john wrote:Thanks for sharing! Interesting article!
Yes, I thought it was. Wasn't just the usual gushing blurb. The author seems to be based in Chile, I don't remember having read anything before by her, not sure what her perspective might be.
admin wrote:Let me do some back of the napkin calculations:
40,000 x 22 = 880,000 dollars spent on startups.
9 of the 22 are still here (sounds like some are here because they can not go anywhere else)
let's be generious and say that goverment resouces and money spent to give that money away, was like another 1 million dollars (knowing Chile, it was likely way more).
134 some jobs created or about $14,029 dollars spent per job.
Now the question is, how many of those were rather ho hum, bottom of the economic ladder sorts of jobs with no real skills acquired vs. real get your hands dirty programming or other IT jobs?
Your figures are probably in the ballpark. I don't have an exact comparison to hand, but I think in an international comparison they would probably be on the cheap side. Certainly the IDA in Ireland at times spent comparable sums per job, if not more, when they went out to attract investment. The SDA and WDA (?) won't be much different. And a 40% survival rate for a start-up incubator is not bad at all, even if you consider some of the people involved stick around because they can't get into the US. The US seems to be making things so difficult for foreign entrepreneurs that a ship moored outside territorial waters off California to house these entrepreneurs is considered a viable business concept these days

The "why" doesn't matter, the fact of these people staying in Chile does.
To address the "bottom of the ladder" issue, that's where one usually starts. Ireland had no venture capitalists either in the 1970s. Its only assets were a big open market in Europe and a steady supply of graduates (not to be exaggerated either, the university system in the 70s and 80s in Ireland was not famous for reacting to the needs of industry, it took a radical reform to make it better... including subsidies and eventually free tuition

). Assembly plants were the start, probably not an option for Chile, they came and went, but it was the small supplier companies that generated the real job growth.
That NY and the East Coast of the US are good places to start hi-tech businesses is hardly news, just read "The Soul of a New Machine" to get a feel for how it was when Cupertino was a good place to grow oranges. But I don't see how it's relevant.
The way South America is evolving, Chile may find itself in a similar situation to Ireland and Scotland, I would say the long-term Chilean government thinkers are strategically right on here. Brazil is a huge market and becoming richer, and Chile is one of the few countries in South America at a similar level of economic development, as the takeover of TAM by LAN would suggest. Also, the major advantage Chile has, copper, is going away, the world doesn't need as much any more, and it will probably become more profitable to steal the stuff from existing infrastructure than dig it out of the ground in Chile. Chile will need to be a network of small companies collectively providing employment.
Tactically, though.... why are Start-Up Chile listening to gurus from Stanford? They should be talking to the people who have attracted industrial investment before, retired executives from the IDA and SDA for example. Now that would give the effort a much sharper focus.
Caracas es Caracas. Lo demás es monte y culebra!