Europe is home to some of the world’s most brilliant minds, world-class universities, and a rich history of scientific and technological breakthroughs. The birthplace of modern banking in Italy, the World Wide Web at CERN, and some of the most advanced engineering institutions globally, Europe should—by all logical measures—be a dominant force in the startup world.
I write this, knowing that it sounds critical, and that many might not like the realities of it, but I’m frequently asked why Europeans haven’t launched many unicorns, why the EU doesn’t innovative like the U.S., or why Europe doesn’t have a Silicon Valley, so at the risk of criticism, here’s why.
While European startups have produced global successes like Spotify, Klarna, Revolut, and DeepMind, there is no single European city or region that mirrors the all-encompassing, self-sustaining ecosystem that Silicon Valley has become both in California AND intrinsically intertwined with innovation throughout the world. On the surface of it, one factor is simply that Silicon Valley is an economic region roughly 3 times larger than the Paris metropolitan area, while within that region are 3 major cities. There aren’t many places those circumstances can be replicated other than Brussels – Antwerp – Ghent, Amsterdam – Rotterdam – The Hague, Manchester – Liverpool – Leeds, or perhaps in Germany or Italy, but it was in considering Manchester – Liverpool – Leeds that I started to explore further why it isn’t, since I’ve written about Manchester before and noted how it tries to distinguish itself as Manchester, distinct from Liverpool, rather than how Silicon Valley is, well, Silicon Valley and not San Francisco.
But the real question isn’t whether Europe has the potential to match Silicon Valley—it does. The question is: What structural and economic shifts need to happen to unlock that potential?
The answer lies in understanding the complex interplay between venture capital, economic policy, risk-taking culture, and regulatory frameworks. While Europe has made incredible strides in recent years, addressing a few key challenges could accelerate its rise to the global forefront of entrepreneurship.
1. Europe’s Startup Ecosystems Have Incredible Potential—But Need Greater Specialization
Silicon Valley is not just a collection of startups; it is a highly specialized, deeply interconnected system where talent, capital, and institutions reinforce each other in a specific way. Regional startup ecosystems must embrace distinction, the key to a thriving ecosystem is differentiation; the typical cause of misunderstanding this is thinking that Silicon Valley = tech.
European cities have strong and growing startup scenes, but most position themselves as generalist tech hubs rather than focusing on their unique strengths. By contrast, Silicon Valley has one dominant strength: scaling software-driven technology companies. The U.S. startup ecosystem thrives on industry clustering, where specific cities become the best at a particular niche:
- Boston dominates in biotech because of its proximity to Harvard, MIT, and world-leading research hospitals.
- Austin is known for bootstrapped startups, blending a creative, low-cost environment with deep technical expertise.
- Miami has positioned itself as a fintech and crypto hub, capitalizing on Latin American investment.
Europe’s emerging startup capitals need to double down on their own areas of excellence:
- London: Fintech, AI
- Paris: AI, deep tech
- Berlin: SaaS, mobility
- Stockholm: Music tech, gaming
- Amsterdam: Green energy, logistics
- Estonia: Digital identity, e-governance
Academic research supports this clustering approach. According to Harvard’s Michael Porter’s The Competitive Advantage of Nations, industry specialization leads to higher productivity and stronger economic growth by creating network effects that benefit all players in the ecosystem. If European cities fully embrace specialization, they can attract the best talent, investors, and policymakers to support the development of dominant global companies.
2. European Investors Are Increasingly Active — But Need to Embrace Higher Risk (and discourage EU funding)
Europe’s venture capital market is growing rapidly. According to Atomico’s 2023 State of European Tech Report, the continent saw $91 billion in VC funding in 2021 — nearly double the $50 billion invested in 2020. However, there’s a catch: European investors are significantly more conservative than their U.S. counterparts.
The most meaningful angel investors understand that startup investing follows a power-law distribution— meaning one massive success can make up for dozens of failed bets – and that identifying wherein that success might be found, means investing what you know, where you have experience, and where you can help. In Silicon Valley, this fuels a high-risk, high-reward investment culture. European investors, however, tend to demand clear paths to revenue early on, making it harder for radical, disruptive startups to secure early-stage funding.
Consider this: The average Series A round in the U.S. in 2023 was $20 million, while in Europe, it was $10 million (PitchBook, 2023). This funding gap limits the ability of European startups to scale as aggressively as their American counterparts.
The good news? This is changing. More European investors are embracing risk, and alternative funding models such as revenue-based financing and European-focused SPACs (Special Purpose Acquisition Companies) are emerging. If this trend continues, European startups will have greater access to the capital they need to compete on a global scale.
3. Europe’s Economic Development Model Is Evolving Toward a Startup-Friendly Future
Historically, economic policies in Europe have been designed around established industries — finance, manufacturing, and tourism — rather than the fast-moving world of high-growth startups. Successful startup ecosystems require policies tailored to their unique needs.
The European Union has already implemented several promising initiatives:
- The Digital Single Market Initiative is reducing regulatory fragmentation, making it easier for startups to scale across borders.
- France’s “La French Tech” program has created one of the world’s most attractive startup visa programs.
- Estonia’s e-Residency program has made it a global leader in remote entrepreneurship.
Europe doubles down on this problem by failing to recognize address that while a local focus and programs are critical, they need to work universally; Silicon Valley is a distinct place but the United States shares currency, language, and most laws, enabling it to be meaningful throughout. Hiring in France is a legal nightmare, German tax compliance is an obstacle course, and Spain’s labor laws punish companies that try to scale. Compare that to the U.S., where the states actively compete for startups with tax incentives, favorable incorporation laws (see: Delaware), and business-friendly employment policies because you can be in Chicago but raise capital and easily employ people in California.
Simply put, Europe makes it harder, slower, and more expensive to build a company. That’s why ambitious founders looking to scale globally relocate to the U.S. — America is designed to scale companies to hundreds of millions of consumers
Europe can go further and in doing so, it needs to keep in mind our first point about specialization.
Ironically, in the same breath that I criticized the focused economic policies around finance or tourism, I’m going to point out that that’s precisely what it should be doing, the inherent challenge is that it, like many places, treats “tech” as an industry, hoping to foster innovation in every way conceivable. Doing so distinguishes tech from tourism when what specialization in innovation means is tech in tourism.
Develop initiatives that align this way and appreciate the degree to which this is what makes Silicon Valley work so well. Techstars, thriving there, isn’t really ideal to biotech, agtech, advanced manufacturing; it’s built and operated by, experienced in, distinctly what Silicon Valley does best: SaaS, web services, and software – not “tech” but certain kinds of tech.
4. Europe’s Approach to Business is Becoming More Open to Disruption
One of Silicon Valley’s greatest strengths is its culture of creative destruction—the idea that new companies should replace outdated incumbents.
Europe, historically, has been more protective of its legacy industries. However, this is changing:
- Challenger banks like Revolut and N26 are proving fintech startups can succeed despite strong banking regulations.
- Remote-first companies are growing despite strict labor laws in some countries.
- AI and biotech startups are benefiting from new government-backed R&D initiatives.
As the regulatory landscape continues to evolve, Europe is poised to become a leader in responsible innovation, balancing technological advancement with ethical considerations.
5. Implement What Actually Makes a Startup Ecosystem Work
Governments across Europe have embraced the idea that startups drive economic growth however the key isn’t just providing grants and building co-working spaces — it’s fostering an environment where founders have the freedom to experiment, take risks, and scale.
The most successful startup ecosystems emerge when governments act as facilitators rather than central planners. That means ensuring access to capital, streamlining regulations, and creating policies that make it easy for entrepreneurs to hire, expand, and pivot without unnecessary barriers.
Silicon Valley wasn’t built by government initiatives (a catalyst to it, yes, but not policy) — it was built by risk-tolerant investors, ambitious founders, and a deeply ingrained culture of experimentation. While government support can be helpful, it can’t replace the organic growth of an ecosystem driven by market forces.
Europe’s approach often results in sterile “startup zones” that lack the dynamic energy and network effects of real startup hubs. You don’t create a Silicon Valley by handing out government grants—you do it by fostering an environment where entrepreneurs can take massive risks without being criticized, ostracized, or out of work due to failure.
Economic Development of Startups Requires Orchestration
Europe has the talent, the capital, and the market size to build the world’s next great startup hub. But to reach build Europe’s Silicon Valley (if you will), it’s important to appreciate that it requires all of these changes, not just one because one without the others will fall short:
- Embrace specialization—each region should focus on what it does best.
- Encourage risk-taking investment—more high-risk, high-reward venture funding is needed.
- Streamline regulations and focus economic policy —making it easier for startups to scale across borders.
- Foster a culture that embraces disruption—allowing startups to challenge incumbents.
For the European Union:
- Harmonize regulations across the continent. A startup in France should be able to expand to Germany, Spain, or Italy without facing vastly different legal and tax structures. A true single market for startups would allow scale similar to the U.S.
- Stop overregulating new industries. Whether it’s AI, fintech, or biotech, the EU needs to allow innovation to thrive rather than introducing stifling regulations before companies even have a chance to scale.
- Encourage capital mobility. European VC funds should be incentivized to invest across borders, rather than being tied to national-level restrictions.
For Individual Countries:
- Specialize. Instead of trying to be “the next Silicon Valley,” European cities should focus on dominating specific industries. Stockholm already excels in music tech (Spotify), Estonia leads in digital identity, and Switzerland thrives in fintech—lean into these strengths.
- Make hiring easier. Reduce labor law complexity and taxation burdens on startups, so companies can scale without excessive legal overhead.
- Foster a culture of risk-taking. Encourage failure as part of the entrepreneurial journey. Too often, European founders are hesitant to launch ambitious projects due to the stigma of failure.
East coast doesn’t have silicon valley either
Ayse, yep, I’ve explored that a lot too
Texas has potential (Austin / San Antonio / Houston)
The Boston area has potential
Both have cultural differences, just as does Europe, that get in the way.
This is really insightful! Great article
Thanks, Paul O’Brien.
Having spent 16 years in Europe and the rest in Silicon Valley as a native Californian, I see opportunities for both regions to strengthen their innovation capabilities.
While America excels at entrepreneurship, we face two key challenges:
1) We need stronger STEM education at all levels
2) The high cost of higher education limits risk-taking potential
Silicon Valley thrives because it attracts global talent – people who arrive with strong technical foundations and the financial freedom to innovate.
Why not create these same conditions for everyone?
Today, regions that combine educational excellence with entrepreneurial opportunity will lead tomorrow’s innovation.
Let’s focus on building these advantages together.
I couldn’t agree more Tim
Trying to replicate Silicon Valley is kind of a fool’s errand. Why? Turn the clock back sixty years. Would you like to live in what is now Silicon Valley? Weather? Not terribly challenging. Pretty? Well, yeah. Mountains? Yup. Beaches? Uh-huh. And before it became the present with all that entails (traffic, off-the-chart housing costs, all that) it was the *future* — it was the place where a postwar generation was going to do something *new* dammit! Of course the vibe has darkened with the specter of a shift in the nature of success, but the allure remains. The US can’t replicate that series of attributes. It’s been done. Pick a nice spot and folks are already there. Future hubs will be different. In fact one of the things we continually ignore is that one of the necessities of a future hub is the opportunity to fail. For things to not go as planned. That garage where the magic happens is not so interesting when it costs ten grand a month. But if the US suffers from “nah, that neat place is already occupied”, in Europe you have to add on the phrase “for many hundreds of years”. So it would have to be a different model from the start.
For sure, future hubs will be different, they need to be, that’s part of my point. Still, there are characteristics of how things work there, that can be replicated, and we can look at why it works the way it does, and guide cities/countries in that direction.
Paul O’Brien precisely! During an interview, Linda Pizzuti and Google’s Eric Schmidt explored this phenomenon
I wonder how much of that culture finds its way into long-established companies shifting to new tech or business plans instead of the creative destruction that takes place in the US? Nokia being a prime example. NOK has been around for over 100 years. It started as a paper mill, moved into rubber and cable, then into electronics. In the 1970s they began building telephone switchgear and radiotelephones, combining them in the 1980s and 90s with cellphones. Anyone hoping to be the next Nokia better be willing to deal with a company that’s got its roots deep and wide. And the fact that most people, once employed by Nokia, probably aren’t going to storm out after a bad day and start their own competing companies either. Compare this to the evolution of the transistor. Invented at Bell Labs, first mass produced at Shockley Semiconductor. Managers at Shockley got tired of dealing with their (allegedly) psychopathic CEO and became “the Traitorous Eight,” getting backing from Sherman Fairchild to start Fairchild semi. A few managers from Fairchild went on to be founders of a little startup called Intel. The big problem with Silicon Valley these days is the institutional momentum is slowing. Once a company has been around for a generation it becomes an institute. Once enough pension and 401(k) mutual funds hold a stock it gets harder and harder to compete, for lots of reasons.
That’s a fantastic observation, and it highlights a fundamental difference between how legacy companies evolve in Europe versus the U.S. Nokia is a perfect example of long-term adaptability, but its evolution happened within the structure of a dominant, deeply rooted institution—whereas Silicon Valley’s success was largely fueled by exodus-driven innovation.
The “Traitorous Eight” story is the perfect contrast. Fairchild Semiconductor didn’t just birth Intel—it catalyzed an entire ecosystem of spinouts that led to AMD, National Semiconductor, and eventually the broader Valley we know today. That culture of leaving to start something better is a key ingredient in the Valley’s ongoing renewal, whereas in Europe, strong incumbents tend to retain talent rather than encourage entrepreneurial offshoots.
The challenge, as you point out, is that even Silicon Valley isn’t immune to institutional inertia. Once companies get big enough to be major 401(k) holdings, risk tolerance drops, bureaucracy grows, and creative destruction slows. The question for Europe is: Can it build a startup ecosystem that embraces disruption while balancing its legacy of deep institutional strength? That might require more than just better startup policies—it might mean a cultural shift toward rewarding entrepreneurial risk inside and outside of large corporations.
Would love to hear your take—do you think corporate spinouts and talent mobility could be the missing piece in Europe’s startup landscape?
In Berlin last year – built a decent product but spent 70% of our time dealing with different regulations in each EU country.
Meanwhile, our US competitor just… scaled. Sometimes having 27 markets isn’t the advantage we think it is.
Eelke Broersma heard the same story, time and time again, in Ireland, Croatia, Belgium, France…
No one in the U.S. ever says they’re struggling to get into New York because of local regulations.
The EU is not a Union like the U.S.
The U.S. is independent states, united, which is similar but the difference is that the EU wants unity of independent countries whereas the U.S. is one country of independent states.
I’d hazard a guess that European startups are better off building for the U.S. from the start, and having accomplished that from a presence in Europe, work out how to break into the other countries there.
Spotify a good example of that??? I’m not sure. They had to make U.S. copyright law work because of all the labels and most pop music here. Then they can tackle the rest of Europe.
I’m looking for an objective, daily, EU news or EU business news podcast. Any help would be appreciated.
Justin T. been looking for a good one in the U.S. for years, so much so that I’ve been begging *good* news-oriented, radio capable, tech and business people to start one with me. The skill required to be able to talk meaningfully on the spot, weekly, let alone daily, is rare.