Overview
This series explains why the U.S. BDM and BDS can report different establishment totals: they use different administrative frames and link locations to firms differently. It separates openings and young establishments from independent firm births, traces coverage and organizational mechanisms, and shows why establishment counts can move opposite to employment. The result is a conditional reading of the startup-boom headline, not a universal startup count or policy forecast.
Learning outcomes
- A BDM opening is a newly active establishment, not automatic evidence of an independent firm birth.
- BDM and BDS diverge because coverage and organizational linkage can differ, not simply because one total is wrong.
- In the paper’s March 2023 comparison, BDM counted more establishments while BDS counted more employees.
- The evidence supports establishment dynamism, but not a universal count of independent startups or a policy forecast.
Keywords
Preview every chapter · Unlock full text, audio, and video from chapter 4
PlansFAQ
Does a new establishment mean a new startup?
No. In BDM, an opening is a unit with positive employment in the current March after zero in the prior March; it may belong to a new firm, an established firm, or a newly visible worksite.
Why do BDM and BDS report different establishment totals?
They use different administrative frames and can differ in employer coverage and in how common firms are linked to establishments; both mechanisms can contribute to the gap.
How can BDM count more establishments while BDS counts more employees?
Because the frames can assign activity to different numbers and sizes of establishments: many additional small units can coexist with more employees assigned to fewer large units.
What should I check before calling an establishment surge a startup boom?
Check the unit, frame, reference period, age and size definitions, scope, and evidence type; an establishment opening alone does not establish independent firm formation.