Is Entrepreneurship in Decline?
Nathan Goldschlag1
George Mason UniverstiyAlexander Tabarrok
Department of Economics
George Mason University

The US economy has been one of the most dynamic economies in the world but recent researchsuggests that US dynamism is in decline. But what is dynamism? We may be tempted to say that weknow it when see it and, in the past, discussions of dynamism were invariably impressionistic. Pointing
to Steve Jobs, Elon Musk or the upending of the taxi industry by Uber, however, isn’t enough to say
whether dynamism has increased or decreased or is higher or lower in the United States than say
France. What makes the recent discussion different is that new, comprehensive datasets put together
by the US Census Bureau and other-country statistical agencies have given us quantifiable measures ofdynamism that are signaling a potential problem. Although quantifiable data is of enormous help,
however, data are always subject to interpretation and questions remain as to the relationship between
dynamism and entrepreneurship, flexibility and growth.
The evidence on the decline of dynamism comes from micro-data on business startups and job creation(Decker et al. 2014). Between 1980 and 2011, for example, the entry rate of new firms, fell byapproximately 50% from about 15% annually to 10% annually, as shown in Figure 1. The exit rate,
however, fell by much less.
Although most new firms fail, a large proportion of net job creation is created by the minority of new
firms that succeed and grow (Decker et al. 2014). It’s not surprising, therefore, that as shown in Figure 2
annual US job creation has also declined while job destruction has declined by much less.
Figure One

1

Disclaimer: All views are the authors only and should not be ascribed to any organizations the authors may beaffiliated with.

US Annual Firm Entry and Exit Rates
16

1980-20111214

Entry Rate

8

10

Exit Rate

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 11
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Year
Source US Census Business Dynamics Statistics and Decker et al. 2014
Dotted lines are HP smoothed filter with multipler 400

Figure Two

US Annual Job Creation and Destruction Rates
20

1980-2011

Job Destruction

19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
2010
11

12

14

16

18

Job Creation

Year
Source US Census Business Dynamics Statistics and Decker et al. 2014
Dotted lines are HP smoothed filter with multipler 400

Other sources compare business dynamism across countries (Bravo-Biosca 2010, Criscuolo, Gal andMenon 2014). Compared to Europe, for example, the United States has traditionally been more
dynamic. In particular, successful firms in the United States grow more quickly than in Europe andunsuccessful firms die more quickly in the United States than in Europe. Figure 3 shows the distributionof growth rates of firms in Europe relative to firms in the United States. In the middle of the distribution
are firms that are static—both the behemoths and the small family firms that have been doing the samething for generations. In the static category, Europe dominates. At the ends of the distribution are thefast firms, fast dying firms on the left and the fast growing firms on the right. In both of these cases, theUnited States dominates. It may be that the United States is becoming more like Europe.
Figure Three

A closely related point concerns the age-distribution of firms. In all economies, young firms tend to besmall but small firms are not necessarily young. The United States has historically had a relatively highshare of small firms that are young and also a relatively high share of large firms that are young. The
latter, of course, are relatively rare but it’s in the United States that a small firm has the greatest
probability of growing rapidly becoming a large. Conditional on survival, it is these young firms that
account for a significant share of net job growth (Decker et al. 2014, Criscuolo, Gal and Menon 2014).

Overall, however, U.S. firms are getting older. The share of firms aged 16 years or more, for example,
rose from 23 percent in 1992 to 34 percent in 2011 (Litan and Hathaway 2014b). Since older firms tend
to be larger and larger firms older the share of employment in older firms has increased from 60% in
1992 to 72 percent in 2011 as shown in Figure X.
Figure Four
Source: Litan and Hathaway 2014b).

Is it Regulation?
One potential explanation for the secular decline in firm dynamism is regulations that impede entry,
exit, expansion, and contraction. Regulation has increased in the United States over time but it has notincreased at the same rate in all industries. Thus, one test of whether increased regulation is the causeof decreased dynamism is to examine whether dynamism by industry is correlated with regulation byindustry.

In preliminary work, Goldschlag and Tabarrok (2014) combine measures of industry dynamism from the
Census Bureau’s Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) with measures of industry regulation from RegData,a new dataset on regulatory stringency by industry produced by Al-Ubaydli and McLaughlin (2014) totest whether increased regulation can explain reduced dynamism. Surprisingly, the answer appears to
be no.
Regulatory stringency does vary greatly by industry. More than 50 percent of industries, for example,
received less than 354 regulatory restrictions between 1998 and 2012, while the top 5 percent ofindustries were subjected to more than 16,000 restrictions. (See Al-Ubaydli and McLaughlin 2014 andGoldschlag and Tabarrok 2014 for more detail on the measure of regulatory restrictions.)
How do measures of dynamism correlate with regulatory restrictions? Figure 5 shows job creation rates
against regulatory stringency (both averaged over 1999-2011) by industry (measured at the 3-digit
NAICS level). The correlation between job creation rates and restrictions is weak and positive. Note that
restrictions are plotted on a log-scale since they vary from a few hundred in furniture production to overa hundred thousand restrictions in the air transport industry. Despite significant variation in regulation,
there is only a small change in job creation rates and it is positive not negative—that is industries withgreater regulation had only slightly higher job creation rates.
Figure 5

Job Creation Rate Against Regulation by Industry
25

Average over 1999-2011

5

10

15

20

213

561

Construction
236
711 531
237
523

211
533 512115 238
443
541
551
448
425
722
812
519 114
517
488
522
493
453
562
811
532
515447
442
484
454
621
451
624 446 113 713
315
524
485
423 424212525
721
441 511 444
445 623
813
314
339
327
334
321
611
337
221
316
712 332
311
312
Furniture483
333 326
Air Transport
324 325323
492
336
487 331 335
481
313
486
322452
622
518

64
00
0
12
80
00

16
00
0
32
00
0

80
00

40
00

20
00

10
00

50
0

25
0

12
5

62

0

521

Regulatory Restrictions
Regulatory restrictions on log scale
3-digit 2007 NAICS codes

The story for startup rates is similar. Regulation is weakly positively correlated with startup rates.

Figure 6

Startup Rate Against Regulation by Industry
25

Average over 1999-2011

15
10
5

Startup Rate20

525
Funds & Trusts

519 114518
487

Couriers
492

517

523
711 236
315
531
312

484
561
512
115
533
213
238
541
515
443
485
722
486
425488812
445
611713
483
521
562
522
237
454
524
493
113 453
551
211
532
721
511
624
811
442
451
448
316
623
621
314
424
446
212
441
339
423
452
311
337
324
221
321 447
334 331
336
313
327
444
712
325
335
323
332
622
333
813
326
Hospitals
322

62

5
12

0
25

0
50

00
10

00
20

00
40

481

0
0
0
0
00
00
00
00
00
8
80
6
2
4
1
3
6
12

Regulatory Restrictions
Regulatory restrictions on log scale
3-digit 2007 NAICS codes

These simple scatter plots do not control for other factors, in particular industry effects. It could be thecase that industries with a lot of job creation and startups attract more regulation than other industries
and as a result of this reverse causation we find a positive correlation between dynamism andregulation. Thus, Goldschlag and Tabarrok (2014) look in more detail at within industry effects. Do
industries that are regulated more over time show lower dynamism rates? Although this does happen insome industries the effect of regulation on dynamism continues to be small in more sophisticatedanalyses.
Thus, perhaps surprisingly, regulation does not appear to be the cause of decreased dynamism. A few
other patterns in the data suggest that regulation may not be to blame for the decline in dynamism.
First, as we discuss in greater length below, when looking across countries the dominant type of
regulatory restriction (or other friction) is one that prevents firms from growing large. U.S. firms,
however, are the largest in the world and growing larger. Moreover, on average larger firms are moreproductive and in the United States this correlation between size and productivity is higher thananywhere else in the world (Haltiwanger 2012). Thus, unlike in most of the world, size per se doesn’t
appear to be penalized in the United States.
Regulation, however, could certainly deter startups or impede small firms from growing into large firms.
As already noted, preliminary results do not find a relationship between regulation and startups in thedata. Moreover, if small firms were being penalized then theory suggests that when entry does occur it
would be by larger firms. We do see some weak evidence for this across countries. The average entry

size for a manufacturing startup in France, for example, is more than twice as large as in the UnitedStates. In the United States, however, there is no trend towards increasing entry size (Haltiwanger,
Jarvin, Miranda 2013) which is what we would expect if regulation was increasing the cost of small firms
disproportionately.
Finally, it is also the case that startup growth is declining in other countries (Criscuolo, Gal and Menon
2014) and dynamism is declining across most sectors of the US economy and also across most US states(Decker et al. 2014). Since regulation varies widely across industries, countries, states and time, theconsistent decline of dynamism across these factors suggests that regulation is not the cause of
declining dynamism.
If regulation is not the cause of declining dynamism then there are two possible stories, one pessimistic,
the other optimistic. If regulation was the cause of declining dynamism, then we would at least know
how to solve the problem (it might be politically difficult to solve the problem but we would at least
know what to do in principle). If regulation isn’t the cause, then we have very little idea what to do.
Suppose the cause is a declining spirit of entrepreneurship. If so, we have no real knowledge about how
to rekindle that spirit. Or perhaps, as we discuss below, the cause is that there is less to beentrepreneurial about – a great stagnation. Once again, we don’t have a surefire solution.
The optimistic story is that if regulation isn’t the cause of declining dynamism then maybe declining
dynamism isn’t such a bad thing. We should not let words guide our normative evaluation; dynamism
sounds like a good thing and decline like a bad thing but if substituted churn for dynamism we might say
there has been a decline in churn. Or better yet, we might say that there has been an increase inbusiness stability. We turn to exploring these two stories in greater depth.

A Pessimistic Story about Causality
First, a caution on causality. Productivity growth has declined as business dynamism has declined. It’seven true that some productivity growth is caused by business dynamism. Even so it doesn’t necessarily
follow that the decline in productivity growth is due to the decline in business dynamism. The causality,
for example, could be the other way—from a decline in productivity growth to a decline in businessdynamism. One reason that entrepreneurs start new firms is precisely that they believe that new ideas
and technological developments can be used profitably in new business ventures. If productivity growthhas declined for primarily exogenous reasons—as argued, for example, by Cowen 2011 and Gordon
2012—then we may expect fewer new business startups as a result. The direction of causality isimportant as the policy levers that we do have may vary in effectiveness depending on the cause. If
business dynamism is primary, for example, then we may look for direct levers such as regulation of new
businesses (contrary to our preliminary results) or an increase entrepreneurial immigration. If deeper
technological change is at work, then our options are more limited, but perhaps policy could be more
focused on improving science and math education, investing in knowledge production and fostering
creativity.

Alternative Explanations
The standard explanation of the above facts is that entrepreneurship is in decline with negative
consequences for efficiency and growth. We propose several other interpretations with less dire

conclusions. We do not dispute that the standard interpretation may be correct. Our proposals should
be taken as hypotheses.

Firm Size and Entrepreneurship
The literature takes for granted that entrepreneurship is about the growth of young, small firms. The
identification is problematic for three reasons. First, when looking across countries it’s larger firms thatare associated with greater development. Second, entrepreneurship occurs within firms--even large
firms--as well as between firms. Third there is a great deal of excess reallocation and churn and declines
in these magnitudes represent gains not declines. We examine each of these in turn.
The most developed economies have the largest firms. The least developed economies have the mostentrepreneurs. One might imagine that the least developed economies are dominated by inefficient,
lumbering behemoths while the more developed economies are characterized by smaller, nimble
entrepreneurial firms. In the case of the Communist economies that characterization had some elementof truth. Nevertheless, today and on average, firm size increases with GDP per Capita as illustrated in
Figure 7. In the poorest 10% of countries average firm size is 6 persons, in the richest 10% it’s more than
three times larger, 19 persons (Bento and Restuccia 2014).2

Figure 7: Establishment Size Per Capita
Note: Countries with less than 500,000 population omitted.
Source: Bento and Restuccia (2014).

2

Technically, Bento and Restuccia measure establishment size which is the number of workers at a particularlocation. Firm size will be somewhat larger but more so in more developed economies so this comparison
somewhat understates the difference.

The second fact, that the least developed economies have the most entrepreneurs is closely related to
the first. If we define entrepreneurship as self-employment then there is much more entrepreneurshipin poorer countries. People in poorer countries have to be entrepreneurs because there are relatively
few jobs, that is to say few employers of large numbers of workers. Moreover, although not all selfemployed workers have the skills or temperament for entrepreneurship, the identification ofentrepreneurship with self-employment is not a definitional sleight-of-hand. Travelers to less developed
economies often are surprised at how much more market oriented, dynamic and entrepreneurial these
economies appear to the naked eye. Indeed, tourists are more likely to visit an actual market in adeveloping economy than they are at home. The visceral hustle and bustle of the town market is adisplay of real entrepreneurship. The greater familiarity that people in developing countries have withentrepreneurship is likely one reason why immigrants to the US are more than twice as likely to start
new firms as are natives (Fairlie 2013).
The problem with developing countries is not that they lack entrepreneurs but that entrepreneurs
cannot grow their firms large enough to become major employers.3

3

In the United States, for example, firms are much more likely to increase in size as they age than firms
in other economies, especially relative to developing economies. By age 35, for example, the typical firmin the United States has grown by over 700%, in Mexico a comparable firm has grown by only 100% andin India by just 40 (Hsieh and Klenow 2014).

The distribution of firm size is highly right skewed so the share of workers employed in large firms
increases even more dramatically with development than does average firm size. In Ethiopia, Egypt andIndia, for example, more than half of all workers are employed in firms that employ fewer than 10
employees. In the United States, in contrast, more than half of all workers work for firms that employ
more than 250 people, even though these firms account for less than 1% of all firms (Criscuolo, Gal andMenon 2014). Fortunately, larger firms are better managed, more productive and more innovative thanare smaller firms and they pay higher wages (World Bank 2013). Indeed, the best managed firms in theworld are the large multinationals (Bloom and van Reenen 2010).
Why are these cross-country findings important for understanding the development of businessdynamism in the United States? The cross-country effects are also found across time—namely as
economies develop, in particular as the US economy has developed, we have seen larger firms, a larger
share of employment in large firms and less entrepreneurship (Poschke 2014). The fact that these
correlations are seen widely in both cross-sectional and time-series data suggests that they have somecausal basis (see Lucas (1978) and Poschke (2014) for models of the possible causality).
In short, some of the measures of declining business dynamism which on the surface appear
unambiguously negative are in fact associated with greater GDP per capita. Thus, we should bepresumptively cautious about making normative conclusions from declining business dynamism.

Entrepreneurship in large firms
The annals of entrepreneurship are replete with David versus Goliath stories, but entrepreneurship is
not limited to startups. In 2006 when Allan Mulally became chief executive Ford Motor Company, Ford
was losing billions, product quality was declining, inefficiencies were tremendous, union contracts wererigid, and Ford’s credit rating had been downgraded to junk. And that was in a growing economy! Whenthe financial crisis hit in 2008-2009 Ford’s seemingly stronger competitors GM and Chrysler filed forbankruptcy and were kept afloat only through a government bailout. In one of the great turnarounds inbusiness history, however, Mulally guided Ford through the crisis without bankruptcy or bailout andreturned the firm to profitability by 2010 with record profits by 2014 (Hoffman 2013, Reuters 2014).
Mulally’s turnaround of Ford illustrates two propositions. First, entrepreneurship is not limited to small
firms. Indeed, because of scale, entrepreneurship at large firms is much more important than at small
firms. Moreover, there is some evidence that CEO’s have become less managerial and more
entrepreneurial over time. CEO turnover, for example, has increased over time and the turnoverperformance gradient has become more steep;that is, CEOs whose firms perform poorly are increasingly
likely to be fired (Murphy and Zaobjnik 2007, Kaplan and Minton 2006). CEOs are also less likely to beinsiders than in the past. In the 1970s only 15% of the CEOs in S&P 500 firms were outside
appointments but by 2000-2005 32.7% were outside appointments (Murphy and Zabojnik 2007). The
decrease in the appointment of insiders and increase in the appointment of outside, suggests that basic“managerial” knowledge and skills—How does this firm work? What do we do? What relationships need
to be managed?—became less important and more general managerial or entrepreneurial ability
became more important in managing US corporations.
Allan Mulally’s career is a case in point. He rose not through the ranks of Ford but came to Ford from
Boeing where he had been president of Boeing Commercial Airplanes and was credited with a successfulcompetition against Airbus. After retiring from Ford in 2014, he was appointed to Google’s board of

directors—further illustrating the importance of general entrepreneurial ability rather than firm specificknowledge.
Second, by all accounts Mulally remade Ford into a different firm—not just a different set of products-although there were innovative new designs and building methods--but also a new corporate culture(Hoffman 2013).
What then is a startup? We measure startups as firms that yesterday had zero workers and today haveone or more workers. We say startups are born. The metaphor may constrain. Philosophers wrestle withthe problem of identity even for persons (Parfit 1986). The problem is more severe for objects andorganizations. The Ise Grand Shrine, Japan’s most sacred shrine, was first built around 686. Every 20
years since that time the entire shrine complex, some 62 buildings, have been dismantled and removed
and an entirely new structure rebuilt in exactly the same place in exactly the same way with exactly thesame 16,000 artifacts put back in place. This has been going on for over 1000 years. Is the Ise Grand
Shrine an old building or a new one?
The problem is not merely philosophical. We measure new firms as firms which go from zero
employment to one or more employed but restructuring and remaking old firms is not counted. If Fordcan be said to have been reborn in the ashes of the financial crisis, then innovation, entrepreneurshipand reallocation may be larger than we measure.
Can this perspective be reconciled with the time trends? It’s plausible that information technology has
made older and larger firms more flexible, nimble and capable of change. Consider Zara, the world’s
largest fashion retailer founded by Amancio Ortega, the third or fourth richest person in the world,
depending on the day one counts. In the past, a fashion retailer would have one line per season planned
well in advance based mostly on trends and guesswork about consumer demand. In contrast, twice aweek the manager of each of Zara’s 6,500 stores examine sales data and also feedback from shoppers
and they order product from headquarters. At the Spanish headquarters, trends are identified anddesigners are charged with creating new product. Within weeks, Zara stores have new product on the
shelves. At Zara, turnover over a season is five or six new lines (Ruddick 2014).
In the past, a fashion retailer that did a poor job of predicting fashion trends for one or two seasons
might have found itself vulnerable to an upstart startup. Today, the same fashion retailer can turn on adime and correct its fashion faux pas before a startup has a chance to grab market share. Businessdynamism as measured by entry and reallocation will decline but measured by the goals of businessdynamism, the movement of resources to their highest valued uses and the satisfaction of consumer
demand, the decline has been an improvement.

Excess Reallocation and ChurnBy focusing on the goals of business dynamism it becomes clear that startups are not necessarily a signof vigor, growth and efficiency but instead can signal inefficiency. Why should firms have to die for the
economy to grow? Death and birth are painful processes. Bankruptcy wastes resources, reallocation
takes time and most startups fail. High job creation and job destruction rates speak to dynamism but
also to churn. Reallocation rates are down in the economy but so are excess reallocation rates, the rateof reallocation above that necessary for net job creation and that can be a positive development.

Walmart, the world’s largest firm by employment, has revolutionized the retail sector in the process
driving out many so-called Mom and Pop’s. The Walmart vs. Mom and Pop story that’s commonly told
paints a picture of a bucolic time in which family-run firms that had been around for generations are
driven out in a giant speciation event by the arrival of asteroid Walmart. The truth, however, is that likeother small firms the Moms and Pops rarely lasted for very long. Mom and Pop churned, with Mom and
Pop Jones being replaced by Mom and Pop Smith and then Mom and Pop Garcia on a recurring basis(Haltiwanger 2012). Walmart and other big box retailers greatly increased productivity in the retailsector—Walmart alone was responsible for a measurable share of US productivity growth in the mid1990s—and, in addition, the big box retailers have been more stable. As a result dynamism, as
measured by reallocation has declined but the efficiency by which consumer demand is satisfied has
greatly improved.
Figure 8

US Annual (Excess) Reallocation Rate

19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
2010
11

24

26

28

30

32

34

1980-2011

Year
Source US Census Business Dynamics Statistics and Decker et al. 2014
Dotted lines are HP smoothed filter with multipler 400

Death and birth are redeemed if necessary to improve productivity and innovation but it would be
preferable if older and larger firms can instead become more flexible, nimble and capable of change.
Information technology may have made that the case, allowing firms to be reborn from within rather
than the normal process of exit and entry.

National and International Entrepreneurship
The US economy is very large and therefore largely internally driven. Nevertheless, imports of goods andservices have risen from approximately 10% of GDP in 1990 to 17% today. The more internationalized
the economy the less national statistics on business dynamism may reflect reality. In 2013, Apple had
748 suppliers only 81 of which were in the United States while over 600 were located in Asia (Barreda

2013). Most importantly, Apple is an exacting customer and they can and do hire and fire suppliers on
the basis of slim price differences and quality improvements (Satariano 2014). Firms live and die in
anticipation and fear of a call from Cupertino. Like the Ise Grand Shrine, Apple continues even as its
component parts are dismantled and rebuilt with every iPhone iteration. The underlying flux insuppliers, however, is invisible to the customer and to the US business dynamics statistics.

Entrepreneurship, Globalization and the Future
William Gibson famously said that “The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed.”That, however, was in 1992. Today, the future is much more evenly distributed. Consider mobile
phones. Almost 5 billion people today have a mobile phone and nearly 2 billion people have asmartphone. Today’s smartphone is more powerful than a Cray Supercomputer was when Gibson spoke
and when Gibson spoke there were just a few hundred Crays in the world. Two billion Crays is a lot more
evenly distributed. Not only does today’s smartphone have more memory and processing power than
the supercomputers of the past, it’s also much more connected to the world with cameras,
microphones, gyroscopic orientation, GPS receivers, wifi, cellular, Bluetooth connectivity and muchmore. Thus, nearly 2 billion people are equipped today with a supercomputer networked to the world
around it and to other supercomputers. The ability of small entrepreneurs from virtually anywhere in
the world to tie into this network of vast computational power must alone be a tremendous boost forentrepreneurship.
As late as 1990, just seven nations accounted for 92 percent of world research and development.4 Today
those nations are spending more than ever before on research and development but today they accountfor only 56% of the total (OECD 2014). World R&D is increasing rapidly for multiple reasons. First, thecapacity for research and development has increased. Not just in the spread of supercomputer-like
power but also in the spread of human capital. The number of world scientists and engineers isincreasing rapidly as China and India increase the percentage of their population that is highly educated.
Second, the demand for R&D is increasing as world wealth increases. Greater wealth means a deeper
market, which increases the incentives to invest in R&D. If China and India were as wealthy as theUnited States is today, the market for cancer drugs would be 8 times larger than it is now. This illustrates
why we all have an interest in other countries becoming rich (Tabarrok 2011).
When we speak of globalization we often speak of exports and imports, of goods crossing borders. But
in the information age globalization also means an erasing of borders. Skype was created by Estonian
programmers and launched simultaneously everywhere in the world in 2003. What kind of startup is
Skype? Is Skype an Estonian startup or a world startup? Today, especially in information technology, but
increasingly in other areas of technology as well, the physical location of an entrepreneur doesn’t tell us
much about the location of innovation or value. Chinese entrepreneurs, Indian entrepreneurs just like
Estonian Entrepreneurs can also be US entrepreneurs. Thus, we remain optimistic about the global stateof entrepreneurship.

4

UNESCO, UNESCO Science Report 2010, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/sciencetechnology/prospective-studies/unesco-science-report/unesco-science-report-2010/.

References
Barreda, D. 2013, February 14. Who Supplies Apple? (It’s Not Just China): An Interactive Map.
ChinaFile. Retrieved October 29, 2014, fromhttp://www.chinafile.com/multimedia/interactive/who-supplies-apple-its-not-just-chinainteractive-map
Bloom, N., Eifert, B., Mahajan, A., McKenzie, D., & Roberts, J. 2013. Does Management
Matter? Evidence from India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(1): 1–51.
Bloom, N., & Van Reenen, J. 2010. Why Do Management Practices Differ across Firms andCountries? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(1): 203–224.
Decker, R., Haltiwanger, J., Jarmin, R., & Miranda, J. 2014. The Role of Entrepreneurship in US
Job Creation and Economic Dynamism. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(3): 3–24.
Goldschlag, Nathan and Tabarrok, Alexander T. 2014. Is Regulation to Blame for the Decline inAmerican Entrepreneurship? (December 1, 2014). GMU Working Paper in Economics No. 1511. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2559803
Haltiwanger, J. 2012. Job Creation and Firm Dynamics in the United States. NBER Chapters(pp. 17–38). National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. Retrieved fromhttps://ideas.repec.org/h/nbr/nberch/12451.html
Haltiwanger, J., Jarmin, R. S., & Miranda, J. 2012. Who Creates Jobs? Small versus Large
versus Young. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(2): 347–361.
Hathaway, I., & Litan, R. E. 2014. The Other Aging of America: The Increasing Dominance ofOlder Firms. Retrieved fromhttp://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/07/aging-america-increasingdominance-older-firms-litan/other_aging_america_dominance_older_firms_hathaway_litan.pdf
Hsieh, C.-T., & Klenow, P. J. 2009. Misallocation and Manufacturing TFP in China and India.
The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(4): 1403–1448.
Lucas, R. E., Jr. 1978. On the Size Distribution of Business Firms. The Bell Journal of
Economics, 9(2): 508–523.
Markoff, J. 2012, June 25. In a Big Network of Computers, Evidence of Machine Learning. The
New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/technology/in-a-bignetwork-of-computers-evidence-of-machine-learning.html
Melitz, M. J., & Trefler, D. 2012. Gains from Trade when Firms Matter. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 26(2): 91–118.
Murphy, K. J., & Zabojnik, J. 2007. Managerial Capital and the Market for CEOs. SSRN
Scholarly Paper no. ID 984376. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved
from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=984376

OECD. 2014. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2014. OECD Science,
Technology and Industry Outlook. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecdilibrary.org/science-and-technology/oecd-science-technology-and-industry-outlook2014_sti_outlook-2014-en?citeformat=ris
Poschke, M. 2014. The Firm Size Distribution Across Countries and Skill-Biased Change in
Entrepreneurial Technology. SSRN Scholarly Paper no. ID 2403128. Rochester, NY: Social
Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2403128
Satariano, A., & Burrows, P. 2014, September 8. Apple’s IPhone to Divide Supplier Winners
From Also-Rans. Bloomberg. Retrieved October 29, 2014, fromhttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-08/apple-s-iphone-to-divide-supplier-winners-fromalso-rans.html
Syverson, C. 2004. Market Structure and Productivity: A Concrete Example. Journal of Political
Economy, 112(6): 1181–1222.
Syverson, C. 2011. What Determines Productivity? Journal of Economic Literature, 49(2): 326–
365.
Tabarrok, A. 2011. Launching The Innovation Renaissance: A New Path to Bring Smart Ideas toMarket Fast. TED Books.
World Bank. 2012. World development report 2013 jobs. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Retrieved from http://elibrary.worldbank.org/content/book/9780821395752