In many towns, independent shops, cafés and family firms have closed as international chains have expanded. Some people believe governments should step in to protect these smaller businesses. I agree that government support is justified, although it should aim to create fair competition rather than to shut out large companies.
Small local businesses bring benefits that are easy to overlook. A greater share of the money spent in an independent shop tends to stay in the area, because the owner lives locally, employs local people and often buys from nearby suppliers. These businesses also give high streets their distinctive character; a town full of independent bakeries and bookshops feels very different from one with the same chains found everywhere else. Furthermore, small firms offer ordinary people a realistic route to running their own business, which encourages enterprise and new ideas.
At the same time, multinationals cannot simply be blamed. They often provide lower prices, wider choice and stable employment, and many consumers clearly value these benefits. Blocking them would raise costs for families and reduce investment. The real problem is that competition is sometimes unfair. Large corporations can use complex structures to pay very little tax in the countries where they trade, and they can afford to sell at a loss for long periods to drive rivals out of the market. Governments should therefore close tax loopholes, enforce competition law strictly and reduce the business rates paid by small shops, which are often a heavy burden.
In conclusion, I agree that governments have a role in protecting small businesses, because of their value to local economies and communities. However, the best way to do this is to remove the unfair advantages enjoyed by multinationals, not to keep them out altogether.