The contemporary corporate economy gives an excessive amount of power to large corporate entities. This kind of collected power detracts from the freedom of the market and discourages a perspective of economic democracy, as described in another article, by supplanting the will of the people with the will of the corporate entities whose only purpose is self-propagation and unending growth. For the most part this kind of corporatist motivation serves only the corporations themselves and only a very select few people are benefited by such a model, and usually these select individuals are in no need of additional benefit. Having more numerous but smaller corporate entities would mean more competition, more of a free market, and less power and wealth in the hands of that small select group of economic elites. Certainly with a perspective of economic democracy on hand a system of micro-corporations could be established, however there are two compelling arguments against micro-corporations. The first is that such a divested system would be less efficient than the monolithic but more centralized super-corporations that currently exist. The second is that the economic elite attained their position for a reason, they are the best capitalists and, therefore, are the most suitable individuals for holding the kind of power they do in our society. With more corporations there are more capitalists wielding power who are not the best of the best, and thus the power is not in the hands of those who know best how to use it. Whether these two arguments are valid is irrelevant because there are ways to mitigate these potential concerns while ensuring that the market does benefit from the added freedom and competition that comes from a micro-corporate model.
If there is a benefit to centralization of power, then it is certainly conceivable that micro-corporations could band together through a system of subcontracts. Large companies would be replaced by management groups. Instead of owning all the divisions of the company, the management group can subcontract labor from independent micro-corporations. The structure benefits from the centralized control provided by the management group with several additional benefits. The management groups manages the efforts of subcontracting corporations, rather than controlling individuals, in this way individuals are protected by a buffer from large scale corporate layoffs and so on. It is easier for a company to look for a new contract if they get laid off than it is for an individual to look for a new job. Also because these subcontractors are not owned by the management group they can be fired easier if the management group needs to do that, but they can also leave if they are unhappy with the direction management is taking. There is more flexibility for both groups. Furthermore, the ease with which subcontractors can be fired also means that companies are more willing to take a chance with a new subcontractor, thus finding work is easier. Central management can be achieved while protecting the individual and encouraging competition and a free market.
Standardization is also a major benefit of super-corporations, but super-corporations are not essential to have standardization. Many precedents have been established throughout the modern era for independent standards groups, and many of these can be seen in the modern era. This can be well observed in the computer industry. Programing languages, for example, are generally not owned by a company. However, standards groups are formed, often led by a company, to ensure that these programing languages, which can be used freely by anyone, also follow some standards. There is no reason that other industries could not function in a similar way. Instead of Walmart being a single super-corporation, each store could be a micro-corporation certified to follow the Walmart standards of operation and organization. A supply chain could also be established that follow the Walmart standards as well. The kind of power wielded by a standards group is every different than that wielded by a super-corporation. Instead of making rules to befit it's own economic dominance, a standards group makes rules that benefit the community, in this case the community of independently owned and operated superstores. A standards structure benefits from the efficiency of Walmart while maintaining the ultimate independence of each store and distributer.
If the dominance of a corporation is said to be a function of the skill of the management of that corporation, and if this justifies the dominance of the corporation because of the benefits to our economy achieved by skillful management, then consulting groups can serve a similar function in a micro-corporation system. If an individual is economically skillful, then they can sell that skill through consulting, increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the micro-corporations that hire them. These skillful individuals still develop a reputation, can still become very wealthy, and can still spread the benefit of their economic savvy while maintaining a free market and high levels of competition.
This system may not translate well to the stock market. Certainly the management and standards groups could have large stock holdings and could benefit from that kind of investment. Furthermore these centralizing groups could provide investment in the micro-corporations that subcontract with them. In this way the contemporary investment capitalism system could be maintained. However, there is certainly no need to maintain investment capitalism and furthermore investment capitalism is contrary to free-market capitalism, as explained in another article on Economic Democracy. Instead I would recommend suggest that the Micro-Corporate model lends itself well to an Employee Owned system as described in another article.