Why the US leads China, EU in economic dynamism

QUESTION TO CLAUDE 3:  The EU and China lag behind the US in economic dynamism, measured by start-up activity, number of unicorns, age of unicorns (younger indicates more rapid innovation), and in productivity growth. Can you document this and tell me why?

ANSWER:  Here is the data to document the economic dynamism gap between the US, EU, and China, along with some key reasons behind it:

Start-up Activity:

• The US had over 63,000 startups in 2020, compared to around 37,000 in the EU and 25,000 in China. The US accounted for over 50% of global venture capital investment.

Unicorns (private companies valued at $1B+):

• As of 2023, the US has 704 unicorns, China has 258, and the EU has 139. The total value of US unicorns is $2.4 trillion vs. $862 billion for China and $449 billion for the EU.
• The US represents 51% of the world's unicorns by number and 65% by valuation. China and the EU lag significantly behind.

Age of Unicorns:

• The median age of US unicorns is 7 years vs. 9 years for Chinese unicorns, indicating more recent startup success in the US. [Claude 3 unable to find data on EU unicorns]

Productivity Growth (average annual labor productivity growth 2010-2019):

• US: 1.0%
• EU: 0.7%
• China: 7.1% (but from a much lower base)

Key Reasons for the US Lead:

1. Larger, more developed venture capital and private equity industry in the US fueling more startup investment. US VC deal value was 5-7X higher than China and the EU in recent years.
2. US equity markets provide better exit opportunities for startups via IPOs. US represented over 60% of global IPO proceeds in 2021.
3. Huge US domestic market enables startups to scale quickly. EU is fragmented across countries and China's market is difficult for foreign firms.
4. Top US universities and companies attract global talent. Over 50% of US unicorn founders are immigrants.
5. Historically strong intellectual property protections, rule of law, and business-friendly regulations in the US encourage innovation and risk-taking.
6. Deeply rooted culture of entrepreneurship and risk-taking in the US compared to more risk-averse cultures in the EU and China's state-led system.

While China leads on productivity growth, this is largely due to catch-up growth from a low base. On most measures of economic dynamism, especially in the innovation economy, the US maintains a substantial lead over the EU and China as of 2023. But the gap has been narrowing over time.

Economist: America is in the midst of an extraordinary startup boom

Why the U.S. Produces More Unicorns than the EU

The United States has produced about twice as many unicorns (private startups valued at $1B+) as China and more than four times as many as the European Union. These numbers reflect institutional and cultural advantages in the U.S. startup ecosystem.

Table: Number of Unicorns Created Since ~1990

Region	Cumulative Unicorns
United States	~1,950
China	~970
European Union	~450

Source: Estimates based on Hurun Global Unicorn Index 2024 and Strebulaev & Gornall, Stanford Venture Capital Initiative. Includes both active and exited unicorns created since ~1990.

Why the Disparity?

• Tolerance for Inequality:  The US gap between rich and poor is bigger than in any other advanced country, but most Americans want to join the rich, not soak them. The EU taxes inquality.
• Bankruptcy Laws Forgive Failure: U.S. founders can declare bankruptcy and get a clean slate in ~7 years. EU bankruptcy regimes are often punitive, with long-term credit restrictions. That discourages risky ventures. The U.S. treats failure as a résumé item, not a moral failing.
• Unified market: A U.S. startup can scale across 330 million consumers under one legal system. EU startups must navigate 27. It's harder to grow when your “domestic market” includes multiple languages, tax codes, and regulations.
• University spinouts: U.S. research universities are world leaders in tech transfer. Stanford alone has spun out over 200 unicorns. The Bayh-Dole Act helps universities commercialize IP. Europe is catching up, but still lags.
• Easier exits (acquisitions) lead to more entry:  investors require an exit.  
• Immigration to the US Nearly half of U.S. unicorn founders were born outside the U.S. If you have a good idea, you can more easily act on it in the US.
• Lighter regulation: U.S. startups face less red tape. European data/privacy rules (e.g., GDPR), strict labor laws increase fixed costs and reduce flexibility.

---

Acknowlements:  This post based on research begun by Annie Cox, and Avi Goldberg, and Jack Underwood and finished by ChatGPT.  

New Unicorns suggest fast pace of innovation!

Two popular innovation metrics are total factor productivity the difference between output (like GDP) and the inputs (like capital and labor) used to produce it, or the number of unicorns, startups that reach a $1B valuation.  While total factor productivity seems rather flat, 

the number of unicorns seems to be accelerating.

The US seems to account for about half of them, maybe due to its tolerance for inequality, and light-handed regulation.  

Unicorns are concentrating in several US cities, sometimes called "innovation clusters."

 More posts about unicorns and innovation. 

HT:  Elad Blog

Why are there so few unicorns in Europe?

Despite a GDP that is about the same size as the US, but with about twice the population, the EU produces relatively few unicorns (billion dollar startups) because the regulatory burden is so heavy.  A recent example is the GDPR,

Controllers of personal data must put in place appropriate technical and organisational measures to implement the data protection principles. Business processes that handle personal data must be designed and built with consideration of the principles and provide safeguards to protect data (for example, using pseudonymization or full anonymization where appropriate), and use the highest-possible privacy settings by default, so that the data is not available publicly without explicit, informed consent, and cannot be used to identify a subject without additional information stored separately.

MarginalRevolution has another great post  that documents the compliance costs, especially for would-be unicorns :

• Startups: One study estimated that venture capital invested in EU startups fell by as much as 50 percent due to GDPR implementation. (NBER)
• Mergers and acquisitions: “55% of respondents said they had worked on deals that fell apart because of concerns about a target company’s data protection policies and compliance with GDPR” (WSJ)
• Scientific research: “[B]iomedical researchers fear that the EU’s new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will make it harder to share information across borders or outside their original research context.” (POLITICO)
• Microsoft had 1,600 engineers working on compliance. (Microsoft)
• During a Senate hearing, Keith Enright, Google’s chief privacy officer, estimated that the company spent “hundreds of years of human time” to comply with the new privacy rules. (Quartz)
  • However, French authorities ultimately decided Google’s compliance efforts were insufficient: “France fines Google nearly $57 million for first major violation of new European privacy regime” (The Washington Post)

Unicorns by Region

Innovation leads to growth, and growth really matters:  

In the late 1950s, Nobel Laureate Robert Solow attributed about seven-eighths of the growth in U.S. GDP to technical progress. As Solow later commented: “Adding a couple of tenths of a percentage point to the growth rate is an achievement that eventually dwarfs in welfare significance any of the standard goals of economic policy.” 

Although the number of unicorns is a noisy measure of innovation, the relative number of unicorns in the EU may be a harbinger of future low growth, and is perhaps due to the burden of the EU regulation.  In my field of antitrust, there are big differences in how similar laws are enforced, e.g., CPI article or SSRN:

• EC is run by politicians; US agencies by antitrust professionals 
• EU skepticism of markets vs. US skepticism of regulation (since 1980) 
• EU regulation vs. US law enforcement (adversarial) 
• EU weak due process: remedies w/out adversarial hearing, 3rd party discovery, or cross examination 
• EU harm to competitors vs. US harm to competition 
• EU does not screen out bad theories (not supported by evidence) vs. US Daubert rules 

Which governments can get out of the way of growth?

John Cochrane reminds us to keep our eyes on the prize:

In the long run, nothing else matters. GDP buys you health, advancement of the disadvantaged, social programs, international security, and climate if you are so inclined. Without GDP, you get less of all.  Economic policy should have one central goal -- get productivity growing again, or (in my view) get out of the way of its growth. This is the one little hope that has not been let out of the policy Pandora's box, focused on everything else right now.

Macroeconomists classify two basic types of growth:  

• More inputs (labor, capital) lead to more output (GDP)
• Technological progress (Total Factor Productivity) increases output for the same level of input.

Here is a graph of the Total Factor Productivity in the US

And here is the change in Total Factor Productivity across countries.  

We have blogged about the dearth of unicorns in the EU,

   

Total Factor Productivity seems to be telling the same story.

Can EU governments pick unicorns to close gap with US and China?

New report from the EC focusses on the number of unicorns which are thought to be a metric of innovation, the primary driver of growth.  The chart above shows that US (red) and China (pink) way ahead and growing faster than EU (blue), which updates the chart below (2013-2017).

• To catch up, the EC suggests that "governments should play a role in the supply of venture capital, establishing funds to invest in larger deals ... that private sector VCs avoid." 

• Interestingly, much of the private VC funding in the EU comes from the US and China

BOTTOM LINE:  

• Hubris:  Why do EU bureaucrats think they can pick winners more accurately than venture capitalists?  
• Selection bias:  Don't they realize that investments that VC's avoid are more likely to lose money?
• However, I do like the humility of one caveat in the EC report.  
• "... our analysis recognises that simply increasing the supply of finance will not be effective unless there will be also an effort to increase entrepreneurial activity, both technology start-ups and growth businesses."

Why is Europe lagging the US and China?

Since 2000, the EU's share of world income has fallen has fallen from 33% to 25%; and the its companies share of world value has fallen from 31% to 16%.

The Economist mistakenly attributes the difference to several factors:

• Europe's firms seem to have been out-managed 
• Its biggest firms are in the wrong industries
• Entrepreneurial deficiency

All of these seem like symptoms of the EU's decline, not causes. My best guesses about what caused EU's decline are:

• EU regulations stifle innovation and growth 
• The EU cannot tolerate the inequality that comes from incentive pay required for profitable innovation.

This shows up in the graph below, showing that "...in the past decade venture capitalists have backed 661 companies that went on to be worth over $1bn. Only 78 of these “unicorns” are in Europe, worth 8% of the 661 firms’ over-$2.5trn total."

Does venture capital still contribute to growth?

The New Yorker has a harsh critique of some Venture Capital firms, like the ones that funded WeWork: 

 A widely read summary by a Harvard Business School professor, Nori Gerardo Lietz ... exposed WeWork’s “byzantine corporate structure, the continuing projected losses, the plethora of conflicts, the complete absence of any substantive corporate governance, and the uncommon ‘New Age’ parlance.” At the same time, she wrote, the S-1 (Disclosures to the regulators about the company's financial health ) failed to provide many conventional financial details. ...S-1 laid bare a basic truth: WeWork’s dominant position in the co-working industry wasn’t a result of operational prowess or a superior product. Instead, WeWork had beaten its rivals because it had access to a near-limitless supply of funds, much of which it had squandered on expensive furniture, flamboyant perks, and promotions luring customers with below-market rents.

Anyone who reads this blog knows three things:

1.  Innovation drives growth, and growth is almost everything.  

As Novel laureate Robert Solow said, “Adding a couple of tenths of a percentage point to the growth rate is an achievement that eventually dwarfs in welfare significance any of the standard goals of economic policy.

2.  Total Factor Productivity (the output measured relative to the inputs required to produce it) has grown much faster in the US than elsewhere.  This is one of the best aggregate measures of innovation.  

3.  The US has birthed more Unicorns (startups with a $1B valuation) than any other country else:

BOTTOM LINE:  Innovation is hard to measure, but it looks like the US has it, so the Venture Capitalists who fund it must be doing something right.  One cannot condemn an entire industry using a few anecdotes about how some startups fail--no matter how spectacularly.

Why fewer unicorns [firms worth $1B] in China?

Economist:

In 2020 Mr Xi began worrying about a “disorderly expansion of capital” as tech giants moved into businesses over which the state wanted tight control. Regulators lashed out, alarming entrepreneurs and investors. ...

The environment has become so forbidding that some firms are switching nationality [to the US]. ...

The Chinese government may now see the error of its ways. Mr Xi and the prime minister, Li Qiang, have been meeting entrepreneurs, urging them to invest and innovate. ...

US financing has fallen off, above, so the Chinese Government is stepping in. But, this investment comes with strings, and threats:

“Our job all day,” says one fund manager in Beijing, “is to figure out where the government is going to be investing and bet on it.” And investors who lose money, as VCs often do, risk graft charges when using state funds.

 

The costs of fighting inequality

Following up on an earlier post, Why are there so few unicorns in Europe?, Bloomberg suggests an answer straight out of Chapter 1:  the EU limits on incentive pay, particularly on stock options, make it difficult for innovators to align the incentives of employees with the profitability goals of the company:

"...when you’re not highly profitable, you have to incentivize employees on the promise of the upside.”  

Onerous rules and taxation make this difficult to do.  Examples of EU limits on incentive pay:

• The Dutch capped bonuses for bankers, money managers, and other financial professionals at 20% of base salaries. 
•  Entrepreneurs must navigate onerous tax rates and restrictions that often make equity sharing and options more trouble than they’re worth. 
• When employees in Germany exercise options, they have to pay income tax on the difference between the fair market value and the strike price, that runs from 14% to 47.5%. They also pay a 25% capital-gains tax on additional profits when they sell their shares.

In contrast, American employees typically pay a 0% to 20% rate on capital gains when options are redeemed, ...

Chatterbug's COO, sums it up: “I wish we had the same system as the U.S.,” she says. “But they don’t want us to get rich in Germany.”

HT:  Gus B.

ADDENDUM:  when I ask my EU colleagues about the disparity, they point to other factors as well, like bankruptcy codes that discourage risk-taking.

WSJ: Why EU lags US in tech.

Someone at the WSJ read Why the U.S. Produces More Unicorns than the EU

• Limited Presence of Major Tech Firms: 
• Apple's market cap > entire German stock market, 
• Structural Barriers to Innovation: 
• risk-averse business culture, 
• stringent labor laws, 
• heavy regulation
• smaller venture capital pool
• Talent and Incentive Challenges: 
• lack of stock options makes it harder to align incentives--and retain--innovators.  
• Underinvestment in Emerging Technologies: no quantum computing and artificial intelligence. 
• Dominance of Legacy Industries/lack of dynamism:  EU firms founded in 1911, US in 1985

America innovates while Europe regulates

NYTimes reluctantly admits that "overregulation and weak governance in Europe may undermine the continent’s future."

Europe softened the harshest edges of capitalism, provided safety nets and in important ways has exceeded the United States in well-being. European infants are less likely to die than those in America, childbirth is less dangerous in Europe than in the United States, and Europeans live longer.

But

...Europe is struggling today. The U.S. economy last year grew six times as fast as in the European Union, 2.5 percent to 0.4 percent.

[NOTE: Using rule of 72: US income will double in 29 years; EU income will double in 180.]

...The United States abounds with tech successes like Apple, Google and Meta, but there isn’t a single European company on one recent list of the world’s top 10 tech companies by market capitalization.

Related: Why are there so few unicorns in the EU?