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).

Why do it differently in Portugal?

Last week, I had the opportunity to go back to Romania, more concretely to Bucharest, through my involvement in an European network of researchers in the area of Prospective/Foresight. The meeting was quite interesting, allowing the exchange of different national experiences, the exploration of common work possibilities and contributing for the conceptual, methodological, and empirical “densification” of the discipline. The usual thing in these European networks (when they go well, of course).
I had been in Romania 12 years ago, involved in an European project of implementation of a Business Innovation Centre in Timisoara, in the west of the country.
At the time, the image I retained both of Timisoara and of the rest of the country was quite greyish (in spite of recognizing the richness of its landscape), of a castrating poverty, of detachment, contrasting with the cultural and historical dimensions of these places. They were accounts of an Orwellian dictatorship, communist and populist, which managed and conditioned everything, spearheaded by Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife Elena.
The cars and buses fell apart, except for the limousines of dealers (of people, drugs, arms, etc.) that beneficiated a lot with the conflicts associated to the desegregation of Yugoslavia.
Today, if in Bucharest, we can still find signals of the anachronic dictatorship of Ceausescu and comrades (though similar signal also still exist, for example, in Berlin), not much is left of that Romania of 1994.
There are still a few Dacia but the company has been, meanwhile, bought by Renault. There are loads of BMW and similar cars. The multinationals are present all over the country and have become landmarks of the capital’s image. The center of Bucharest can be perfectly mistaken by any other European capital. Deloitte Offices, young executives of dark suits, design coffees and bars, restaurants of every colours and forms, Irish pubs… The Ibis Hotel has rooms, on special offer, at 99€/night (in 1994 to cross Timisoara in a falling apart taxi , in roads full of potholes cost something like 4 escudos in the exchange rate of the time).

The traffic is chaotic. At night, I watch BBC and Chelsea TV in my hotel room. Everything is transformed, everything is built. Roads, motorways, apartments, skyscrapers. Distribution is also on a high with the presence of great European networks like Lidl and Carrefour.

There are also Portuguese. Lena Construções is, for example, in charge of the motorway connection works between the airport and the city. Coindu (upholsteries) is also present in Romania, like Mota-Engil, Infosistema (information systems consultancy) and, of course, BCP (just to give some examples). The bathroom of my hotel was equipped with ‘Valadares’ Ceramic.
There are clear signs that some Portuguese groups (essentially linked to construction) understood that they can replicate in the East the experience accumulated in Portugal. Romania is only an example that is still just starting.
Therefore the doubts I have in relation to those who defend that it is this time that Portuguese capital, given the possible profitability reduction of the sectors linked to the “soil” (construction and similar) and to distribution, would finally start to look with more attention towards industries and services linked to knowledge.
At the end of the day, let’s be frank, why do it differently in Portugal if we can earn so much more money doing the same in any other place?

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?

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).

“Demain ne sera pas comme hier, il sera nouveau et dépendra de nous”[1]

Local elections are nearing. It is a moment for speeches and promises. For inaugurations and (particularly) wide political smiles. Time for new demands (and for the renewal of old ones), for stickers, electrical appliances (was it true?) and little flags. A time very often for a dangerous discrediting of the political system. In a context of deep changes in the role of local government (in which they can affirm themselves or not as promoters of development) and of great budget limitations, it is more and more important to define, together with the population and other actors of regional development, the priorities of public local action. What does the population want from its councillors? How to adjust public spheres to a world in transformation, allowing the Administration to be at the same time creative and renown? What is our collective project? What mobilizes us? These are some of the questions I would like to, at least see being considered and debated during the next electoral campaign. To decide about my vote, I am going to look for ideas and projects for the region. Someone who throws challenges to the population and to the actors of development. Who understands the importance of the economy and growing competition (increasingly also between local councils) in the caption and maintenance of knowledge, talents and investments. Someone who associates strategy and actors, public and private, cooperative and entrepreneurial. That says what he want to do and with whom he wants to do it with. That promotes the participation of actors, committing them and hold them co-responsible for the future. That understands that the collective intelligence of a region is far from just concerning the public sector. And that from that perception draws conclusions. Someone who, basically, believes, in permanence without hesitations that “tomorrow will not be as yesterday, it will be new and will depend on us”.

[1] Extract of “Phénoménologie du temps et prospective” (Gaston Berger, 1964).

Who is going to pay the interest?

Everyone seems happy with the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) agreed by the Finance Ministers of the European Union (EU). It is, in fact, a reason to smile. It is as if, at the end of the year, we would put together in an Assembly all the people who were fined this year and had as the only point in the agenda: “to forgive or not to forgive the traffic fines”. It is not difficult to guess the decision… “It would be handy” for almost every Government to change the SGP. And so it was changed. And everybody was a happy chap. Everybody? No, some irresolute and strange economists still say that the stability of European public finances is not only a question that is very sensitive to political interests (not all of them are so “noble” as our technologic shock; believe it or not, there are those who expect to win elections more easily with this renewed ability to easily spend/invest…) but also, above all, it is a fundamental basis for economic growth. The message that came across about the SGP (“we created it but, after all, it is too rigid for the expenses/investments we want/have the need to do, so we have to make it more flexible”) increases the pressure on the interest rates in the euro zone (towards its increase, of course), making the commitment of sanitizing the public accounts of the Member-States less incisive and giving a bigger room for the public induction of the rise in prices. This inflationist pressure will be fought by the European Central Bank (ECB) with the rise of the interest rates. And when, in one of the next meetings, the ECB raises reference interests rates, the many Portuguese who bought, with great effort, their own houses, has to send the “bill” to the men and ladies of the Left Block and the Communist Party (for example) that so much attacked the ignoble monster called SGP. Fact remains that the fashion was, almost from the start, to attack the SGP, to blame it for the weak economic performance and the increase in unemployment, among other bad things. No one (or very few) said what it was actually for. Now, unfortunately, it is going to be understood. And the Portuguese with house loans will be some of the first.

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).