Q3 Geography: North America +50 pp Package Mismatch — East Asia Still 33% of Stock
Q3 geography lens: North America’s package share sits ~50 pp above its stock share, East Asia still leads cumulative counts (~33%), DE·FR·IT hold ~61% of the EU IPCEI tip, AZ·TX·NY ~58% of tracked US CHIPS awards — while June’s tape still leaves 62% to the rest of the world.
Loading interactive charts…
Our 2026 geography print already showed that industrial-policy maps disagree: East Asia leads cumulative counts, North America owns major package dollars, and rest-of-world still dominates a busy monthly tape. The Q3 concentration companion then measured how thick the tip is on HHI and sectoral US packages. This Q3 geography vintage keeps the regional anchors and asks the desk question that follows: where does the mismatch live — and how far down the map does fiscal capacity travel inside the US and EU blocs?
The dashboard above is built as four views. Mismatch puts stock–package divergence, dual ladders, and the count×$ scatter on one screen. Flow path layers May→Jul monthly totals under June’s disclosed bloc pie. Subnational toggles US CHIPS award geography against an EU IPCEI / Chips Act member tip. Corridors maps strategic themes across Indo-Pacific vs Transatlantic vs RoW and shows how sticky the headline meters are across research → geography → Q3. The punchline is not a new slogan. It is a sharper family of maps: North America’s package share sits about +50 pp above its stock share; East Asia’s stock lead (~33%) coexists with a −18 pp package shortfall; DE·FR·IT hold ~61% of a tracked EU package tip; AZ·TX·NY still clear ~58% of tracked US fab awards; and June’s RoW slice remains 62% even as July volume jumped 25% versus May.
The Q3 headline table: five meters, five tips
| Meter | Top region / member | Top share | Top-3 share | What it measures |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cumulative stock (counts) | East Asia | ~33% | ~72% | Where interventions accumulate |
| Major fiscal packages ($) | North America | ~71% | ~97% | Where war-chest capacity sits |
| Stock–package mismatch | North America | +50 pp | — | Where fiscal firepower exceeds count share |
| June 2026 monthly flow | Rest of world | 62% | 38% (US·EU·CN) | Where the disclosed month prints |
| EU IPCEI / Chips tip | Germany | ~28% | ~61% (DE·FR·IT) | Where EU package geography concentrates |
| US CHIPS megaproject awards | Arizona | ~22% | ~58% (AZ·TX·NY) | Where US fab dollars land |
Read the table as a stack, not a vote. The mismatch row is the Q3 addition that makes the dual map operational: it quantifies how far package geography and count geography pull apart. Averaging East Asia’s stock lead with North America’s package lead into one “industrial policy is concentrated in X” sentence remains a category error — and the mismatch meter is how you keep that error off the desk.
Mismatch: North America +50 pp, East Asia −18 pp
Open Mismatch. The signed bars are package share minus stock share. North America prints about +50 pp — the war-chest tip of IRA tax-expenditure scores plus CHIPS appropriations/ITC sitting far above the US-led region’s ~21% count share. East Asia prints about −18 pp: thick on cumulative interventions (China + estimated Japan/Korea), thinner on the tracked mega-package pie. Europe is near flat (−4 pp). Rest-of-world is the extreme negative (−28 pp) because the war-chest universe we score simply does not include a RoW mega-package of IRA/CHIPS scale.
The dual ladder beside the mismatch bars makes the same point without subtraction: rose stock bars put East Asia first; cyan package bars put North America first. That is the capital-allocation hinge. Counts ask who intervenes how often. Packages ask who can relocate a fab or battery plant with a fiscal claim large enough to move a board. Desks that only watch NIPO counts underweight North American fiscal capacity; desks that only watch IRA headlines underweight East Asian intervention frequency. The research ledger already framed the toolkit; Q3 geography frames the spatial disagreement inside that toolkit.
Count × dollar scatter still shows two powers on two axes
Stay on Mismatch and read the scatter. The United States sits mid-count (~21%) and extreme-dollar (~71%). China sits high-count (~24%) and mid-dollar (~8% on the Big Fund III tip we score). The EU sits mid on both axes. Japan and Korea are thin on counts and small-but-nonzero on packages. Rest-of-world is high-count / zero-package on this war-chest construction — politically alive on the tape, fiscally invisible in the mega-package pie.
Bubble size tracks package dollars, so the US circle still dominates the visual field. That is intentional. Industrial-policy geography is not one choropleth; it is at least two overlays — frequency and fiscal firepower — that disagree about who is “on top.” The meter-compare panel below ranks top-region shares across stock, packages, June flow, US states, and EU members so the disagreement stays visible in one ladder.
Flow path: July volume jumped, RoW geography did not flip
Toggle Flow path. May→Jul totals are disclosed in the GTA Monthly Roundups: 804 → 823 → 1,008 interventions (+25% July versus May). June’s bloc geography is disclosed: United States 20%, EU+MS 12%, China 6%, rest-of-world 62%. May and July regional shares in the area chart are editorial path estimates — useful for seeing that a louder month need not be a Big-Three month — and should not be quoted as Roundup microdata.
The humility check is unchanged from the August 202608 toolkit update: stock concentration is not flow concentration. In a single busy month, capitals outside the Big Three can still dominate the raw count tape even when multi-year ledgers and statutory war chests look oligopolistic. Narrative that “only three capitals matter” fails the monthly map even when it roughly fits the cumulative stock and package-dollar maps. The amber total line rising into July while the RoW area stays dominant is the visual proof.
Subnational US: AZ · TX · NY still the fab corridor tip
Switch Subnational → US states. Inside the North American dollar tip, awards still cluster. On a tracked ~$39.2B CHIPS megaproject tip built from public facility notices, Arizona (~$8.5B, ~22%), Texas (~$8.0B, ~20%), and New York (~$6.2B, ~16%) together clear about 58%. Ohio and Oregon add another ~18%; the residual “other tracked states” bucket holds the remaining quarter.
This is facility geography, not a full Commerce outlay census, and it is not IRA clean-energy tax-credit claims by ZIP code. It still answers a practical location question: when Washington writes a semiconductor industrial-policy cheque, the first-order map is not “the United States” in the abstract — it is a short list of metro corridors with fab campuses, packaging plans, and supplier ecosystems. Supply-chain desks that only model “US onshoring” as a national switch will miss the state-level concentration that determines labour markets, power interconnect queues, and water/permitting risk.
Subnational EU: DE · FR · IT as the IPCEI tip
Flip the lens to EU members. Q3 adds the Europe-side twin of the US state ladder. On a tracked ~$43B EU Chips Act / IPCEI participation tip, Germany (~28%), France (~18%), and Italy (~15%) together clear about 61%. The Netherlands and Spain add another mid-teens; the residual “other EU members” bucket holds the rest.
Treat this as inside-bloc package geography, not a full member-state industrial-policy census. It still matters for the same reason AZ·TX·NY matter: “Europe” as a Teneo Big Three jurisdiction is not a uniform fiscal surface. Magdeburg, Crolles, Catania, and Eindhoven-class nodes absorb a disproportionate share of the tracked tip. Pair this panel with the Q3 chokepoint update on strategic-subsidy convergence — the US catch-up on dual-use targeting is a theme story; the DE·FR·IT tip is a place story about where EU fiscal capacity lands when the theme is semiconductors and batteries.
Corridors: Indo-Pacific semis vs Transatlantic clean energy
Open Corridors. Strategic themes do not share one world map. Semiconductors and advanced packaging remain Indo-Pacific–heavy (~41% of that theme’s geography in our allocation), with the Transatlantic corridor close when US CHIPS and EU Chips Act awards are rolled together. Clean energy flips: Transatlantic intensity near 72% — the IRA tax-credit machine plus EU green-industrial instruments showing up as geography. Dual-use sits more balanced across the two poles. Critical minerals still put Indo-Pacific near 44%, with a thicker RoW tail (~22%) reflecting mining and midstream jurisdictions outside the Big Three.
The sector stacked bars underneath keep the four-region cut (East Asia / North America / Europe / RoW) so corridor and continent stay comparable. Filter Theme across Semis / Clean / Dual-use / Minerals to isolate the map that matches the desk’s book. The policy implication is blunt: tariffs, subsidies, and local-content rules do not redistribute a single homogeneous “industrial capacity” — they push different sector maps in different directions.
Vintage slope: the meters are sticky; the lens got sharper
The vintage slope panel shows research → geography 2026 → Q3 on the sticky meters: East Asia stock near 33%, North America packages near 71%, June RoW near 62%, US top-3 states near 58%. Q3 does not rewrite those headlines. It adds the mismatch meter, the EU member tip, and the May→Jul flow path so the same anchors support a sharper desk question: not only “who leads?” but “which map, at which depth, and by how many percentage points do the maps disagree?”
Caveats and what this map is not
- Regional stock shares roll jurisdiction buckets into continents using the Teneo Big Three (~63%) plus estimated Japan/Korea/RoW splitsgeography reconstructions, not a new GTA microdata extract.
- Package USD figures are statutory appropriations, mobilisation targets, state-aid approvals, or tax-credit scoresnot outlays-to-date — and are not comparable dollar-for-dollar across jurisdictions.
- Mismatch pp inherits those construction choices; it is an analytical divergence meter, not a disclosed Roundup field.
- US state award shares are estimated from public CHIPS megaproject / facility notices for a ~$39B tracked tip, not a complete Commerce disbursement census.
- EU member IPCEI shares are estimated from Chips Act / IPCEI participation notices inside a ~$43B tipnot full member-state industrial-policy outlays.
- May/Jul regional shares in the flow path are editorial; only June’s bloc split is disclosed in the Monthly Roundup.
- Sector and corridor intensities are estimated allocations of strategic / dual-use themes (GTA ZG #88 + NIPO sector coding), useful for relative geography, not audit-grade HS6 maps.
What desks should take from the Q3 map
Industrial-policy geography remains a stack of disagreeing maps. East Asia leads the cumulative count map (~33%). North America owns the major package-dollar map (~71%) with a ~+50 pp mismatch versus its stock share. DE·FR·IT own the EU IPCEI tip (~61%). AZ·TX·NY own the US fab-corridor map (~58% of tracked awards). Rest-of-world still owns much of the monthly flow map (62% in June) even after July’s volume jump. Semiconductors lean Indo-Pacific; clean energy leans Transatlantic. Subsidies, tariffs, and industrial-policy toolkits reshape economies by moving these layers at different speeds — not by painting one colour onto one world map.
Related reading: geography 2026 · Q3 concentration · research ledger · Q3 chokepoint update · August toolkit update.