Bizcuits | Mid-term Review Rigor

Leanda Lee

The Mid-term Review and the independence of the research process: How can you have a researcher with known political aspirations be involved in a review of the industry that will influence and potentially determine the wealth of the nation, and who wins and who loses in the concessionaire game? I am talking of the mid-term review of the gaming industry commissioned by the government currently in process and, in fact, being extended. Although the government goal was for the review to be objective and scientific, I focus on the lack of face-value independence in a report that reviews a political hot-potato industry: local and international allegations of insufficient governance (note the recent chop to junket numbers for not meeting recently imposed stricter reporting demands, community concerns for foreign investor repatriation of significant funds (even though the bi-product is 76% of budgeted government revenue), local employment rate (non-)concerns (don’t get me started on that effectively zero level of structural unemployment), crowding out the local population (and the bet is on mass market?), influence on continuing hikes to property rentals (with vacillation and inertia on whether big government regulatory controls or market forces should hold sway). There is more; we live the story here. Fourteen years of liberalisation and growth have brought with it problems even the most experienced of statesmen and experts would have sleepless nights over, although maybe with such people at the helm many of these issues would have been resolved by now at the practical rather than merely rhetorical or policy level.
Returning to the study/review/scientific report, what are the guarantees offered for independence? And even if, in fact, the research is conducted with the all the rigours of independence and objectivity with no survey question posed, or choice of analytical process or interpretation possibly biased by personal, institutional or political agenda, what of the perception that it isn’t independent? What if stakeholders believe that it is serving a particular interest, or is influenced by ‘knowing which side your bread is buttered on’?
But who cares about procedural rigor? Investors in Macau are not naïve. We know what to expect. We know that criticism, complaint and raised eyebrows achieve little. Whatever the findings, and regardless of any self-perceived lobbying efficacy, concessionaires just have to ‘suck it up’ as they do when policy decisions are thrown at them. They do so for the fabulous returns on investment; assuming those returns continue.
The nimbleness of operations and HR management (in particular) in achieving performance outcomes is such that these executives could ply their wares in any normal country with impressive stories of their adaptability facilitated by their incredible skills in managing uncertainty, irrationality, and institutional imposition of fundamental game-changing adjustments to legislation and policy. They are the super-men and women of the business world – hats off to them. Elsewhere, these working heroes would not ordinarily put up with such government reactivity, not in a pink fit. It’s the money talking or, for some, the belief that they are making a difference in some humanist, developmental way. It’s amazing what abuse we take when there are other benefits that match our values. Macau’s about choosing your battles.
Gaming management teams lay themselves prostrate before the ROI imperatives dictated by the operators and junkets. The local government powerbrokers remain acquiescent to the plutocrats and the powerbrokers.  And Beijing plies its concern for morality and disfranchised elements of the community left out of the deal – except for the afterthought doggy-
bag of the wealth partaking scheme. Within this version of Macau’s gaming industry environment, we have a potential lack of independence in the review; from an academic institution supported by the major beneficiaries of the system. Without better transparency it doesn’t pass academic principles of arms’ length independence and objectivity. But here, in Macau, this will pass muster and will provide the anticipated evidence, and mother-hood statements to echo high-level policy speeches. It’s doubtful the findings will offer anything we don’t already know.  What will be interesting is how it is to be used.