4 SOCIAL SCIENTIST been nationalized. Among the foreign-controlled business groups there were nine which appeared among the minor 53 LBH. By 1966 three of them, namely, Jardine & Henderson (Rs 418 million), McNeil and Barry Binny (Rs 563 million) and Parry (Rs 419 million or Rs 726 million including second-tier companies), considerably outstanced many of the ^top' 20 LBH. In addition to the foreign firms and groups already mentioned, there were 11 FBs and as many as 31 foreign subsidiaries each of which had assets exceeding Rs 50 million in 1966; none of these 42 companies were associated with any of the 73 LBHs and could be regarded as so many monopoly houses in their own rights since Rs 50 million in assets was the threshold for inclusion in the LBH category. Thus we find that whereas in the Dutt Committee's presentation there were only 73 monopoly houses of which 12 were foreign-controlled, a more consistent classification would yield about 150 monopoly houses or large companies (each with assets exceeding Rs 50 million in 1966) of which the foreign subsidiaries and branches would account for nearly 60, or 40 per cent of the total number. Types of Participation Even this last statement does not reveal the full extent of foreign control. First, there were a large number of companies in which foreign equity was negligible, but management remained with foreign-controlled companies. Since reliable estimates on this score are not available, no figures can be cited. Secondly, many of the Indian monopoly houses have close links with transnationals through joint ventures. Even when the latter holds a minority of equity in a company, its influence on the policies of the company could easily be greater, especially in the fields of technology, choices of equipment, and supplies of intermediates or raw materials. From the Dutt Committee's report one finds that under the Tata group are included 10 companies which are also subsidiaries of foreign companies. The Birlas had only one such company. Eleven other LBHs had one or more firms which were simultaneously foreign subsidiaries. But the Dutt Committee's information on the extent of foreign minority participation in large Indian companies was inadequate. Some of the biggest companies like the Tata's Telco (Rs 784 million), Birla's Hindustan Aluminium (Rs 493 million) and Mafatlal's Nocil Rs 138 million) had minority foreign holdings;2 once again no systematic data are available. Finally, it is worth noting that since a very high proportion of large units was set up with foreign collaboration and since very few of such units spent more than a nominal amount on research and development, their dependence on foreign collaborators may have continued. The Reserve Bank of India's survey of foreign financial and technical collaboration in Indian industry provides some useful data in this context. The survey covered all '^companies with foreign company capital participation as on March 31, 1970 and...all companies having