In my previous article, I spoke about the “two Macaus” – one dazzling in the rankings, the other quietly sustaining itself on the margins. In this one, I want to try to answer: why is it so?
Let me begin with an observation.
In recent years, Macau has hosted numerous events. Concerts, fireworks festivals, food and light festivals, influencer livestreams, fairs – each carefully prepared, each drawing crowds. On social media, the phrase “Macau is thriving” appears everywhere; and this prosperity is real, the result of considerable effort.
But I often wonder: what happens after the events end? The case of ZAPE illustrates the issue well. With the closure of satellite casinos, foot traffic dropped sharply. The Government responded quickly: it launched fairs, Christmas decorations, and invited influencers. The effort is visible. But once the fair ends and the influencers leave, the fundamental question remains: what is ZAPE’s long-term appeal?
I call this form of prosperity – driven by mega-events, short-term activities and investment – “event-driven vitality.” It is real, but it has a defining feature: a very narrow radius of impact and short duration. If a concert is in Cotai, the flow stays in Cotai; if a fair is in ZAPE, the flow stays in ZAPE. Once the event ends, the flow dissipates.
More importantly, this vitality struggles to penetrate the city’s capillaries. The old shops on Rua de Cinco de Outubro, the small businesses in Praia do Manduco, and the stalls at São Domingos Market do not feel the prosperity of Cotai concerts. Money circulates within the walls of gaming operators and does not flow outward. In contrast, there is another kind of vitality – what I call “institutional vitality.”
This does not depend on a single event, but on the stability, predictability and connectivity created by institutional design. It does not attract tourists all at once, but rather capital, talent and institutions willing to stay long term. Its reach is broad, its duration long, and it permeates every corner of the city.
In practical terms: with institutional vitality, SMEs do not need a fair to be seen, because there is an information infrastructure that allows them to be found at any time; investors do not need personal connections to establish themselves, because there are clear laws and procedures to follow; talent does not depend on a single project for opportunities, because there are continuous platforms for recognition.
To put it simply: event-driven vitality is like setting off fireworks – brilliant, but fleeting; institutional vitality is like planting a tree – slow, but rooted. Fireworks must be constantly relaunched; a tree, once planted, grows on its own. “Event-driven vitality creates spectacles; institutional vitality creates ecosystems. The former depends on traffic, the latter on structure.”
Macau does not lack capacity. The problem is this: we are very good at creating the former, but have yet to seriously invest in the latter. Why?
