Research by Kearney (2008) found out that India is leading in cross-border mergers and acquisitions followed closely by Malaysia. This is attributed to the fact that the government of these two countries provides substantial tax incentives to companies to engage in high-tech business deals and enhance export. In contrast, Chinese companies have shied off MA deals because of political interferences according to Wolff (2008, p.91). However, since China is developing very first, many companies from developed countries are seeking mergers with its domestic companies, with findings showing that at least one of every four cross-border transactions involves a merger according to Harrington (2004, p.21). Nevertheless, research indicates that the U.S. companies lead in the acquisition and acquired. This dramatic increase in a merger between companies as a globalization strategy has taken many people by surprising leaving many companies, which have not made such a move wondering whether to merge or not to merge (Hoover 2000). This is because pundits have given varied opinions regarding mergers as a market penetration strategy. For instance, AT Kearney argues that global level mega-mergers are inevitable as part of the cycle of consolidation and concentration in globalizing industries where firms seek to gain leverage and accelerate their presence. Ghemawat Ghadar (2000, p.65), on the other hand, had a different view claiming that business leaders need to look away from mergers and be more innovative in their approach to international business. This paper will evaluate the arguments of the pro-merger and anti-merger school of thought. It will conclude with my personal position regarding whether mega-merger is a good or bad policy to pursue in international practice.To begin with, the business environment has become very competitive, and many companies today seek to globalize their processes in order to beat the competition. In fact, many big corporations today have a global presence with those that have not gone global planning to do so as noted by McGarvey (1997). However, as earlier indicated, mergers have been on the rise over the last few years as the most preferred internationalization strategy. A.T Kearney (2008, p.1) in his school of thought argued that mega-mergers are inevitable as firms seek to leverage and become competitive. This school of thought has been based on a number of advantages associated with mega-mergers. In this regard, Riley (2012) reveals that obtaining loans and credit from bans today is a major challenge for many companies. This is because of the economic recessions that have affected many countries following the recent financial crisis and sovereign-debt crisis in most countries in the world. For instance, a report by DePamphilis (D 2011, p. 16) showed that bank lending to small businesses dropped by $15 billion in the first quarter of the year 2011. As a result, the pro-merger school of thought suggests that mega-merger can make a firm more valuable, making it easy for firms with difficulties obtaining funding easy. Richard Levychin, a certified public accountant, and partner at KBL argue that the success of a merger can be obtained using the formula 1 +1 = 3, 4 or 5 (Sherman 1997, p.17). As a result, the pro-merger school of thought concludes that mega-mergers are good for firms because it increases business revenues while reducing redundancies and overheads.