Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Geoffrey G's avatar

I think this "competitiveness" and productivity argument is missing something important that this McKinsey Global Institute Report from a few days back (https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/our-research/the-power-of-one-how-standout-firms-grow-national-productivity) clarifies:

It's not that the American economy overall is much more productive. It's more like *100 individual firms globally are claiming ALL of the productivity increases,* many of them American.

And it really boiled down to about 44 firms (5% of the total sampled) which account for 78% of the productivity effect, the names of which you are well-familiar, including the consumer-tech stars Apple and Amazon, but also big box retailers like Home Depot).

In other words, it's not really a system-wide or country-level phenomenon. The overwhelming majority of American companies, like their European counterparts, are laggards or worse in productivity growth. And so its hard to surface lessons from this when it's all being driven by a few outliers.

Let's dig deeper into some of these Standout firms to show you have having a marginal superstar or two can totally swing the national situation: little Sweden can punch way above its weight because of the likes of Spotify and Klarna. Denmark is in the news without you even knowing about it because of fluke success of the weight loss drugs pioneered by Novo Nordisk. You could say that both countries (who have a combined population of <20M people) together are productivity stars. And they are... technically. But strip out Novo Nordisk and you've literally cut Denmark's paper GDP in half!

So the contingency of having a few breakout firms is very high. Remember that for a while the best VoIP company in the world (Skype) was from... Estonia. Does that mean that Estonia is a productivity superstar? And Finland's Nokia dominated mobile telephony... until it didn't.

This also isn't to say that smaller European countries can't produce "Standout" firms even outside of the fussy, scalable world of tech. Spain has its Zara and Sweden has IKEA, both of which dominate American competitors. Europe may struggle to compete with Chinese green-tech companies in batteries and solar panels, but the global leader in wind turbines by a mile (Vestas) is Danish.

This even applies to more traditional industries like shipping: Tiny Denmark dominates global shipping via Maersk. And even real dogs of productivity like Greece can punch way above their weight at the firm-level in that industry, with half a dozen of the top shipping companies. The United States can't create a shipping industry to save its life (literally) and so what would they even learn from Greece and Denmark here? Be a peninsular archipelago with millennia of seafaring experience?

The Pareto Principle Productivity effect here is also profoundly sub-national: Could we say that Sweden and Denmark are "special" in productivity terms? Yes. But so are California, New York, and Massachusetts, then. The only "Red State" that really outperforms in productivity is Texas, and only because of its "Blue Cities." Conversely, you could strip almost the entirely of the Southeastern United States and the average national productivity would go up. Ditto with the Mediterranean and much of Eastern Europe in the EU. Hell, if you un-did German Unification the story in West Germany would look a lot more positive than Germany, overall! So maybe it's more useful to compare Standout Regions in the US an Europe to... everywhere else. Amsterdam has much more in common with New York City than New York has with Upstate New York.

One interesting difference here between North America and Europe, though, is that it's much easier for a Standout firm in a "Standout State" (say Amazon in Washington State) to scale nationally across the American (or even Canadian) states than it is for a Standout firm in Switzerland or Ireland to scale to Italy, Germany, Poland, et al. This is one of the hidden "cheat codes" that American firms have that no other country's firms have (outside of maybe China) access to a HUGE domestic market with totally consistent and frictionless hyper-scaling.

What I would say that the MGI report clarifies is that you can't necessarily "create luck" to grow yourself the national champions that will become Standout firms that drive 70-80% of productivity growth, but you can be better than others (esp. Germany) at letting the laggards die off and be reconstituted. Germany's economy is less productive today largely because the Standouts and Laggards cancel each other out, productivity-wise. And that's for structural and political reasons. The German auto industry is still extremely profitable and globally competitive (more so than the American one, certainly), but it's also missing the boat on the next paradigm in transport (as are the Americans). The dilemmas of letting your stragglers die off are well-familiar to Americans over the last few years: Obama "saved" the American auto industry (which continues to underperform in innovation) and Trump is using his authority to protect the American coal and steel industries, even though they're a massive drag on overall productivity and competitiveness.

Expand full comment
Lauren Thomas's avatar

Perhaps of interest: The UK's Resolution Foundation think tank recently wrote a report on the productivity growth gap between the US and UK (with the singularly great title of "Yanked Away"), and one of the the main drivers of the gap that they pointed to was the much higher rates of new technology adoption in the US non-tech sector (eg professional, scientific, and technical services), along with the oil/gas boom and high-profile tech companies.

I'm glad you pointed to the labour market though: I agree that the loose labour market regulations of the US are probably one huge and underrated reason why its companies have grown so much faster. There's just much lower downside to taking a risk. PS I say that as someone who has been unemployed twice in the past two years (though ironically in the UK, where their unemployment insurance is much worse than the US) so very familiar with the downsides of a dynamic labour market! The UK has sort of a hybrid labour market system -- much lower costs to employers than a lot of Euro countries, but higher than the US. And at-will employment exists, but only for the first two years of one's employment.

Aforementioned report here: https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/yanked-away/

Expand full comment
154 more comments...

No posts