These two narratives needn’t be completely at odds. As I concluded in a piece last year on the debate over too much versus too little competition:

There’s a pessimistic synthesis between the competition and concentration stories. Perhaps the gap between firms starts out as the inevitable result of competition. Firms concentrate on what they’re good at, adopt new technology, and deliver products and services more efficiently. Having reached those heights, they then cement their status through lobbying or M&A. “Once those firms get there, it may be that they can actually draw up the drawbridge,” said [John] Van Reenen [of MIT]. Maybe competition creates corporate inequality. But maybe it’s lack of competition that preserves it.

Read more... Harvard Business Review