The death of small and medium enterprises

The text proposes a provocative thesis on the death of small and medium-sized enterprises, starting from a consolidated economic definition and then deviating towards a more specific and controversial cause.

Initially, the author correctly identifies the "death of small and medium-sized enterprises" with the phenomenon of "Schumpeterian creative destruction." This is a valid and widely studied economic concept that describes how innovation and new technologies or business models make existing ones obsolete, leading to the failure of some businesses in favor of others that are more efficient or innovative. So far, the conceptual basis is solid.

However, the internal consistency of the argument weakens when the author attributes the cause of this phenomenon, which "is getting worse year after year" (a statement that would require specific data to be fully supported, given that business failure and birth rates fluctuate based on economic cycles and specific contexts), to "entrepreneurial incompetence and people's ignorance of the System, the mechanism of the world." This transition creates a potential logical inconsistency. If the cause is creative destruction (an external and structural market process), then incompetence or ignorance could be factors that prevent businesses from adapting to this process, but not necessarily the primary cause of creative destruction itself.

The author does not clarify how the "System"'s ignorance connects to or distinguishes itself from the ability to deal with creative destruction.

The term "the System, the mechanism of the world" is the weakest and most vague point of the analysis. Without a clear definition of what exactly constitutes this "System," the claim that ignorance of it is the main cause of the failure of SMEs becomes difficult to critically evaluate. If "the System" refers to fundamental economic principles, market dynamics, technological trends, and an understanding of competitive forces (such as creative destruction itself), then the statement would be more understandable, but not necessarily "new" in the sense that this knowledge is already the subject of study and training. If instead it refers to something more esoteric or unconventional, its lack of specificity makes the argument poorly founded.

The criticism leveled at industry associations (Confesercenti, Confcommercio, Confindustria, and Confartigianato) for not teaching "the System" to people is an excessive generalization. These organizations, despite their limitations, regularly offer training courses, consultations, seminars, and support on various aspects of business management, from innovation to digitization, from finance to marketing, which fall squarely within the realm of "entrepreneurial competence" and understanding market dynamics.

To claim that "no one" teaches how the world works, in a context where there are business schools, incubators, accelerators, and a vast literature on entrepreneurship, is an extreme position that does not take into account the plurality of educational resources available. The issue is not whether they teach something, but whether what they teach corresponds to the undefined "System" to which the author refers.

Finally, the deterministic conclusion that "SMEs are destined to fail" due to this supposed lack of teaching is an oversimplification of a complex phenomenon. The success or failure of a business is influenced by a myriad of factors, including the quality of the product/service, strategy, market access, innovation capacity, macroeconomic context, regulation, availability of capital, and, of course, management competence. Reducing the entire equation to a single cause – ignorance of an unspecified "System" – ignores the richness and complexity of the entrepreneurial landscape.

In summary, the text offers an interesting point for reflection, but its analysis suffers from a potential inconsistency between the initial definition and the proposed cause, a crucial vagueness in the definition of the central concept of "System," and generalizations that do not take into account the complexity of the factors at play and the resources already existing for entrepreneurial training.

To support his thesis, it would be fundamental to clearly define the "System" and demonstrate in a more rigorous way the direct causal link between its ignorance and the death of SMEs, by integrating or better distinguishing this concept from Schumpeterian creative destruction.