Changes

The central force of a political architecture is its legal system and the king is a protector and preserver of the law but most definitely not its creator which means his power  is sanctioned and  limited by law.  Be the powers vested, the actions of CEOs of companies are governed by the Companies Act , Income Tax Act, SEBI Regulations, and the likes of these. When no confidence motions (equivalent to dethroning a king) are passed against CEOs in the U.S, his kingship is challenged, by the  board of directors, for non-performance.  These consists of forces that affect the company, customers and profitability much against how it was envisioned. This establishes the temporal sovereignty of the CEO  where the V''arjasva Takat''  (Ultimate power) of the power owner is called into question resulting in dethroning the leader. Recent real-life corporate citations are available to corroborate this. This proves the temporal sovereign status of the corporate leader.  

The central force of a political architecture is its legal system and the king is a protector and preserver of the law but most definitely not its creator which means his power  is sanctioned and  limited by law.  Be the powers vested, the actions of CEOs of companies are governed by the Companies Act , Income Tax Act, SEBI Regulations, and the likes of these. When no confidence motions (equivalent to dethroning a king) are passed against CEOs in the U.S, his kingship is challenged, by the  board of directors, for non-performance.  These consists of forces that affect the company, customers and profitability much against how it was envisioned. This establishes the temporal sovereignty of the CEO  where the V''arjasva Takat''  (Ultimate power) of the power owner is called into question resulting in dethroning the leader. Recent real-life corporate citations are available to corroborate this. This proves the temporal sovereign status of the corporate leader.  

'''Corporate Competition, Competitive Forces and Rivalry''' While Arthashastra can be considered a bible describing the methodology of supreme governance in a political architecture, such tenets can be applied to corporate governance too. Michael .E. Porter has suggested competition from rival firms to be the biggest force attacking business as much as rival forces have the  ability to ruin kingdoms cited in portions of the Arthashastra dossier.('''Shamashastry 7/614'''). In 1979 a professor from Harvard, Michael E. Porter was the first to study Organizational Economics in the context of competition and published his maiden framework ' Porter's Five Forces of Competition' in Harvard Business Review. According to Porter these 5 forces affect the competition within an industry which makes it either attractive or unattractive (vulnerability) in terms of  its profitability. The bargaining power of buyers, bargaining power of suppliers, the threat of new entrants and the threat of substitutes are 4 environmental factors that effect competitive rivalry in business. Hence industry attractiveness according to Porter is a function of competing rivalry among firms and profitability. Porter's five-forces framework is based on the structure–conduct–performance paradigm in industrial organizational economics. It has been applied to try to address a diverse range of problems, from helping businesses become more profitable to helping governments stabilize industries.     

'''Corporate Competition, Competitive Forces and Rivalry''' While Arthashastra can be considered a bible describing the methodology of supreme governance in a political architecture, such tenets can be applied to corporate governance too. Michael .E. Porter has suggested competition from rival firms to be the biggest force attacking business as much as rival forces have the  ability to ruin kingdoms cited in portions of the Arthashastra dossier.('''Shamashastry 7/614'''). In 1979 a professor from Harvard, Michael E. Porter was the first to study Organizational Economics in the context of competition and published his maiden framework ' Porter's Five Forces of Competition' in Harvard Business Review. According to Porter these 5 forces affect the competition within an industry which makes it either attractive or unattractive (vulnerability) in terms of  its profitability. The bargaining power of buyers, bargaining power of suppliers, the threat of new entrants and the threat of substitutes are 4 environmental factors that effect competitive rivalry in business. Hence industry attractiveness according to Porter is a function of competing rivalry among firms (Causation) and profitability (Effectuating). Porter's five-forces framework is based on the structure–conduct–performance paradigm in industrial organizational economics. It has been applied to try to address a diverse range of problems, from helping businesses become more profitable to helping governments stabilize industries.     

The '''structure–conduct–performance''' ('''SCP''') paradigm, first published by economists Edward Chamberlin and Joan Robinson in 1933, and developed by Joe S. Bain is a model in Industrial Organization Economics which offers a causal theoretical explanation for firm performance through economic conduct on incomplete markets.     

The '''structure–conduct–performance''' ('''SCP''') paradigm, first published by economists Edward Chamberlin and Joan Robinson in 1933, and developed by Joe S. Bain is a model in Industrial Organization Economics which offers a causal theoretical explanation for firm performance through economic conduct on incomplete markets.