Where to look? The three Californian “tigers”: Silicon Valley, San Diego and Los Angeles

Occupying most of USA’s West cost, California is a nuclear state on what concerns the concentration of activities based on knowledge, innovation and technologic intensity. It holds cities, regions and metropolitan areas that are among the most dynamic when it comes to the industries and services of bigger growth over the last two decades as well as a great percentage of people with the necessary capacity to innovate and to put new products and services in the market, to create employment, to sustain the continuous increase of productivity and to continue making north-American economy the “giant incubator” that Kaihla[2] talks about. In this article some characteristics of the three main sub regions of California (Silicon Valley, San Diego and Los Angeles/Orange County) are presented, and at the end, I put forward some explicative factors of the Californian success.

Silicon Valley is the most shining global pole on what concern knowledge economy and the production of technology, being the greater concentration of high-technology offices in the world. Robert Metcalfe, a famous businessperson of the area, founder of the 3Com commented:

“Silicon Valley is the only place on Earth that is not trying to find a way of becoming Silicon Valley”. San Jose is the capital of Silicon Valley, being the metropolitan area of the USA with greater percentage of employment whether in sectors linked to Information Technology (48,9%) or sectors linked to high-technology (24,8%). São Francisco/Oakland, area of initial growth of the USA linked to the gold rush, is, nowadays, the world leader in high-technology, capital of risk and biotechnology and the most attractive region of the USA for qualified workers in the areas of the knowledge economy. San Francisco is 1st in the creativity index (big cities) of Richard Florida with 34,8% of workers belonging to the “creative class”. It is one of the epicenters of talent in the USA, with its pool of scientists, engineers, artists, cultural creators, managers and liberal professionals.

Gifted with a unique geography (sitting between the ocean, the desert and the mountains), San Diego is 3rd in the creativity index (big cities) of Richard Florida with 32,1% of workers belonging to the “creative class”. San Diego County, an urban region which is clearly growing had, between 2000 and 2002, some of the biggest gains in terms of companies (more than 1100), employment (30 000 new jobs) and salaries (increase of 2 billions of USD) of the whole US. In spite of a quarter of the employment still being in the defense sector, San Diego has managed to diversify the productive tissue, with the rise of clusters associated to telecommunications and medical/biotechnology’s sciences. This last cluster has assumed itself, in the last years, as the main motor of development.
More towards the south, the Los Angeles’ region is characterized by a great economic diversification, not so much concentrated in internet/dot.com companies like in Silicon Valley, or in biotechnology/defense as San Diego. This diversity gives greater stability at the Economy but, by lack of a better defined economic motor, it limits the creation of wealth and employment in periods of expansion of certain activities. It coexists, however, with a particular importance of the entertainment, Aerospatiale, services to companies and some activities in the sector of non-lasting possessions.
Orange County (nowadays world famous because of the television series O.C.) went from suburb and residential zone supporting Loa Angeles in the 70’s and 80’s, to the 4th place of the big metropolitan areas of the USA in terms of percentage of employment, whether in what concerns sectors linked to the Technologies of Information, or when it comes to high technologies’ sectors. The strength of the Aerospatiale industry contributed a lot to the development of countless innovative companies in sectors like computer components, industrial machinery, medical equipment and scientific instruments.
Among the factors that most contributed to California’s success in high technology and creativity activities we can point to (i) the quality of Universities – sustained effort by the state government in reinforcing some of the great universities, namely Stanford, California–Berkeley and California-São Francisco. For example, Stanford University participates in the capital of hundreds of startups – including Google, the biggest internet search engine in the world – that uses technologies developed at the university; (ii) the availability of capitals thanks to the existence of risk capital and of the strong presence of the investment bank; (iii) the attraction of public investments and of suppliers of public programs in the areas of Defense and Space – of these, the Space centre of Houston and the investments of Pentagon’s great contractors should be of particular mention; (iv) the unique combination, in intensity of knowledge and competences in two great technologic routes that marked the last twenty years: Life Sciences and Computer Sciences; (v) the cultural environment and lifestyles favorable to innovation and creativity. San Francisco is an example: being one of the main creative centers of the USA, it has a solid mix of industries and high technologies with a rich history, with great appeal when it comes to qualified workers in the areas of knowledge economy (for example, the new campus of San Francisco of the University of California dedicated to biomedicine and that would employ 9000 researchers); (vi) the geographic position that since always, has facilitated an opening to the outside and, in a more recent period, a greater interaction with Asia, translated, among other aspects, in the attraction of talents from India and China to the state universities, most of them subsequently involved in the creation of innovative companies. (example: in 2000 there were in San Jose 3755 companies belonging to Indians and Chinese, corresponding to a business volume above 23 millions of dollars and 88 000 jobs.[3]

[2] Paul Kaihla: Boom Towns, Business 2.0, March 2004, pp. 94-102.
[3] For a deep analysis of the California case and of other regions of the USA see Marques, I., Chorincas, J., Alvarenga, A. e Félix Ribeiro, J. M., “Prosperidade e Inovação nas Regiões dos EUA”, Informação Internacional - Análise Económica e Política, DSP-DPP (MAOTDR), Lisboa, 2006, pp. 9‑102.

Where to look? – The example of tourism

In a world flooded with information, the answer to the question “where to look?” becomes decisive in any exercise of Strategic Prospective that has in the phases of search and systematization of information a fundamental component. Because of the impossibility of including and monitoring everything, the focus of the exercise and its time horizon are instrumental in the definition of the “attention space” of a project. The Scenario-making process I co-organized in 2005 [2] about Tourism in Portugal constituted an example of how a definition of “attention space” evolves as the understanding of the dynamics of the phenomenon being analyzed increases. Therefore, it is natural that, initially, the angle is very wide, in order to prevent that anything with a great impact on the future of the sector goes forgotten. We chose, in the exercise devoted to Tourism, for an evolution/expansion of the traditional S.T.E.E.P analysis (Social, Technology, Economy, Environment, Politics). O S.T.E.E.P. is no more than a generic aid in the search for elements likely to influence the focus of the exercise, initiating a categorization and reducing the possibility of omission of potentially relevant elements. Our S.T.E.E.P. adapted/customized for Tourism in Portugal in a 2020 horizon contained the following eleven categories: Companies and Institutions Dynamics, Demography, Market’s Liberalization and Deregulation, Geo-economics, Sustainability, Globalization-Localization, Security, Mobility/Communications, Work and Timeout, Values and Lifestyles, Technology. Hence, we began training our observation, orienting it for categories already adapted to the phenomenon being analyzed. However, we understand that it is still necessary a greater calibration of our attention, conferring it, therefore, greater strategic value, so we ended up opting for the following categorization: “Departures and Arrivals” (including: explosion of Asian tourism – mainly Chinese, heading to Europe; new sending tourism in the European East – Russian, for example; migrations in Europe heading southwards – example: acquisition of second residence by Nordics in Southern Europe; emergency/consolidation of new extra European destinies – “exotic”), Demography and Subjective Trends of Demand (including: growing value of holiday time; growth of “active pensioners” and of “baby boomers” - active young seniors; transformation of family – grandparents and children as decision-makers; growth of “single travelers”; of products/services for experiences/emotions – authenticity, learning, etc.; growing importance of environmental questions – sustainability; worries about security – psychological barriers to mobility), Dynamics of the supply (change in the forms of intermediation towards personalization/diversification; personalization/diversification of the supply – stimulating the appearance of new markets; virtualization of promotion – internet, etc.). We started, therefore, looking at reality in a much more incisive way, being capable of sensing alterations in the context closer to our focus (Tourism in Portugal) that, in spite of eventually not being very visible, have an inherent potential impact.


[2] See Soeiro de Carvalho, P., Alvarenga, A. and Félix Ribeiro, J. M., “Análise Prospectiva: Turismo em Portugal no Horizonte 2020”, parte II.3. – pp. 75-85 – do estudo “O Turismo em Portugal” e pp.121‑125 da respectiva separata, Colecção Estudos Sectoriais, n.º27, IQF, Novembro 2005 (http://www.inofor.pt/default.asp?SqlPage=publication&EvPublicationId=102).

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.

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!

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?

China and Oil

China: after the end of Civil War, the formal constitution of Mao Tsé-tung’s Democratic Republic of China occurred in 1949. Shortly afterwards, in South-east Asia, the collision between Chinese and north-American interests leads up to the internationalization of the Korean War (immediately, and despite the high number of casualties, contention worked, the Korean War remained a war of regional proportions). Mao Tsé-tung’s China then began the “Cultural Revolution” which ended up dying with its creator in 1976. From then onwards the Chinese way solidifies (already initiated, though probably unconsciously, by the Sino-American Shanghai communication in 1972, marking the conciliation of interests between China and USA, in regards to the soviet giant) in direction towards a pragmatic model of incorporation of “market” in socialism, and making China, in the present day, an undeniable actor in a reflection about world’s evolution in the XXI century.Oil: it is undeniable that “black gold” has been proving itself worthy of the comparison with the precious metal. In 1973, the agreement involving the limitation of production and the rise of the price of the oil barrel (triggered by a critique of Israel’s expansionism and to the rules of international commerce) was initiated by OPEP and led to an economic crisis of great proportions in the economies of the western powers (with the USA at the forefront). Already before (1970), the USA had achieved the maximum of its oil production (peak oil), which is classified by some authors [1] as the most important economic event of the last fifty years: north-American supremacy in terms of the international oil market (obtained through production in American soil) was about to end. – something that became dramatically clear, as I referred, three years later. But oil was also craftily used by the USA (specially by Reagan from 1981 onwards) during the “arms race”, not only when trying to deny access to some important equipments for oil exploration to the soviets by, for example, supporting regional conflicts that were stressful for the USSR such as Afghanistan and instilling Saudi Arabia to sell oil (a lot of it and at cheap prices) so that it would make more difficult for the USSR to finance the arms race through oil revenues. Finally, in 1987 the USSR reached its peak oil (not long before the brutal fall of Soviet economy which preceded the dismantlement of the empire). Today oil is the centre of attentions once again, not just due to speculation about the reasons of USA’s intervention in Iraq but also in consequence of the increasing consensus surrounding the true question of global peak oil being “when is it going to take place?” and not “is it going to happen?”.China and oil: it is almost common sense to look at China, a country that does not produce oil, like a certain strategic and economic power of the new century. It is also common sense that the reach of global peak oil will have serious consequences at economic and social levels – just think about industrial dependence on crude. It is also not a common thought the one that China’s high rates of economic and urbanization/industrialization growth can prove themselves unsustainable, with the oil barrel costing, for example, 80 dollars. In this case, the very solidity of the imaginative Chinese model would be questioned, with grave consequences not just for China but also, understandably, to the whole global economy.

[1] See, for example, HEINBERG, Richard – Smoking Gun: The CIA’s Interest in Peak Oil. In CAMPBELL, C.J.; HILL, Staball, comp. – “ASPO Newsletter No 33 – September 2003”, pp.7-8 (disponível em http://www.cge.uevora.pt/energia/Newsletter33.doc).

Who are you?

It is not easy to talk about civilizations nowadays. I mean, it isn’t, above all, politically correct to do so. Ever since Samuel Huntington published, in the summer of 1993, the famous article in which he associated the word “clash” with civilizations that the discussion around these millenary entities has been violent. The international political environment (Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, Iraq, 11th September, North Korea, etc) has not, obviously, been blind to the referred enthusiasm.
Using this reading grid as a possible alternative to face the critiques directed towards an analysis based purely on the nation-state, I propose a brief look on the civilization’s optic of the western “proponent-regulator”.
Looking at the world, it seems clear that the so called Western Civilization does not form a coherent whole or an indistinctive one, since it can be, for example, between Europeans and north-Americans and between Catholics and Protestants. It is relatively close to the Jewish (with a very relevant power not only in Israel but also in the USA, in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands) and to the orthodox (these divided between Greek and Slavic). As it happens in most of religions, Catholics too could be divided between progressive and integrators, while it is also important to notice the growing importance of Evangelicals in countries like Brazil and the USA.

The West “manages” its relation with the orthodox fundamentalists through security (i.e. NATO’s enlargement), through political and economic integration (i.e. EU) and of Investment (i.e. boom of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) fluxes in the 90’s). It is also the FDI that brings the Western and Confucians world closer together with a global perception that the Chinese sleeping giant is waking up very quickly (we will see if international reserves of hydrocarbon will allow it). The same happens between Hindu India and the West (i.e. the importance of FDI in India in watering down the tensions with Pakistan), between Japan and the West (with the central difference being that Japan shares with the West the big decisions of global economic and finance regulation) and between Latin America and the West (the ALCA is only one of the attempts).
Africa, however, seems to continue to be forgotten about, being important however to accompany the emergence of some countries as significant oil producers (West Africa) and the geopolitical role held by African countries of Islamic civilization (like Libya, Egypt and Sudan). This last civilization, in the centre of the more recent geopolitical hurricane, is profoundly divided. Some examples: Shiites vs. Sunnis; Arabs vs. Turks vs. Malays vs. Persians. Turkey, which takes part in NATO and is a candidate to enter the EU. Indonesia is an ally of the USA (the same with Morocco, Egypt and Saudi Arabia – though the relation between this state, where the holy places of Islam are, and the USA have been deteriorating a lot since 9/11). Pakistan is a partner (though “a slippery one”). Iraq is, at the moment, under the control of USA forces. Nonetheless, it seems undeniable that the question “Who are you?” substituted “on which side are you?”, traditionally linked to profoundly ideological conflicts like the Spanish Civil War, the Cold War or even the Second World War. The problem is that “Who are you?” suffers from a rigidity and therefore of flammability which is way more evident. …
[2] See Boniface, Pascal: “Guerras do Amanhã”, Editorial Inquérito, 2003; Huntington, Samuel P. [et al.]: “O Choque das Civilizações – O debate sobre a tese de Samuel P. Huntington”, Gradiva, 1999; Huntington, Samuel P.: “O Choque das Civilizações e a Mudança na Ordem Mundial”, Gradiva, 1999.