Jonathan Aberman is the founder of Amplifier Ventures.

A few days ago I was minding my own business, enjoying my morning Chocolate Cheerios, when I came across a guest blog post in Venture Beat asking “Is there Hope for D.C,’s Startup Scene?”  Yeesh.  Not a great way to start a day.

Not one to let a good breakfast be ruined without fighting back, I wrote my own blog post standing up for D.C.’s tech scene, and subsequently had some really great interactions with VentureBeat and others in the D.C. tech community about it. I will give VentureBeat full credit for taking my and others’ reactions to heart and recalibrating their headline. The retitled post now asks, “Does DC know startups?” Reading the retitled post, it raises two important questions for D.C. tech: Can you find tech leadership in Washington? And what is the proper role of government in fostering technology?

There is no doubt that when I wrote my original blog, it was to stand up for the place where Amplifier Ventures and I make our home, and where every day I see entrepreneurs and government working hard to make things happen.  D.C. has a tech scene.  It is vibrant and frankly much more diverse and established than tech scenes in many other parts of the nation.  And, the government has a role — a large role in fact — in the tech world both locally and nationally. As someone who has been part of the D.C. tech community since the 1990s as an investor, and has worked in policy areas with both federal and local government officials, I have a firsthand view of the broad aspects of D.C. tech. I also have spent a great deal of time in Silicon Valley over the years, and think it is a terrific place. It has a vibrancy that is essential to our national economy, and is an extremely valuable resource for our future. I believe that D.C. tech has a similarly important role, and understanding its importance will allow all of us to benefit from its contributions and potential.

D.C. startups: Diversity and dynamism

Entrepreneurs follow opportunity (or as we VCs like to say, “entrepreneurs follow the money”).  The D.C. tech scene has a very distinct composition when compared to other regions.  Like Boston, New York, and the Valley, D.C. has a vibrant software startup scene.  We have accelerators, incubators, nationally recognized VC firms, and local government agencies that are committed to fostering further development of this scene.  Perhaps our light software development ecosystem is not as deep as some other regions, but if you aggregate all of the D.C. region’s entrepreneurial activity it is comparable to, and in some ways more dynamic than, Silicon Valley’s. What is not appreciated by many outside our region is that a substantial portion of local tech entrepreneurship is engaged in creating complex software and other technologies and providing it to serve national security and the government.  And, this portion of our tech community has been extremely successful and productive for the last 25 years.

This kind of technology entrepreneurship might not be as blog-worthy as the newest way to share photos of cats, but it has created wealth and entrepreneurial rewards for many people in our region.  Moreover, there is a large technology work force here: There are as many software engineers in the D.C. region as in as the Valley, for example.

Technology M&A is also comparable. Last year I published a report about our region’s M&A activity. I looked at every M&A deal in the D.C. region and the Valley from 2005 to 2011.  M&A in Silicon Valley is concentrated in what it does best: consumer Internet and semiconductors.  Tech M&A in the D.C. region is more diverse.  Overall activity by number of deals was very comparable.  Entrepreneurship in the D.C. region is very symbiotic with the federal government.  That has been its biggest strength, and creates its biggest opportunity.  When you combine that with a healthy light software innovation ecosystem the picture is more nuanced and much more exciting.

If entrepreneurship is measured against its overall success rate, rather than its success against a particular type of innovative activity, the D.C. region has as many, if not more, opportunities for entrepreneurs to come up with a business idea and work it through to a rewarding exit than anywhere in the U.S.  It may not be sexy enough to be part of the tech blog echo chamber, but it’s a fact supported by data and my anecdotal experiences every day working with serial entrepreneurs in the D.C. region through FounderCorps and Amplifier Ventures.

The importance of the federal government

The second question I want to address in this post is the role of the federal government in technology entrepreneurship. Specifically, many in the Valley (and elsewhere) seem to share  a concept that “government doesn’t matter for entrepreneurship — it should just get out of the way.”

I have a problem with that as a broad statement. One of the unappreciated facts about our economy is that there is an almost direct correlation between government spending on R&D (and government regulatory choices) and every successful industrial cycle that that the U.S. has benefitted from, since building the nation’s railroads.  The relationship between basic science, application, national security and subsequent commercialization denotes a highly symbiotic connection between government and investors.

For example, the venture industry and entrepreneurs have benefitted mightily from the Internet, but the basic research to create it happened through U.S. government spending and policy choices.  The venture capital industry does not create industries, it finances incremental innovations in industrial waves.  That’s not a criticism, it’s a fact: Creating industries takes time and many blind alleys.  The VC industry needs rapid growth and returns.  It needs industrial waves to succeed for it to generate returns.

I would argue that the current challenge in the venture industry (which is related to its inability to generate extraordinary returns) is a direct reflection of the maturing of the most recent industrial wave and its monopolization and concentration.  This is why you currently find two types of venture funds succeeding: funds that can make big bets and withstand monopolistic market power from the Five Horsemen of Technology, and funds (and angels) that grow quick acqui-hires for these same monopolies.  But, they are not funding new industrial waves.

The big question to be answered is: Where do the next industrial waves come from?  Casting one’s eyes towards life extension, material science, artificial intelligence, man/machine interface, alternative energy, conservation, robotics and space, as just some examples, you see a large role being played by government R&D spending and policy in shaping these nascent industrial waves.  To say that government should just stay out of these things is to completely miss the point. In a world of hedge fund-driven financial investing and public company constraints, just about the only source of long-term R&D capital for emerging technology in our economy is the federal government.

There is certainly a large ideological battle being played out in our society about the role and expense of government.  It is playing out in the grinding fight over tax rates and government spending.  Heck, when golfers complain about their tax rates (thanks, Phil Mickelson, for crying about your 62 percent tax rate and demonstrating that you have the worst accountant on the PGA tour) we clearly have reached a point of saturation.  But, balancing a budget without recognizing the importance to our economy of government funded tech R&D and consumption is just silly.  It is like burning your furniture to stay warm.  At some point you are going to need someplace to sit.

Over the last 18 months I have worked with extremely committed people in DOD, DARPA and elsewhere in our federal government to figure out how to get the next generation of technologies matched with entrepreneurs and into the commercial world. This is a big effort and one that is of crucial importance to national and economic security. I expect that many of these technologies will get developed and industries will get established in Boston, New York, Silicon Valley, and the D.C. region, as our entrepreneurial communities innovate. But, make no mistake, the role of D.C., both in its entrepreneurs and in the government, will be an important part of our next industrial waves.

My message therefore is pretty simple.  Either on the level of the entrepreneur, or on the level of being a source of industrial waves, the DC region is highly relevant and important to our national economy.  To my friends in the Valley I say hello, and invite them to come spend some time with me here in DC.  It might open your eyes — and, as is often the case for entrepreneurs — some of you might move here.  After all, entrepreneurs follow the money.

Jonathan Aberman is the Founder of Amplifier Ventures, an investor in government-related, technology-driven companies. He is also Chair of FounderCorps, a regional not-for-profit focused on mentorship and entrepreneurial development in the Washington, DC region, and an Adjunct Professor of Entrepreneurship at the Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland. He is the co-host of the nationally broadcast politics and business program Leftjab Radio on SiriumXM. Follow him at @jaberman.

Top photo: U.S. Capitol via Shutterstock

---

Big Data and Predictive/Real-time Analytics startups: Are you looking to jumpstart development & accelerate market traction? Sign up for the SAP Startup Focus program to receive technology, support, resources and community to help you develop new applications on SAP HANA, a cutting edge database platform. Get started here, and enter promo code “VB2013″ on the form.

---

This is a guest post by Flybridge Capital Partners’ Jeff Bussgang.

[Editor's note: VentureBeat originally published this story with a headline that badly miscast the author's meaning. We apologize to our readers and the author for the mistake.]

The short answer is no, but perhaps there’s hope.

The day after President Obama was inaugurated for a second term, I was invited to speak at the inaugural meeting of the newly formed Congressional Caucus on Innovation and Entrepreneurship.  The caucus is a bi-partisan group, created by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Vern Buchanan (R-FL) and Gary Peters (D-MI), to focus federal policy efforts on supporting startups and innovation.

I have to admit my expectations were pretty low.  After my euphoria over the passing of the JOBS Act last year, the latest fiasco over the fiscal cliff have me pretty down on Washington’s ability to get anything done that will help create a more robust business environment.

I have been to DC a few times with the policy business group I helped co-found, The Alliance for Business Leadership, and every time I’m there, I’m struck by the contrast with the more thrilling, action-oriented world of startups and venture capital.

That said, the House Members and staffers seemed genuinely interested in the components of a vibrant start-up ecosystem.  I gave them a briefing of why Boston and NYC have such vibrant start-up environments, with the former being in the midst of a renaissance and the latter emerging from nowhere over the last five to 10 years to legitimately become one of the world’s major start-up centers.

I cited a few elements, which echo a presentation I have given in the past aboutBoston’s Start-Up Scene and that my NYC-based colleague, Matt Witheiler, has written about NYC.  Specifically, here are four important ingredients for a start-up ecosystem to thrive:

• Intellectual capital: Universities, young people, creative, whacky people with expertise in multiple disciplines.
• Angels, Advisors and Accelerators: The first source of capital and they can offer mentorship and good advice to transition an idea to reality.
• Venture capital: Startups need the necessary capital to scale, as well as guidance from those who have “seen the movie.”
• Successful companies: For inspiration, to partner with, poach from, sell to, and so on.
• A welcoming culture: Successful start-up ecosystems are are open, diverse, inclusive of outsiders/immigrants and creative types, and rich in information exchange.

Today, Boston and NYC are shining examples of these elements.  Boston has always had rich intellectual capital, but was historically weaker in the cultural characteristics than it is today.  The angel community has also stepped up in a more meaningful way recently, which has been very positive.

NYC has historically fallen short on intellectual capital, but that has changed dramatically in recent years with the talent streaming out of Wall Street and Madison Avenue into start-ups.  There’s been an explosion in NYC’s angel community.  This has led to an environment that has never been more promising.

With the audience being a policy one, I gave some simple advice to policy makers:  avoid getting involved in areas where government doesn’t have a role (such as picking winners with targeted tax breaks) and focus instead on fundamentals like education and infrastructure, as well as policy issues that matter to entrepreneurs, including immigration reform, education reform to fit the needs the start-up employers, and capital formation issues like crowdfunding.

I gave a nod to local government leaders like Governor Patrick and Mayor Bloomberg who have been terrific champions in their respective communities. When you ask local business leaders, they will all tell you that those two politicians totally “get it”.

I can’t predict whether this new caucus will have an impact, but clearly comprehensive immigration reform is on Congress’ short list for important initiatives in 2013 and Rep. Polis was one of the co-sponsors of the Start Up Visa Act.

If every entrepreneur reached out to their House Representative and encouraged them to join this Caucus, perhaps it would have a small impact.  Meanwhile, I was happy to leave Washington DC and get back to action-oriented Start Up Land!

This post originally appeared on Jeff Bussgang’s personal blog.