The unlikely hero

This week our Princess also went to the stadium. She does not understand a lot about football (she does not know from which country Ferencváros is – apparently a decisive criterion) but she does not want to miss out on the last exploits of a certain unlikely hero.

He defended three penalties, lives in Montijo (according to magazines of the field, it seems he has a house near his parents and his brother) and appears to be a normal person. This time it was with gloves, but it does not matter. He dedicated the victory to God (He is grateful, of course). He also dedicated it to his wife and family. He is the most unlikely of the heroes. Or perhaps not. His voice does not project leadership but the hero transcends himself (a word that has been used a lot lately) in the football squad. He has not the luxurious life of “pop-soccer players”. He is not handsome or elegant, or particularly charismatic. He was not interested in the money-obsessed “metro-sexuality” of some of his work colleagues.
At Sporting, fortunately, he does not seem to be a great goalkeeper. The seasons are mediocre and the publicity he does is to a chicken factory. But he is our unlikely hero. A Portuguese man who made a few million people happy. Possibly the successor of Eusébio in history. A hero of a generation.

On the last weekend we all wanted to hug Ricardo. We do not care about the new Minister of Foreign Affairs and the replacement in the Defence portfolio; about the conflicts in Timor and the shrew tension between Ramos Horta and Xanana, between Fretilin and Australia; about the Israelite offensive in Gaza; the violence in Sadr City and the beginning of the Finnish presidency of the European Union (EU). We do not want to know about the rise in oil and transports prices, the increase in interest taxes and the debt of the Portuguese or the multiple standstills of the EU. Why would we care.

“Labreca” (let me call you that), next time, you are going to save 4.

[1] This article is written in Manchester where I came to one day after the game against England. Imagine what it would be arriving here after an English victory… Nevertheless, because I write it before the semi-final, I want to make it clear that if Ricardo “screws it up” in that game, all praises are to be taken back.

Portugal: Grow with the World and make the most out of change.

Friday, June 02, 2006


The drop in trade barriers and the circulation of capital and the sudden entrance of huge economies like China and India in the global competition for the markets of goods and services makes the capacity of economies like the Portuguese one to “grow with the world” even more decisive, meaning, to ‘tune in’ with the most dynamic sectors of international economy.

The problem is that not only is our business structure characterised by sectors losing out in global competition, but also central elements for the transformation of this reality (such as the education and scientific-technologic systems) have demonstrated great rigidity and resistance to change. Therefore, in spite of the indexes showing a growing qualification of human resources, the existence of an enlarged network of infra-structures (such as roads) and poles of R&D and centres of excellence for artistic creation, the Portuguese mission in a world in accelerated transformation appears quite a lot complex.

And here are the “heavy weights” (with a crescent opening of EU to Asia). And the EU is different, with new Member-States that directly compete with Portugal in many ranks, many of them with better conditions in terms of fiscal policy, qualification and location, making the position of economies like the Portuguese a difficult one on what concerns their relative atractiveness. Therefore the urge for attention to what is coming, for a selective definition of a strategy and of a perception of possible places for Portugal and its economy in growing activities related to, for example, sustainable mobility, health, the IT and entertainment.
It is change that affects and hits us. But it is also from this change and its exploration that opportunities emerge.

To explore change, it is essential, first of all, to be conscious of its nature and the relation of the actor, for example Portugal, with it. Here comes the distinction between changes in the context that the actor does not influence (“things that happen to us”) and changes “created” by the actor. And if the first type of change appeals to our attention and defines limits, supplying logics of behaviour and “rules of the game”, the second kind appeals to Portuguese capacity “to create its own future”, optimizing its capabilities and international positioning. It is about adding up the action (second type of change) to attention/monitoring/contingency (first type) and, above all, be conscious of the existing capacity to influence (second type) but that is contained within limits that one should known/make the most out of (first type).

On other hand, it is equally fundamental to understand the distinction between continuous, graduals changes, during long periods, which to do not threaten the reigning socio-economics structures; and disruptive, sudden changes, that put in cause the contemporary structures. This last type of change, normally less accompanied, is particularly important. Professor Peter Bishop, in a recent conference about Futures/Foresight in Munich advanced with the example of the speed of human movement: the appearance of the bike is clearly a disruptive change in relation to moving on foot; and a car is a lot faster than a bike; and no car, however fast it is, has the speed potential of a plane.

The problem is that all change brings problems and challenges structures that work. Moving by foot was great before bike appearance. Bike was excellent before cars emerged. And cars allowed for long trips until airplane came along.

E são precisamente estas estruturas que estão a funcionar bem aquando do surgimento da mudança disruptiva que é preciso abandonar para inovar e para aproveitar essa mudança. Como se intui, este processo é bastante difícil. Se, por vezes, é difícil descartar algo que comprovadamente não funciona, imagine-se o que é ter que abandonar algo que reconhecidamente funciona. Mas é precisamente neste repensar permanente dos seus métodos e práticas e na capacidade de abandonar modelos organizativos, opções e processos que funcionam que reside a vantagem competitiva de muitas organizações de sucesso, sejam elas empresas, regiões ou países.
It is precisely these structures that seem to be working well when disruptive change comes about that need to be abandoned in order to innovate make the most out of this change. As you can imagine, this process is quite difficult. If, sometimes, it is difficult to rule out something that has been proved not to work, imagine what it is have to abandon something that is recognized to work. But it is precisely in this permanent rethinking of its methods and practices and in the capacity to abandon organizing models, options and processes that work that resides the competitive advantage of many successful organizations, be it companies, regions or countries.

Exploring the Future: searching for a new literacy

In a brief way, we can define “Prospective” as being simultaneously a discipline (in the sense in which it appeals to logic and conceptual and methodological rigor), and art (in the sense in which it is only possible to learn by doing it) whose central worry is the exploration of the future.

If the capacity to “prospectivise” is innate to human beings [3], the areas of knowledge and Prospective practice go beyond this referred capacity, having as a fundamental purpose to explore the future in a specific way, namely:


Organised and Flexible (for example, conceiving and implementing modular processes through multiple tools according to defined objectives and available resources).
Systemic (searching to categorise and to interlink the different relevant elements for the analysis) and Systematic.
Consistent and structured (searching and justifying the coherence of combination between different elements: trends, uncertainties, wildcards, weak-signals, etc.).
Intuitive and Logical (combining intuition and creativity with rigor and logic).
Useful (lighting up the present and identifying challenges for the future, stimulating decision-making and framing the implementation and monitoring of strategies).

It is this attitude, capacity and need to explore the future that proves itself more and more decisive in competitive atmospheres, be it business, territorial or others. To understand the importance of development of prospective capacities (and of a new individual and organizational literacy), I suggest a “visit” to projects and organizations so different as the unity of “Insight and Foresight” of Nokia Corporation (www.nokia.com), the “Society and Technology Research Group” of Daimler-Chrysler (http://www.daimelrchrysler.com/), the project sponsored by Siemens and the approaches “Pictures of the Future” and analysis of trends developed by its Unit of Investigation and Development (www.siemens.com), to Future Management Group (www.futuremanagementgroup.com), to Z-Punkt (www.z-punkt.de), Social Technologies (www.socialtechnologies.com), to Fast Future (www.fastfuture.com), to Standford Research Institute Consulting – Business Intelligence) (http://www.sric-bi.com/), or to that which is the biggest global network of specialists in Planning and scenario thinking: Global Business Network (http://www.gbn.org/).

Think Tanks such as the Swedish Kairos Future (www.kairosfuture.com), the Copenhagen Institute for Future Studies (www.cifs.dk) and the Institute for the Future of the USA (http://www.iftf.org/), and innovative projects of reference of Territorial Prospective like the “Millénaire3” of Lyon (www.millenaire3.com) and the Californian “The Valley Futures Project” (www.greatvalley.org/valley_futures/index.aspx) also demonstrate the dynamism of this area of knowledge and action.

Finally, one should also refer the Technologic Prospective Programs of which particular attention should be paid to the project organized by the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy of Japan (http://www.nistep.go.jp/), FUTUR Project of Germany (www.bmbf.de/en/1317.php) the Foresight Project of the United Kingdom (http://www.foresight.gov.uk/); and the Future Centers / MindLabs that exist in many countries of Northern Europe, places specifically conceived to stimulate creativity, innovation and the exploration of the future.
Have a good trip.

[3] The Word “prospective” is used here in the sense of “deciding and acting taking into account the future”. This capacity is present and is applied in more or less unconscious and quotidian terms by all of us. For example, when driving a car we act with an expectation of how other drivers will behave (see Richard Slaughter, “The Knowledge Base of Futures Studies”, 2000)

Viseu: Vision and levels of action

Regions nowadays face great challenges in an increasingly competitive world (also at a regional level). Those challenges, external and internal, cannot (and should not) be answered by public powers but by a logic of a strict collaboration between public, private and associative actors, holding them co-responsible for the achievement (or not) of shared objectives. In this context, the first big challenge of a region is the creation of an integrating Vision that allows for multiple actors, when pursuing their own objectives, to have in mind the distinct nature of a collective project of a regional nature. What is our collective project? What does Viseu want in 10 years? From there onwards, it is not only essential to transform that Vision into specific projects that gives it a body but also to use it as an analytic structure of reference in the assessment of initiatives and projects (specially on what concerns projects of public initiative/coordination). On the other hand, a region, aiming at affirming its identity and at developing itself, basically faces three levels of action: A first level related to the far away context that nonetheless, reflects itself, in the region’s actions and ambitions. AT this level we have external uncertainties as the importance given to Portugal by big multinational companies, the dimension of a possible pandemic of bird flu or the evolution of the oil price in the international markets and the development of energetic alternatives. This type of uncertainties should be accompanied by the region, and paid great attention, in order to prevent unpleasant surprises, to minimize negative shocks and to make the most out of opportunities. A second level, linked to the context near the region, which includes processes of negotiation and influence very demanding to the local actors. Examples of uncertainties situated on this level:
framing of the region of Viseu in view of the next Communitarian Framework of Support; evolution of the regionalization process; future of regional actors (for example: Grupo Visabeira; Instituto Politécnico de Viseu) and structural sectors. Finally, a third level of coordination, selection and decision, related to the processes over which the actors of the region do not have a significant control. Among those processes we have a large group of options on what concerns, for example, mobility and logistics, human resources, economic activities, environment and territory. It is from the interrelation of these three levels (any of them essential for the future of a region’s management) and from its framing in a strategic mobilizing Vision that we can achieve an effective Regional Policy in the 21st century.

A diplomatic victory

The year of 2005 ended very well for Portugal in the European arena. There are not many doubts left that the agreement achieved in Brussels in the early hours of the 17th December, concerning the next Financial Perspectives (2007-13), was good to our country.
The Portuguese negotiators obtained a very substantial volume of funds (22,5 billions of euros – a reduction of only 10% relatively to the previous financial framework) in a context of reduction of the communitarian budget and of enlargement of the Union (to countries which are creditors of communitarian funds and, consequently, direct rivals of Portugal on this subject). They also obtained more flexible rules for the execution of the funds, namely a plafond of 85% for communitarian participation (it used to be 80%), 3 years for the devolution of non-spent funds (it used to be 2), the inclusion of non-deductive VAT in the expenses financed by the Union, financing of the private component in public-private projects, etc.
It was, all around, a true diplomatic victory. Portugal and its “specifity” (meaning “Portugal and its problems”) had access to special rules created for new State-Members. A small detail is that the new State-Members entered in 2004 and not in 1986. And that is why this clear diplomatic victory crudely exposes the Portuguese failure, our slow transformation and convergence (that has turned into stagnation since the beginning of the 21st century). This victory solemnly declares our separation from Spain (when it comes to economic growth and development levels) and makes us put our eyes on Ireland with a mix of admiration and incredulity (though some people take note that poor Ireland, does not have any decent roads to cros the island; it is probably the same people who say that poor China, can only do simple things like t-shirts and toys.
Will the next Communitarian Framework be any different? In spite of the Government’s will, our curriculum does not seem to point to that. Portugal demonstrated that it knows how to reach very high levels when it comes to the execution of communitarian funds. However, it was not able to put them at the service of the transformation of the economic model and the country’s activities portfolio (that is, it does not associated the availability of the funds to the implementation of the reform of the Portuguese capitalist model), this results in a stagnation that drags on in time and causes, among other harms, difficulties at the level of public finances and increases in unemployment. However this failure also has good things: for example, an excellent and smiling diplomatic victory. Congratulations!

What if it all goes well?

“To go well” is, of course, subjective. It is even more subjective when we are talking about European integration, with its entanglement of questions and trends and a group of actors whose interests are often distinct.
But, in this time of pessimism, it appears to me that it can be interesting to reflect about a positive scenario of equilibrium in the future course of the integration process. A scenario in which the train of integration does not suddenly brake.
Lets then imagine a group of possible evolutions for the positions of four of the key EU actors in the next decade:
Throughout the next decade, France would accept the gradual reduction of the Common Agricultural Policy’s (CAP) weight on the communitarian budget, at the same time it started a process of structural internal reforms which, while transforming the French capitalist system, would bring about good results in terms of economic growth. At the international level, French leaders would clearly understand the disadvantages of a permanent attempt of international affirmation in opposition to the USA, which would allow for the construction of a strong bond between the two powers (for example at the level of defence), empowering the dynamism of the European defence industry and of the progressive affirmation of an effective European identity of defence within NATO. This would be a France with a new generation of politicians in power (perhaps Sarkozy, perhaps Villepin), without Chirac or Jospin and very hardly with Fabius.
Germany, in spite of the economic difficulties and of initial internal costs of the structural reforms (successful in the medium term), would accept to continue to play its part as the biggest contributor (in liquid terms) towards the communitarian budget. On the other hand, already far away from the scars of the Second World War, it would assume greater international prominence, which would be reflected upon, among other things, membership into the United Nations Security Council. These evolutions could happen with a central block government in Germany led by Merkel or by CDU / Free Democrats coalitions (with or without the Greens) or SPD with the Greens.
An EU that would be closer to the USA (more of a partner, less of a rival) would lead to a greater popularity of the EU in the United Kingdom. This improvement of EU’s image would have as is most remarkable facts the gradual reduction of the “British rebate” and, especially, the United Kingdom’s support for the “Economic and Monetary Union”. The natural successor of Blair (Gordon Brown) seems to be the suitable person make these evolutions possible, which would presuppose the continuation of the prolonged absence from power of the Conservative Party.
Lastly, the Netherlands, fearful of migration pressures but confident of an EU which managed to persuade the UK to adhere to the euro and which accepted the reduction of the Dutch liquid contribution towards the communitarian budget, would participate in the consolidation process of a collection of Europeans policies in regards to Internal and Justice Affairs (IJA). These policies would prove quite a lot more efficient than in the past, when it comes to, for example, immigration control (leaving, however, some room for maneuver by the member states). This Dutch evolution would implicate that populists would be keeping away from power and, probably, that the Liberals would have a key-role in the government’s coalitions.

Are we attentive?

Although more evident nowadays, the Portuguese difficulties in the world economy are not from now. If we look at the 1990s (not to go any further) we will acknowledge that the need to alter the productive profile (and essentially the exporter profile) of Portugal (even then) was blatant. Even then Eastern European countries were affirming themselves as contestants whether in traditional sectors, intensive in labour and little demanding in qualifications (ex: clothing and footwear) or in sectors more scale and knowledge-based (ex: electronics and car industry). Even then these countries (Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania) paid particular attention to Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) as a fundamental vehicle for growth, better productivity and for a structural transformation of the economy. Even then China was positioning itself as a great contestant not only in the previously referred traditional sectors but also in more knowledge-based activities (ex: electronics). Nowadays, it presents itself as a giant in almost all the activity sectors, from those based on cheap labour to those based on scale and technology. Even in the high technology, China has been giving clear signs of being an actor to be taken into count. Even then India affirmed itself as a great exporter not only in traditional sectors but also in services (of different technological levels, from call centres to the high technology services as the development of computer applications). Even then, the Spanish regions showed great dynamism in activities competing with those developed in Portugal and aligned themselves with the international movements of the FDI.
It is not enough to do better and more creatively than Portugal did traditionally. It is also essential to do new things, to attract and conceive new activities that create value, of greater productivity and more tuned in with the variations of international commerce. There is a new technologic wave emerging – with effects at the levels of investment and international commerce. Are we attentive?

Give it a decent funeral

On the aftermath of the French and Dutch “no” to the Constitutional Treaty of European Union, the 25 heads of State met in Brussels, on that occasion the European Council declared:
“The citizens express worries and reservations that should be taking into consideration. It is, therefore, necessary to proceed with a due reflection about this happening. This reflection period would be used to carry out in each of our countries a wide debate, with which citizens, civil society, social partners and national parliaments will be associated, as well as political parties. (…) We made an appointment for the first semester of 2006 in order to proceed with a global appreciation of the national debates…”

A wide debate? To which citizens, civil society, social partners and political parties will be associated? Political parties? One almost feels like say nothing deserves to be said such is the shallowness of the words. The debate does not exist, it is not promoted, it does not have interest neither from potential promoters nor from potential participants. The Portuguese Prime Minister signed an empty, subjective and discouraging declaration of intentions, in which the small print seems to affirm in a loud voice: “the Constitutional Treaty died, it is buried and is irrecoverable. We are only going to try and recover some parts to see if we get along together at 25. Also because the current treaty, the treaty of Nice only triggered debate for a single reason: the need for its revision.”

The fact is that the Constitutional Treaty really did die, and the later the burial, the more commotion it will cause. The Constitutional Treaty only could come alive if all the Members States of the European Union had ratified it. France said “no”. The Netherlands said “no”. Czech Republic postponed the referendum that was supposed to be in June 2006. Denmark postponed the referendum supposed to be on the 27th September. Ireland also delayed the referendum, just as Portugal did. The United Kingdom delayed the referendum and the parliamentary ratification. And Sweden delayed the latter.
The Constitutional Treaty will not come into practice. Perhaps it will be possible to make the most out of some less polemic novelties, namely on what concerns the simplification of treaties and the transparency of the European Union. Just give it a decent funeral. As quickly as possible.

“The idea of there not being anyone in this country is unbearable: I have to run for elections”

In 1985, the Socialist Party candidate to the next presidential elections unabatedly signed the Treaty for Portugal’s entry into the European Union. This was the first political act in Portugal that I accompanied with enthusiasm. It was a victory for Portugal and it definitely put us in the route to Europe and to development. In 1986, the candidate from the left on the next presidential elections was elected, for the first time, PR. These were the first elections in my memory, where I supported, in an active and emotional way, Mário Soares. In 1991, Mário Soares was overwhelming re-elected PR (even then, the phenomenon of the “void” already showed some signs). Possible future PR, probable future PR, Socialist Party candidate to the next presidential elections, candidate of the left to the next presidential elections, Mário Soares. I apologize for repeating myself, but I do not get tired of repeating it, since they tell me that it is true, I read it on the newspapers, but I still cannot believe it. As I write this article, Wednesday, the 31st August, early morning, I still have a small hope that he will back down at the last moment (but, deep down I know it is not going to happen). The candidacy of Mário Soares, a unique man in the Portuguese history of the second half of the 21st century, represents the complete failure in the renovation of the political system, a kind of generational politic scleroses (with its origins in Mário Soares’ generation but also, although to a smaller extent, in Cavaco’s one) that halted the renovation, settling in its own failure (of being able to put together parties and bring about capable politic leaders) the reason of its maintenance in power. “There is no one else, I have to advance”, must have thought Mário Soares when he decided to decide to be a candidate for candidate. It is this “no one” that worries me. Is it, as it seems, that there really is not anyone else in the Portuguese left (the right is not much better) capable of presenting himself as a strong candidate to PR in the beginning of the XXI century? And is it the case that, because there is no one else, exactly one of those responsible for this void is going to be elected, taking into account the long-term exercise of party power by Mário Soares. Honestly, the next presidential elections deserved the occurrence of surprises. To the left and to the right. Somebody that would challenge this “back-and-forth” of “addicts” to power and history. That would halt the paradox in the genesis of this process that may not be more than an intimate dialog of the kind: “the idea of the Socialist Party, my Socialist Party, giving its support to a comrade more dedicated to Arts than to electoral victories is unbearable; the idea of the Socialist Party, my Socialist Party, supporting Freitas do Amaral is even more unbearable; the idea of not being anyone in this country is unbearable: I have to run for elections ”

Money: Wanted

In the European Union (EU), with the terrorist tension in turmoil, the difficulties in economic growth and the sensitivity of the questions related to immigration and border control increasing, the concept of Independent State has gained terrain to the idea of Member State ( “Member-State”, and therefore, co-responsible for group decisions and for the success of their implementation). Only this explains all the tension about the EU’s budget, that is, about 1% of EU’s product (a national budget is usually situated between 45 and 50%of the national product). With the reinforcement of the importance of nationality and the difficulties in growth and in job creation, the “old buddies” have started counting each euro. Looking at the “old” 15 (not counting with Luxembourg), I will briefly refer to a basic difference that, among others, structures the relationship between States in the EU: there are those that pay and those that receive, that is, some Members States are net contributors for the EU’s budget, while others benefit from the referred budget.

When they seat at the negotiation table, the difference between those who contribute for the thin budget of the EU and those who benefit from it over and over again is clear. If I give the money to someone, I can demand some conditions. If I receive the money, I can, in as much, be a “good student” (I can also be a “bad student” here and there as long as such behaviour does not turn into a rule on the eyes of those who pay me, running the risk of having my nice sponsor simply stopping the payments). It is because of this (but not only) that only the more uninformed thought that Germany could be fined for having a deficit of about 4% of the product. It will be enough, through the German perspective, having offered its national currency to be ran together with those gentlemen and ladies of the south Europe that deserve little trust and to having been, since always, (and by far) the biggest net contributor (in absolute values) to the communitarian budget. “Enough! The Second World War ended 50 years ago and we (Germans) have enough problems with our economy and our development model.” On the other side of the barricade we have “nuestros hermanos” who want to be big, to be in all the photos and to always have a word while, simultaneously, also wanting to continue to receive funds, because they are still poor, and cannot just suddenly enrich, in a purely statistical way. It is a schizophrenia that limits, for now, Spanish ambitions (in the EU; not in Portugal).

So, who is giving out the money, wanting to control its destiny? From Germany, the United Kingdom, France (not much, in relative terms), Netherlands (a lot, too much, taking into account its dimension), Sweden, Denmark and Italy (little). And for whom does the money go to, not wanting to irritate their financiers? It used to go to Ireland (that went from a “country of cohesion” to the second richest country of the EU in terms of per capita product – just after Luxembourg), it goes to Spain (the main beneficiary in absolute terms), to Greece (theold poorest member of the old poor members of the Union) and, of course, to Portugal (you guessed it: the current poorest member of the old poor countries of the Union; poorer than the two richest of the ten relatively poor countries in terms of the EU average that entered the club on the 1st May of 2004: Cyprus and Slovenia; and very soon poorer than two others: Malta and the Czech Republic).