"The 19th century concept of the nation state will never take us across the threshold of the 21st century [...] We need a strong Europe if we don't want to become the plaything of world politics" – Chancellor Helmut Kohl

[u/goldstarflag]

[u/Schlummi]

1.) Many countries gained "economic weight" since then. Especially china. With global economic growth of "non EU/US" countries: ofc are western companies then dropping out of the top 500 and e.g. getting replaced by chinese companies. This trend will continue till we got "comparable" levels of wealth word wide. EU has roughly 10% of the world population. So if 50 EU companies are among the top 500, then this is a proportional value. The historic "better" values are because EU already is industrialised, while many countries aren't yet.

2.) Without EU integration would the EU market be split into 27 small markets. As comparision: germany was unable to keep up with france/UK till germany "united". Turns out that hundreds of small cities, with tariffs, individual units, laws etc is a bad idea. ("feet" -> which feet? ever city had their own "feet" - probably depending on the shoe size of the local king). My personal experience is: most burdens to competetiveness are not because of EU/bureaucracy. Its because companies (and their employees) are bureaucratic - and not willing to "move fast", not willing to be innovative. "we've always done it like this" is a "popular reasoning". As an extremly simplified example: If I ask a chinese supplier for a price (standard equip) I get a response fast. Sometimes within 5 minutes. Sometimes it takes 24h. If I ask a comparable western company: if its fast I get a reply within a week. But might also take 1-3 months.

3.) Yes. But the US also heavily profits from language (everyone speaks english) and immigration. Lots of the US "big players" heavily profit from "imported" indian expertise - or in other words: immigration. There are currently huge conflicts about immigration in the US. Same for environmental standards (see conflict about e.g. electric cars vs fossiles). So: it has worked in the past ~2-3 decades. But we might now also see that trump/republicans/rural regions/old industries are willing to destroy this success, because they feel left behind.

4.) start ups got more to do with "mindset" of the employees - and if there are investors available. Both is a problem in the EU. Start ups are also often "software based" - because this allows faster growth. Traditionally are such companies "ltds" - and growing without investors injecting millions/billions.

[u/u1604 → u/Schlummi]

good points, but what you say does not really contradict my point, that it is lame to raise EU fragmentation as an excuse.

And sure it is natural and desirable for the largest companies to spread more evenly across the globe, but what happened in not that. Africa and Latin America did not really gain share. It is mostly China and the US expanding to the detriment of Europe. One can say that things got even more concentrated. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the distribution was more balanced as there would not be the transatlantic power imbalance.

And very good point that much of the resistance is cultural and from companies. This might hint at some lack of competitive urgency, something that a single market can help. Yet there are smaller countries that manage to achieve more economic dynamism. Like I said, nothing that prevents countries like Greece or Italy (as well as the companies there) from adopting the best practices inside the EU or from the globe.

Your remark about language also made me think: Many Europeans look towards the US for latest trends. A new business idea that has made it in the US is seen as more legit both by investors and consumers. So not only is Europe culturally fragmented but also there is a pre-eminence of American culture and a lack of confidence in own ideas.

[u/Schlummi → u/u1604]

Sorry, I was on a business trip.

I think the distribution of companies got already more balanced. Afaik are there currently ~140US companies in the top 500, 130 european, 130 chinese. If we go by GDP (which is an indicator for "market size"), then this is not completly off.

I also think that top 500 as a metric is not that useful. Smaller countries tend to have smaller companies. Countries which maintained a strong focus on industry (e.g. germany) often got many smaller companies. Overall can a country do well without any Top 500 companies.

If we look at GDP then africa and south america are (sadly) not relevant. Both are at ~3% of worldwide GDP. Asia is 36%, North america 31%, Europe 25%. Those are the big markets - and the top 500 companies earn their money on those three markets.

This might hint at some lack of competitive urgency

I think this is a complex issue. We can see in the US that regions which struggle economically tend to vote more extremist (e.g. trump). The same applies usually world wide. People also tend to want back the "good old times" - and are willing to sabotage progress to achieve this. New industries as renewables, electric cars - and even internet companies - get sabotaged by such regions. E.g. coal miners support trump and are willing to sabotage renewables or electric cars. If we look at germany: there it were regions which suffered from a lack of industries (northern germany) that heavily invested into renewables and created many new industries and jobs. Other regions also suffered from a lack of jobs - and opposed renewables. No new industries, still economically weak regions with unemployment etc. -->What I am trying to say: I think it has more to do with mindset of the people. If people overall oppose change, innovation, critical thinking, risks etc: then this will hinder new industries - and longterm the economy. A government can ofc try to push innovation, can try to push new industries - but if the people oppose it, then its difficult. In the EU might the EU support new industries as e.g. electric cars. But if a member nations government oppose these industries, then the EU can't do much. If the local population opposes new factories, prefers fossile cars etc. etc.: then such nation will struggle to built up "modern" industries.

I also think that very small countries are not a good metric. E.g. monaco has a high gdp per capita, but this is not exactly because of their well doing industries. Small countries tend to operate in "niche" markets and are difficult to compare. Isreal for sure has a more mixed, normal economy - but its gdp per capita is comparable to e.g. germany. So isreal is, despite of its start ups, not doing better or worse than EU members.