Bizarre comme on peut être convaincu de fausses idées. Contrairement à ce que nous affirment les présidents américains, l’Amérique est le pays dans lequel il y a le moins de petites entreprises !
Explication vraisemblable ? Aux USA, les entreprises prennent en charge une partie de l’assurance maladie de leurs employés. C’est extrêmement coûteux pour l’indépendant ou la petite entreprise.
Une conséquence imprévue du libéralisme économique serait de tuer l’entrepreneuriat ?
Compléments :
- L’origine de ce billet (voir aussi le lien du billet pour plus de détails : l’Europe du sud est la championne de la petite entreprise).
- Amusant : les Républicains s’opposent quasiment à toute intervention gouvernementale en affirmant que c’est contre les intérêts de la petite entreprise, alors que 1) la dite petite entreprise est fort peu représentée 2) cette intervention lui profiterait de manière disproprotionnée ! La victoire de l'idéologie sur la raison ? Ou habile sophisme utilisé pour défendre les intérêts des managers professionnels à bonus des grandes bureaucraties ?
2 commentaires:
The trend may actually be widening - at least in France where the "auto-entrepreneur" has facilitated the process and seen a host of new entrepreneurial activities. However, there is clearly more than just one cause for this divergence between the US and the other "rich" countries.
Not that I want to argue with the general conclusion, which is very surprising and alarming; however, the difficulty with this CEPR study you have cited is to compare with the typical data that we use over here in Europe. Although the study says at the outset "by every measure" the US has the lowest numbers of entrepreneurs, the CEPR study -- as it appears -- has picked self-employment and small companies in specific sectors... There are many ways to break down the entrepreneurial ranks... Self-employed, micro companies (less than 10 employees), small, medium (less than 250), etc. Before breaking down into sub-components, it might be worthwhile having the bigger picture first.
For example, how does the US, for comparative purposes, stack up on a more 'general' level, versus the European Union, where the average number of small-to-medium companies (in 2008) per 1000 inhabitants is 39,3, with top of the list being the Czech Republic (86), Portugal (80,6) then Greece (75)?
In any event, the revelation remains very disturbing, and we should look further afield to understand these differences. Merely supposition on my side: I wonder if the mobility of the US population, mobilizing around and for growing companies has, on other side, helped make more bigger companies (where the US clearly leads in creating big NEW companies)? Also, it might be worth investigating the relationship of the employee with the employer. How easy is it to hire and fire (this latter point has clearly impacted employee loyalty and trust in corporations in the US over time)? Also, what are the options for an individual in the country? In France, for example, some 40% of the workforce is employed by the government. If the auto-entrepreneur policy is working here in France, it is also because people may want the independence from working for a bigger company. And, moreover, companies with less than 50 people are not subjected to some of the heavy 'social' burdens that face larger corporations.
J'ai aussi continué à réfléchir à cette question, qui me semble plus complexe que ce que dit l'étude.
Je vais faire un billet sur le sujet. Ce sera plus facile à lire qu'un commentaire...
Enregistrer un commentaire