Most of the historicals from management are from the developed markets. And in developed markets, academics and the executives take certain things as a given. For example, you have a marketing agency to help you build a brand, you have well functioning warehouses across the country to help you manage inventory, and it’ s possible to raise money in the corporate bond market. In most of the developed markets the structures that you need for all these things to be true are present. It’s when these things are absent that you look out from the window and think: what is it that doesn’t work very well? So our attention is drawn to the absence of these things in emerging markets. And that’s really the content and structural difference of the emerging markets. Which of the following can be most valid conclusion from the above?

The passage focuses on how established structures and institutions in developed markets provide a historical context and reference to management, thereby making the process of management easier. In contrast, the absence of some or all of these structures becomes the biggest challenge for management in developing markets. Thus the most obvious conclusion from the passage is that the biggest difference between these two types of markets is that developing markets are unable to provide the structures of a developed market. Hence, option (C) is valid.

Option (A) is invalid because it claims that historicals are irrelevant to emerging markets, whereas they are relevant but often unavailable.

Due to the absence of structures and institutions, buyers and sellers may not be able to transact optimally in a developing market. Also, the transactional costs and operational challenges may increase. However, all these are inferences and not conclusions. Hence, options (B) and (D) are invalid.

Hence, the correct answer is option (C).