This provides circumstantial evidence to support something I've thought for a long time: that America's lead in entrepreneurship is more cultural than it is a product of economic right-leaning / supply side policies. Sweden is significantly more "socialistic" than anything in the USA.
Perhaps even more significantly most of the USA is nowhere near as entrepreneurial as places like SF, LA, and NYC, despite many places having lower taxes and less regulation. There's lots of states that are more business friendly than California that have far less entrepreneurship.
Taken together these two things argue strongly against the "entrepreneurship comes from having small government" right-wing thesis. Don't get me wrong-- too much government meddling can sink business. But this argues strongly against the hard-line rhetoric that we often hear.
Edit: It does not however support the inverse thesis -- that more government is better. I personally think it is mostly cultural and all government has to do is not bork things too badly and keep the lights on and the barbarians out.
I've heard it surmised that the biggest advantage the United States has in terms of entrepreneurship is our incredibly lax bankruptcy laws. It's easy to start a company, fail, and maintain the ability to do it again. This is partly cultural (we don't look down on failure very much) but also is structural (failing doesn't ruin you for life). That isn't true of many countries.
I don't think anybody thinks "I will start a business because I have favorable bankruptcy laws." I'm not even sure what you mean by favorable. an LLC or an S Corp is a business entity designed to limit the risk exposure of an individual if they form one. And yes there are provisions in the law to allow you to restructure - namely because it allows your creditors a chance to get paid but there's nothing "lax" about that.
Entrepreneurship is definitely culturally engrained in the US. Starting a business although risky is generally lauded. I think Entrepreneurship is a very accessible concept to most Americans - most people in the US know someone that has started their own business.
Also surmising here, I would assume a more socialist country would be more fail-friendly. More support available if I hit rock bottom. I'm from Canada and not being able to afford health insurance for my family sounds terrifying.
The biggest advantage is just the huge market and tremendous amount of capital the country has flowing around. Reserve currency status imports even more capital (to our detriment). I think Americans who haven't analyzed other nations don't realize how different the capital availability is here vs abroad, from real estate to corporates to startups. This is why the economy basically froze when the credit markets seized.
The large market drives the entrepreneurial culture, because the stakes are so big if you "make it" here, and market sizes for even the most niche things become viable for an entrepreneur to chase with investors in tow. Not so in smaller markets.
Most success is in spite of our poor government, inefficient land use, and entrenched inequality. Chapter 11 is fascinating, I studied it extensively in school. I would not say it drives entrepreneurship but rather large corporate risk taking maybe. Startups aren't thinking about restructuring options. Besides, startup investors are after equity, not debt; Chapter 11 is about reorganizing debt, with secured debt the higher priority, at the expense of equity holders.
The culture of the Bay Area is also much more "left-leaning" than that of much of the US. The Bay Area likely helps creativity and innovation in other ways as well, as it has a ingrained culture that favors outsiders and diversity (e.g. diverse ethnic and gay cultures), reducing the barrier for other kinds of "outside" thinking.
This would support your thesis. However the US is also more entrepreneurial in other areas as well and its large government budget as well as domestic market helps indigenous large manufacturing (e.g. aerospace) in a way that few other countries can match.
I wouldn't be surprised, actually. I suppose the left versus right descriptions of politics are somewhat dependent on context.
On the other hand, historically communist countries currently span a range of left/right cultural tendencies, from the Baltics to Russia, to Azerbaijan, to Georgia, etc, etc...
Considering that human ability is normally distributed, and the easy migration enabled by modern technology has resulted in a massive concentration of intelligence in the major cities of the US, it's exactly as expected that there would be certain regions that stand out above the rest. I don't think this really provides evidence for or against any political philosophy, provided there are relatively reasonable amounts of liberty in the system.
Culture is very important, but keep in mind that USA is the biggest market without massive barriers like in EU (language, regulations etc). Look at B2B.
In the end the equation may consist of: culture, weather, big markets, limited regulation (non-compete not enforceable), free enterprise, proximity to certain institutions (Bell labs, NASA, Stanford), rich people (angel investors), hackers
I believe you are incorrect on both counts. The Texas Medical Center and the Energy sector in Houston are massive industries that have created tons of large companies. Just not the hacker news type, they actually have solid revenue, ipo, and continue making money.
Austin as a liberal island is also a bad Texas stereotype. I live in Austin now but was born in El Paso which has been an entrenched democratic stronghold for decades. San Antonio, Houston(most diverse city in the US), and Dallas are all also blue-voting urban areas. The Texas state constitution is just notorious for giving rural districts a lot of power and blatant gerrymandering.
Perhaps even more significantly most of the USA is nowhere near as entrepreneurial as places like SF, LA, and NYC, despite many places having lower taxes and less regulation. There's lots of states that are more business friendly than California that have far less entrepreneurship.
Taken together these two things argue strongly against the "entrepreneurship comes from having small government" right-wing thesis. Don't get me wrong-- too much government meddling can sink business. But this argues strongly against the hard-line rhetoric that we often hear.
Edit: It does not however support the inverse thesis -- that more government is better. I personally think it is mostly cultural and all government has to do is not bork things too badly and keep the lights on and the barbarians out.