The article chooses to take a metric that you usually do not see much: GDP per employee and per hours worked, at purchasing power standards
The article chooses to take a metric that you usually do not see much: GDP per employee and per hours worked, at purchasing power standards
So why are Stellantis and VW owning all your car companies if it’s hard to form mega corps?
Unilever own almost everything you can think of in the world and Britain was in the EU.
Nestle.
Etc etc. just because you don’t have a successful tech industry doesn’t mean you don’t have ridiculously large mega corporations
Because the companys at the core (and the sectors they work in) of these megas are comparably ancient compared to technologiy megas. And they started at a time before today’s easily accessable global market.
While big tech companies are the startups of just a few decades ago. And there it is immensely beneficial a) to have a big domestic market and then b) to be able to reach a lot of international markets that speak your language without the need for translations (the translations can basically start later for the countries with an already established market to finance it).
For this reason you see a US dominance in tech (big domestic market and the language most internationally understand), then followed by countries like UK (same language), China or (emerging) India (big domestic market).
While new European companies especially in the tech sector basically have no chance unless they develop in foreign english in the first place, and even then they are still at a disadvantadge.