale." A $20 bill is worth the same no matter who had it, but one person might value it more.

I found some more here.