Falling short

José I. Duarte
Economist
The Fund for Creative Industries has just published the first list of companies that it will support. That list sparked several comments and raised many questions about the criteria used and the decisions made. Unfortunately, many have focused almost exclusively on the grant given to a company belonging to the brother of one member of the jury.
Certainly, that case deserves scrutiny. That a company owned solely by a close relative of a jury member is given almost 4 million patacas for a project aimed at creating an ‘incubator for cultural and creative projects’, whatever that might mean, was bound to raise eyebrows. And the process of removal of that member, the submission of the case to the Commission Against Corruption, and its prompt dismissal by such Commission, did nothing to dispel the many concerns raised by the case.
Moreover, the comments made by the president of the fund, as replicated by the media, were less than helpful. The ‘explanations’ provided did not add much of a clarification to the issue. First, it was claimed these were not personal issues. Of course not: it is a matter of public interest, and that’s exactly why the subject should be properly and openly dealt with. Then, it was added, the projects were approved before the suspension and dismissal of the jury member concerned. Indeed, that is a fact: but it is not only irrelevant to the argument, it is also incongruous. How could a dismissal have happened before the act that was at its origin? Finally, he concluded that no reassessment was needed and that the issue was resolved, an obvious non sequitur!
What the public is entitled to is suitable guarantees that public funds are used with the common interest in mind and do not provide unfair advantages to private interests that happen to be close to the decision powers. In this and many other instances, such reassurances can only be achieved through transparent procedures and criteria. Decisions made should both be fair and seen to be fair. The publication of the list, and the comments made in their presentation, should have helped to clarify doubts and remove suspicions decisively. They fell short of these desirable aims – and that is why we should look well beyond the case above.
The funding seems mainly directed to the so-called ‘services platforms’. Will someone consent to explaining what the Fund understands exactly by that and what is the rationale underpinning their priority status? Which were the criteria used and how were they weighted? Which evaluation and decision procedures were followed? What are the specific objectives of the projects approved, and their deliverables? Are there penalties for failing to carry on the projects as approved? Is there a monitoring and evaluation system? Until these issues are clarified, many must be forgiven for harbouring misgivings about the whole opaque process.