It is with deep sadness that I share the news of the passing of Joseph Forshaw IV, longtime member of the Show-Me Institute’s Board of Directors, former treasurer, and past chairman of the board.

Joe was more than a board member to us. He was a steadfast champion of the Show-Me Institute’s mission, a source of wisdom and clarity, an incredible mentor, and a man whose integrity and good humor strengthened everyone around him.

A lifelong St. Louisan, Joe brought to our organization the same qualities that defined his life: intellectual curiosity, disciplined thinking, and generosity of spirit. Before joining the Show-Me Institute, he served for 30 years as president of Forshaw of St. Louis, the family business founded in 1871. His deep understanding of entrepreneurship and free enterprise made him an invaluable voice on our board and a trusted adviser to our team.

Joe served with humility and conviction, and he cared deeply about Missouri’s future. He was an extraordinary mentor to many of us, always ready to offer thoughtful counsel, encouragement, and the perspective that comes from a life well lived. Whether asking the question no one else had considered or reminding us to stay focused on the people we serve, he did so with grace, steadiness, and genuine kindness. His presence made our work better, and his passion for ideas strengthened the entire organization.

I extend my heartfelt condolences to his beloved wife, Liza; their children Sr. Maria Battista, Juliet, and J. Alexander; his grandson Aidan; and the entire Forshaw family. Joe’s leadership, generosity, and friendship will be deeply missed.

Details about visitation and services can be found here.

The post In Memory of Joseph Forshaw IV appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Addendum:

TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE:

Since the submission of this testimony, a substitute version of Board Bill 14 has been introduced that places several restrictions on food truck operations. Specifically, the substitute:

• Establishes restrictions on where food trucks can operate by confining them to an expanded vending district, rather than originally eliminating vending districts
• Reintroduces a 100-foot restriction between food trucks and existing vendors selling comparable goods, whereas the buffer had initially been eliminated.

These changes diminish the bill’s effectiveness in reducing regulatory barriers for mobile food vendors. Expanding the vending zone and establishing a map of eligible locations does provide some relief. However, continuing to restrict food trucks to specific areas undermines their ability to serve customers where demand exists. Likewise, the reintroduction of a foot-buffer arbitrarily limits competition and consumer choice.

Board Bill 14 still represents a step forward in fostering a more business- and consumer-friendly environment, but these new provisions hinder the flexibility and innovation that make food trucks valuable contributors to St. Louis’s food scene. These changes should be reconsidered to ensure that the legislation truly supports entrepreneurs and consumers alike.

Avery Frank

February 5, 2025

The post Food Trucks in the City of St. Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

James V. Shuls speaks with Russell S. Sobel, Professor of Economics and Entrepreneurship at the Baker School of Business at The Citadel, about his latest paper, “Why Markets Matter for Human Progress & Prosperity.” They discuss how free markets drive innovation, prosperity, and human flourishing, the historical context of market-based economies, the pitfalls of government intervention, the long-term benefits of entrepreneurship and competition, and more.

Read the full paper here.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Why Markets Matter for Human Progress with Russell Sobel appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The playbook highlights how excessive occupational licensing, convoluted permitting processes, and outdated zoning laws create significant hurdles for small business owners. For instance, starting a barbershop often involves not only obtaining city permits but also navigating state-mandated requirements such as barbering school and licensing fees, adding unnecessary time and cost. Punitive late fees, illogical license renewal cycles, and restrictive home-based business rules further complicate the landscape for aspiring entrepreneurs.

One major recommendation is the establishment of one-stop shops for business registration, such as KC BizCare, which can streamline the process by allowing entrepreneurs to complete all necessary steps in one place. This approach reduces confusion and inefficiencies, helping business owners navigate regulatory requirements more easily. Additionally, the playbook suggests cities adopt more flexible licensing terms and graduated fee schedules to lower initial costs for new businesses, particularly those started by lower-income residents.

A separate policy report written exclusively for Kansas City, Missouri, included conversations with a number of local entrepreneurs to determine the most significant barriers facing business start-ups. The report made several recommendations—including improving the KC BizCare program—and the IJ Cities Work team pledged to remain involved in Kansas City’s efforts, including collecting feedback on the success of reforms and even drafting ordinances.

The playbook underscores the importance of reducing regulatory barriers to foster a thriving entrepreneurial ecosystem. By adopting its recommendations, cities in Missouri and elsewhere can create more dynamic environments for small businesses to flourish, ultimately contributing to stronger local and state economies.

The post How Missouri and Other States Can Foster Entrepreneurship by Reforming Local Regulations appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We rarely use this sort of entrepreneurial thinking in education. For one, the vast majority of students—roughly 90%—attend a public school. Charter public schools are growing in this sector, but traditional public schools still enroll, by far, the most students of any school type. Of the roughly 10% of students who attend private schools, most attend some sort of religious school. Catholics have historically served the lion’s share of private school students.

With public and church-sponsored schools dominating the landscape, there has never been much room for entrepreneurs. Even if someone had a great idea, they would struggle to compete with free public schools or church-supported private schools.

That is beginning to change.

In places such as Florida, where school choice programs allow students to attend private or micro schools with publicly supported scholarships, we are seeing the start of something interesting—teachers becoming entrepreneurs.

I recently had the pleasure to serve as an advisor on a report conducted by Step Up for Students. Step Up for Students is “a state-approved nonprofit scholarship funding organization that helps administer four scholarships for Florida schoolchildren.”

Step Up conducted focus groups with former public school educators who left the public school system to start their own schools. These teachers thought they had a great idea to serve students and, thanks to the scholarship program, families had the means to pay tuition at the schools.

Check out the terrific slide deck or the video below to learn more about these teachers turned entrepreneurs.

The post Turning Teachers into Entrepreneurs appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Institute for Justice recently released a report that analyzes the barriers to business in cities across the country. The authors used model businesses to demonstrate how difficult it would be to open a restaurant, bookstore, food truck, barbershop, and home-based tutoring business in St. Louis and other cities. The report examines three aspects of the regulatory process to evaluate the cities: cost, delays, and complexity. Here’s how St. Louis fared for each:

Cost: St. Louis doesn’t do well here because of the city’s fee structure. The city uses a graduated fee system based on the number of employees, so fees can become extremely expensive as businesses grow.

Delays: This report found that a general lack of clarity (and especially a lack of information online) leads to many delays and makes the process more complicated than it seems.

Complexity: The process of starting a business in St. Louis can be very complex, sometimes requiring dozens of steps, numerous forms, and multiple business licenses.

Can we really say that St. Louis has an inviting business environment when the city fares so poorly in all three aspects? Lawmakers say they want more opportunities for entrepreneurs and options for consumers, but actions speak louder than words. St. Louis lawmakers should make the city more appealing for businesses by lowering fees and simplifying processes. Starting a business is expensive enough without the city requiring exorbitant fees. And the fact that there is very little access to information online seems like an outdated problem that unnecessarily complicates the process.

If we want more business in St. Louis, we need to have an environment in which businesses can thrive. If the barriers are too high from the beginning, we’re not going to see entrepreneurs and new businesses coming to our city.

The post The Price of Starting a Business in St. Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

If these students do one day get into the food truck business, one thing they will learn about is government regulation. Food trucks in Missouri are overregulated in many parts of the state—sometimes they are outright banned from operating in certain cities. While everyone would agree there are some safety rules that should apply to food trucks, such as not blocking busy intersections or parking in dangerous places, many places still engage in protectionism against them in favor of sit-down restaurants.

In some locales food trucks can operate, but not within a set distance from brick-and-mortar locations. That compromise is better than a total ban, and it may be a political necessity in some cities.

How are the food truck regulations in Joplin that these students may one day encounter? The good news is that the city allows them in the first place, and there does appear to be an active foot truck scene in the community.

But the regulations for food trucks appear to be heavy-handed. Don’t get me wrong, I know they are heavy-handed for restaurants, too. The obsession with “safety” in health regulations has led to things like banning popular (and perfectly safe) bake sales at schools. For example, in Joplin’s regulations I fail to see why a food truck has to:

“report to an approved commissary daily for servicing, food prep and cleaning”

There are other regulations on the list that seem unnecessary, but that is typical for the field.

But at least Joplin kids will be able to operate a food truck if they so desire, getting a real-world education in government regulations at the same time.

The post Joplin Students Learn About Food Trucks and (Perhaps) Government Regulations appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Most who fight to limit opportunities for food trucks are afraid that food trucks will compete with, and potentially harm, existing brick-and-mortar businesses. My family owns restaurants, so I’m supportive of brick-and-mortar restaurants and I’m sympathetic to this line of thinking. The reality is that food trucks will definitely increase competition, but that is not something that should be feared. Competition among businesses should be expected and encouraged. In the same way that brick-and-mortar businesses compete with one another, food trucks should compete with existing businesses—and may the best food and dining experience win!

Market competition encourages entrepreneurship and leads to the best options for consumers. Food trucks will only do “harm” if consumers overwhelmingly decide that they prefer the food trucks over the existing businesses. And harm is in quotation marks because creative destruction is how we make progress. If food trucks were to overtake brick-and-mortar restaurants in the market (which I think is unlikely), it would mean we are moving forward in a direction chosen by consumers.

Misplaced fear of this process often leads to unnecessary and burdensome regulations. For example, many cities have extremely strict regulations that hinder their operations—and some cities simply don’t allow them at all. (These are, of course, different from regulations that reasonably deal with traffic and public safety concerns.) In cases of overregulation, lawmakers are picking the winners (brick-and-mortar restaurants) and losers (food trucks) instead of allowing consumers to decide. We need to stop being afraid of food trucks (and competition) and give them the freedom to operate.

The post A Policy Scare Story: Don’t Be Afraid of Food Trucks (or Competition) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Although it’s a little trite, “the early bird gets the worm” is harmless enough as far as old sayings go. Still, living by those words is one thing, and governing by them—as Lake Ozark seems to be doing—is quite another.

Food truck operators want to set up business along The Strip in the city of Lake Ozark, but the Planning and Zoning Commission is prohibiting them from doing so. While identifying consumer desire for food truck options in this area, the Commission says that its intent is to protect brick-and-mortar businesses that are already there. As the daughter of a restaurant owner, I fully support brick-and-mortar businesses, but why is the Planning and Zoning Commission choosing to protect these businesses at the expense of others, namely food trucks? Why are we only allowing the early bird a chance at getting the worm?

The commission fears that food trucks would compete with existing businesses. That is not something that should be feared; it should be expected and encouraged. In the same way that existing businesses compete with one another, food trucks should compete with other restaurants—and may the best food and dining experience win! It’s through this competition that we end up with a collection of businesses that consumers really want. That’s how competition in the market should work; consumers, not commissioners, pick winners and losers. It shouldn’t be the early bird that gets the worm, but the best bird.

After the Great Recession, many were looking for cheaper, on-the-go food options, and a lot of culinary experts were unemployed, laying the groundwork for a surge of food trucks. (And it’s not a stretch to think that our current economic situation could increase the demand for food trucks even more.) From 2013 to 2018, the number of food truck establishments in the U.S. doubled, employing over 16,000 workers in 2018 and reporting sales of $1.2 billion in 2017 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. More options increase the chance that consumers find exactly what they are looking for at a price they are willing to pay. Additionally, more businesses mean more entrepreneurship and opportunities for workers.

Other cities have found ways for food trucks to operate that would be better options than an outright prohibition. For example, Clayton allows for food trucks to operate for city or private events provided that they follow specific guidelines. Branson prohibits food trucks from operating within 100 feet of a restaurant and also allows for food truck courts. While these examples still place regulatory burdens on the food trucks, they show that there are ways for brick-and-mortar restaurants and food trucks to coexist.

Existing businesses should not receive special treatment just because they already exist. We allow brick-and-mortar restaurants to compete with one another—is it really that dangerous to allow them to compete with food trucks? Lake Ozark says it’s working on an ordinance to lay the groundwork for food trucks operating in the area. I say, let all the birds go and see which one gets the worm.

WATCH: More From Show-Me on Food Trucks

The post Why Should the Early Bird Get the Worm? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I’ve previously written about the Mercatus Center’s State RegData project, which calculates how many times each state tells its citizens what they can and cannot do. Using a similar program, researchers examined the impact that federal regulations have on individual states using the federal regulation and state enterprise (FRASE) index. Though federal regulations apply to all states, each state’s economy is made of different industries, so regulations targeted at specific industries will affect states differently.

The authors find that “[the] impact of federal regulations from 1997 to 2015 on the Missouri economy is associated with the following regressive effects:

• 93,411 people living in poverty
• 2.7 percent higher income inequality
• 180 fewer businesses annually
• 2,406 lost jobs annually
• 7.35 percent higher prices”

I’ll admit that it’s difficult to quantify these things and find direct links between regulations and these effects; there’s no specific regulation that led to one of these specific consequences. However, this novel program counts phrases that usually translate to regulatory requirements (like “shall” and “must”) to track changes over time. The authors then use this data along with data for other economic indicators to find the regressive effects. Given what we know about regulations generally, these numbers make sense and are pretty staggering.

From 1997 to 2015, the effective federal regulatory burden on Missouri increased by 54 percent. Researchers have found that an increase in the effective federal regulatory burden on a state is associated with an increase in the poverty rate in that state. This helps to explain why federal regulations have led to more people living in poverty and higher income inequality. Regulations reduce entrepreneurship because they increase the red tape one must cut through to be successful, which impacts the number of businesses in a state. Regulations also increase the compliance costs for businesses, which they then transfer to consumers by increasing prices.

These regulations are not just affecting the industries or groups to which they are targeted. They can affect Missouri workers, small businesses, and consumers. As we continue through this legislative session in Missouri, we should remember the unintended consequences of legislation and regulations.

The post Do Federal Regulations Impact Missourians? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Mackey spoke highly of capitalism, saying, “We can’t throw out capitalism and replace it with socialism—that’ll be a disaster! Socialism has been tried 42 times in the last 100 years and 42 failures. It doesn’t work.” Mackey believes that capitalism is “the greatest thing that humanity’s ever done,” crediting capitalism with increases in life expectancy, earnings, and literacy rates. Mackey recognizes that it’s entrepreneurs who have taken scientific discoveries and operationalized them to make our lives better. He points out that “businesspeople are not the villains of the story; they’re the heroes of the story. The entrepreneurs are the ones that create great progress.”

While noting that society needs rules and regulations, he says, “[Y]ou can overly regulate business so it’s hard to do business and then the whole society becomes less wealthy and less prosperous.” This is a point often made by Show-Me Institute researchers; burdensome regulations make it harder to work and make a living, which can have negative effects on economic growth.

I can’t speak to all the actions of Whole Foods or other interviews by Mackey, but it was certainly refreshing and interesting to hear the CEO of a major company supporting markets in this instance. I tend to agree with Mackey’s statements, but you can listen here and decide for yourself.

The post Whole Foods CEO Speaks on Markets appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

First, what is an entrepreneur? Some define an entrepreneur as someone who starts a new business. But this doesn’t capture the whole picture. Entrepreneurship is an ongoing process by which individuals attempt to forecast what consumers will want in the future and then organize production to satisfy those demands.

This might sound bland, but it’s immensely important. Without people thinking about what consumers might want, nothing will get done—our economy will just be a lump of raw materials, tools, and factories. Entrepreneurs are the men and women that act now to create value for consumers in an uncertain future.

The key point here is that entrepreneurs are acting in the face of uncertainty. Entrepreneurs that consistently make profits prove themselves capable of forecasting the constantly changing demands of consumers.

Now we can see why entrepreneurs are so vital in today’s economy. Taking action in the face of uncertainty is precisely what entrepreneurs do. So who could be better qualified to meet our changing needs in these very uncertain times?

And we do, in fact, see entrepreneurs adapting and expanding their services for the needs of health-conscious consumers. As my colleague Corianna Baier noted in a recent post:

Most stores now have curbside or delivery options, gyms and restaurants are moving things outdoors, and socially-distanced concerts are the latest form of entertainment. There is also plenty of innovation in education, with pods facilitating or replacing virtual learning.

However, entrepreneurs need the freedom to innovate and act on their ideas. The immense number of regulations in Missouri hinders their ability to adapt to our needs. The more Missouri dictates what can be done in education, restaurants, and public meeting places, the less freedom entrepreneurs have to provide for our needs.

Missouri faces a difficult challenge. The COVID-19 crisis has changed our behavior and the goods and services we need. Entrepreneurs have already adapted to these changes and will continue to innovate in order to provide for our needs. Shouldn’t we celebrate these men and women and allow them the freedom to serve us in this uncertain economy?

The post Entrepreneurs, Not Governments, Solve Uncertainty appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Many restaurants have ditched multi-use menus in favor of QR codes that allow you to access menus on your phone. Some even have dine-in customers order using new apps on their phones to reduce interactions between guests and staff. Most stores now have curbside or delivery options, gyms and restaurants are moving things outdoors, and socially-distanced concerts are the latest form of entertainment. There is also plenty of innovation in education, with pods facilitating or replacing virtual learning.

Not only are established businesses pivoting their operations, but new businesses are popping up to fill new demands created by the pandemic. According to the Census Bureau, business applications were up 77.4 percent in the third quarter of 2020 compared to the second quarter. Our new circumstances have created room for entrepreneurship; companies are making masks, creating fun backyards, or installing home-office setups.

There is no centralized, one-size-fits-all way for a business to survive a pandemic and economic shutdown, and there shouldn’t be. This is where the free market plays a vital role; businesses can experiment to find out what works best for them, and that could be totally different from the business next door. Unfortunately, not every business will make it through this economic downturn, but the freedom to innovate will help some survive. While we all try to get through these tough times, we can thank the free market for giving us these new options to enjoy (from a safe distance).

The post Free Markets in the Wake of the Pandemic appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The quotation above is from Aaron Hedlund’s new report, an exploration of what happens when tax rates change. Among the findings:

• The effect of tax policy on the size of the tax base can be as important as the actual tax rate.
• Looking only at the impact of taxes on the incentives of primary earners yields can lead to misleading projections about the revenue a tax hike will generate; a household’s secondary income earners, as well as those considering entrepreneurship or investments in their own human capital, can be more sensitive to tax rate changes than primary earners.

Click on the link below to read the entire essay.

The post Report: How Do Tax-rate Changes Impact Revenues appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Competition: Each product is competing for a spot on your shopping list, and each store is competing for your business. Stores have big sales and new products and advertisements appear to try to win your business. Searching for the best deals among stores is the epitome of a competitive marketplace.

Entrepreneurship: Ever see a new product and think, “Wow, that’s a good idea”? Well, someone before you had that exact thought, and they turned it into reality. Your shopping list is full of the results of entrepreneurial ventures, and your holiday purchases will help determine which ones are successful.

Options: An overwhelming number of options is perhaps both the best and worst part of holiday shopping, but we’re lucky that the free market gives us all these choices. Entrepreneurs have the freedom to pursue new ideas, stores have the opportunity to try and outdo competitors, and shoppers have the option to buy the products they want. And if you want to avoid the chaos of the season, you can choose to shop online!

Holiday shopping would be pretty lackluster without these (and other) free-market concepts. As I’ve said before, products find their way to your home through these concepts, so remember the free market when you’re checking things off your list this year.

The post ‘Tis the Season . . . of Free-Market Activity! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

First, it’s worth recalling that in 2018 the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) demonstrated how tax rates affect innovation. Looking at state-level taxation dating back to the early twentieth century, the NBER concluded, “A one percentage point higher tax rate at the individual level decreases the likelihood of having a patent in the next 3 years by 0.63 percentage points.” Specifically, they found that, “higher personal and corporate income taxes negatively affect the quantity, quality, and location of inventive activity at the macro and micro levels.” This should not surprise anyone; resources that might be put toward innovation can’t be used for that purpose if they are spent paying taxes.

The new study from Arizona State University, titled “Doing Business: North America“ looked at 115 cities in the United States, Canada, and Mexico and rated them in six different categories. Those were “starting a business,” “employing workers,” “getting electricity,” “registering property,” “paying taxes,” and “resolving insolvency.” (All U.S. cities tied for first place regarding insolvency.)

While St. Louis ranked 31st overall out of the 115 cities in Canada, the United States, and Mexico (no other Missouri cities were included in the study; Chicago scored 45th overall), the areas where it scored less impressively—starting a business and employing workers—feature significantly in attracting entrepreneurs and innovation.

St. Louis scored 60th on “starting a business” (46th among U.S. cities). This ranking resulted from a “study of laws, regulations, and publicly available information on business entry,” along with consideration of the time and cost of complying with applicable regulations.

Regarding “employing workers,” St. Louis ranked 47th both for the whole sample and among the 66 U.S. cities examined. This ranking was more involved and is described on page 177 of the report, but it reflects the cost of wages and wage regulations such as probationary periods, overtime requirements, and sick leave.

Policymakers can debate the value of local and state mandates and regulations associated with starting a maintaining a business, but all should acknowledge that each one imposes a cost on the employer. Forty-six other U.S. cities have formulated less costly ways to meet their public policy objectives when it comes to employing workers. And St. Louis was outranked by cities in in all three countries examined when it came to ease of starting a business!

All this suggests that when working toward the important goal of taking advantage of St. Louis’ “innovation districts” in the agri-tech, biomedical and technology fields, city government could do a lot more to help entrepreneurs take advantage of what the city may already offer.

The post St. Louis Ranked in the Middle in Ease-of-Doing-Business Study appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Real estate developers are indeed fraught characters in city life. . . . And the history of American development certainly includes shady land speculation schemes, racist intentions and bloated egos. . . . But at its best, development has also meant progress in America. And that possibility has been banished from recent debate.

The worry is that “developer” has become a dirty word, and that our mostly negative perception of developers and development is off-base. While urban politics demonizes developers, we ought to be grateful there are people who work to develop and build our cities, the thinking goes.

This assessment is both right and wrong.

It’s right inasmuch as developers shouldn’t be demonized for providing what consumers demand through market forces. People need housing and space for their businesses, and developers provide just that. Just as we shouldn’t lambast farmers and grocers for “profiting off” our hunger, we shouldn’t bemoan developers for profiting off of our need for homes and office towers. (Indeed, we all profit off of someone else’s needs through the exchange of goods and services for money.) As Adam Smith remarked in his Wealth of Nations, it is incredible that, without any sort of orchestration, the market is full of goods and services we need and want. What Smith said about butchers, bakers, and brewers is equally true of developers.

But the Times article also misses the mark in some ways. While there is nothing wrong with providing housing by chasing profits, there is something wrong with advocating that the public subsidize projects for private gain. Developers don’t invest just their own money; they often invest taxpayer money as well. Through subsidy programs like tax-increment financing, abatements, and special taxing districts, developers reduce their private risk. And since policymakers are often generous with these subsidies, for some developers it pays—and pays very well—to chase down subsidies and ensure they continue to flow for years to come.

The economist William Baumol, in his famous paper “Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive,” argues that market agents are after profit, and they will try to get it through productive means or unproductive means. He thought that when governments have the power to pick winners and losers in the economy, entrepreneurs will chase government favor instead of working to meet consumer demand competitively. Many developers, like many market agents, have become infatuated with government handouts, and that is deserving of criticism.    

The post Why “Developer” Is and Is Not a Dirty Word appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Learn more about the case:

Hair Braiders Challenge Regulatory Requirements

The post Show-Me Now: Time To Untangle Unnecessary Regulations appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Hathaway and Litan found that the more population growth an area experiences, the more likely the area is to see startup activity. Tax migration flows show that Missouri has seen a net outflow of people since 2011, driven by larger outflows from Kansas City and Saint Louis. While it is still possible for Missouri, Kansas City, and Saint Louis to grow in entrepreneurial activity despite a net migration loss, Hathaway and Litan find that those areas with fast and positive migration have more entrepreneurial activity. Unfortunately, that migration isn't really happening in the Show-Me State.

The business consolidation rate that Hathaway and Litan use is calculated by dividing the number of firms (e.g., Home Depot) by the number of establishments (individual Home Depot stores) within an area. Business consolidation can be a good indicator of business cost pressures, because as the costs of maintaining a firm’s establishments increase, business owners may decide to close or consolidate establishments. Therefore, a falling business consolidation ratio (i.e., each firm operates more establishments) indicates that overall, firms are expanding. On the other hand, a rising ratio indicates that firms are contracting their business operations.

The business consolidation ratio for older firms in Missouri seems to be declining over time, which may suggest that, on aggregate, these businesses are able to manage their costs of doing business and are expanding. For startups, however, business consolidation has remained flat, suggesting cost pressures may continue to be a problem for these new or relatively new companies. The chart below captures these trends.

Remember: the downward slope of a line is a good thing, and reflects better conditions for a firm’s expansion. Policymakers should take a closer look into the startup environment, because review of Missouri, Kansas City, and Saint Louis shows that startups aren’t doing nearly as well as older and more established firms in terms of expansion. Over the last 10 years or so, the gap between established firms and startups has grown without pause.

How can Missouri policy help foster an environment in which entrepreneurs not only want to operate here, but also enjoy enough success that they are able to expand their operations? My first post in this series outlined how Kansas City businesses are enticed to move to lower-tax environments, indicating that tax policy might be a good place for policymakers to start. In addition, with Missouri ranked 29th in least-burdensome regulations for startups, (see page 49)., regulatory reform is another area where improvement would be welcome. 

The post Entrepreneurship in Missouri, Part 3: The Startup Environment appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Show-Me Now! Startup Jobs Fall. Is Government In The Way? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.