Do as I say, not as I do.

 

Regarding economic historian Nuno Palma’s interview with Sábado magazine about his latest book — Europe's Poison Pill. The Unintend Consequnces of Cohesion Funds and Why They Must End — several questions immediately arise.

The Portuguese publisher (Publicações Dom Quixote) is marketing the book in the following terms:

"For decades, European funds have been presented as engines of convergence, modernization, and prosperity. Nuno Palma, an economic historian with international experience and a keen observer of the Portuguese case, argues the opposite: they have created dependency, distorted priorities, rewarded poor governance, and hindered crucial reforms. Portugal is the laboratory example of this addiction: billions invested in infrastructure, roads, and programs coexist with stagnation and divergence from the rest of Europe. Drawing on data, scientific studies, and concrete examples from various European Union member states, this book dismantles one of the greatest dogmas of European integration and poses an uncomfortable question: what if money from Brussels is part of the problem rather than the solution?"

When confronted by Sábado magazine with the question — "You have received European funds yourself, yet you advocate ending the Cohesion Fund. Do you see any contradiction?" — Palma denied ever having directly applied for European funds:

"Even though I would have had every right to do so. I received a bank loan under IFRRU [Financial Instrument for Urban Rehabilitation and Revitalization]. The loan was granted by a Portuguese bank. Strictly speaking, I did not need to know the composition of that loan. Therefore, in rigorous terms, I never applied for European funds. In this case, I was in the same position as the overwhelming majority of Portuguese people who 'benefit' from these funds without applying for them, in a country where, as we discussed, 90% of public investment in recent years has been paid for with such funds. It would be impossible to leave one's house without 'benefiting' from them! Whether one is for or against their existence is a separate issue... and it would be an absurd incentive toward censorship and clientelism to say that only those who do not 'benefit' may criticize them. Every Portuguese citizen has received European funds. All it takes is leaving home. All of us who pay taxes benefit from the choices the State makes, the investments it carries out, and the policies supporting them. Whether we agree with them or not. I also benefit from public investments, like any citizen."

Now, let us examine this point by point.

IFRRU 2020 did not provide non-repayable grants but rather loans on more favorable terms than those available on the market, with maturities of up to 20 years and reduced interest rates. It was intended for the comprehensive rehabilitation of buildings (residential or otherwise) and included energy-efficiency components — all through a single financing application.

It operated as a revolving financial instrument combining several sources:

1.    European structural funds;

2.    The European Investment Bank (EIB) and the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB), which leveraged the European funds with additional capital.

These resources were then channeled through commercial banks selected through a competitive process (Santander Totta, BPI, and Millennium BCP), which made the financial products available to final beneficiaries (as happened in Nuno Palma’s case).

In total, the instrument achieved a financing capacity of €1.4 billion, generating an estimated investment of around €2 billion.

Conclusion: Nuno Palma, an economic historian, says that he did not directly apply for European funds, although he knew that IFRRU was financed by the European Union through subsidized interest rates. He also knew that this specific program depended on European funding.

Palma paid only a small fraction of the interest owed to the bank (perhaps a quarter or a fifth of what he would have paid without European support). Therefore, strictly speaking, he did not receive money directly, but he did realize a financial saving: instead of receiving a monetary transfer, he paid less than he otherwise would have paid had he not been covered by IFRRU. The portion of the interest that Palma did not pay was effectively guaranteed by the EU.

In practical terms, this amounts to the same thing: Palma benefited from European funds, just as 90% of Portuguese people have. The difference is that 89.9999% of Portuguese citizens have not written a book opposing European funds and criticizing them harshly. And the vast majority did not actually apply for European funding. Nuno Palma applied to an Urban Revitalization Fund that he knew was financed largely through European funds.

Thus, when he states in the interview, "Therefore, strictly speaking, I never applied for European funds," he is merely playing with words.

At this point, some questions become unavoidable.

Does Nuno Palma, in The Addiction to European Funds: The Consequences of Cohesion Policy and Why It Should End, analyze the "consequences" of IFRRU?

Or the potential negative impact of IFRRU and other equivalent subsidies ("creating dependency, distorting priorities, rewarding poor governance, and blocking decisive reforms")?

Does he develop the same type of argument presented to Sábado magazine in order to justify the "banal inevitability" of his own inconsistency?

In fact, only yesterday, on the social media platform X, Palma invoked his book in response to a news report noting that the Recovery and Resilience Plan (PRR) had been used to finance housing for several families in Penafiel. Apparently, others — even when facing genuine need — do not benefit from the same moral leniency that Nuno Palma generously extends to himself.

It should also be noted that a few years ago Palma criticized, on the same platform, the use of PRR funds to build housing in Oeiras, arguing that the municipality governed by Isaltino Morais is one of the wealthiest areas in the country. This is the classic "potato logic": if Oeiras is one of the richest municipalities in Portugal, then everyone who lives there must be rich, therefore PRR funds should not be used there.

(BY THE WAY: do you know where Nuno Palma’s European-fund-supported house happens to be located? Anyone who answered OEIRAS got it right.)

Let us be clear. What is at stake here is not legality but ethics, morality, and intellectual consistency. An academic and economic historian whose central thesis is that European funds are the main cause of Portugal’s backwardness and poverty objectively benefited from those very funds in order to renovate a house he owns in Portugal and in which, apparently, he does not reside.

Unless the property is being used for economic purposes, it is difficult to understand how this use of European funds contributes to the country's development — especially when Palma criticizes investments such as social housing or roads.

That Palma does not reside in Portugal can be inferred, at least, from information available on the Ciência Vitae platform (Portugal’s national scientific curriculum management system).

Since August 1, 2017, Nuno Palma has held a permanent academic position at the University of Manchester (United Kingdom):

1.    Assistant Professor (University Teacher), from August 1, 2017, to July 2020;

2.    Associate Professor (University Teacher), from August 2020 to May 31, 2023;

3.    Full Professor (University Teacher), from June 1, 2023, to the present.

Nuno Palma therefore resides in England/the United Kingdom.

This brings us to another issue: Nuno Palma did not benefit from European funds only once.

Again, let us proceed step by step.

Several years ago, Palma applied to a public funding program known as the Scientific Employment Stimulus Program (CEEC), created by Decree-Law No. 57/2016 to combat precarity and promote the hiring of PhD researchers by Portuguese scientific and technological institutions.

The objective was to address the severe precariousness affecting Portugal’s scientific system — widely regarded as crucial to national development — and the thousands of researchers who spent decades in unstable positions without access to benefits such as holiday and Christmas bonuses, unemployment insurance, and other protections associated with employment contracts.

Like other programs managed by Portugal’s Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), CEEC is co-financed by the European Union through European funds.

Although administered nationally by the FCT, European funding covers a significant portion of the costs associated with researchers’ employment contracts.

In practice, the FCT signs program contracts with host institutions, and costs are paid through a combination of state budget funds and European financial resources.

Currently, European co-financing rates for contracts in Greater Lisbon range between 40% and 50% of the total amount allocated to each researcher (€2,134.32 per month), and even more in other regions of the country.

Palma’s contract began on May 2, 2019, and ended on May 1, 2022 (at least; it should be noted that in 2025 he still maintained dual affiliation with ICS and Manchester and continued acknowledging support from the FCT).

According to the 2022 Activity Report of the Institute of Social Sciences (ICS), page 47:

"Four researchers affiliated with this research group through FCT Individual Stimulus Competitions continued their individual projects: Duncan Simpson, Renato Pistola, Valerio Torreggiani, and Nuno Palma (the latter on a part-time basis)."

Part-time?

Can a tenured university professor benefit from CEEC? Yes, but only under two circumstances:

1.    Leave without pay (suspension): If the researcher has accepted a permanent academic position at a British university, they must normally suspend the CEEC contract because such contracts generally require exclusivity in Portugal and dedication to the project.

2.    Secondment or mobility arrangement: Temporary modifications may be negotiated with the host institution and the FCT, provided that the stay abroad strengthens the approved research plan.

For the sake of transparency — given Palma’s readiness to criticize others for alleged misuse of public funds — it would be important for him to clarify this matter: did he take unpaid leave from Manchester, or did he obtain authorization for CEEC participation on a part-time basis?

As far as I know, very few people in Portugal can simultaneously benefit from CEEC and hold a permanent academic position elsewhere.

I am also unaware of cases in which CEEC beneficiaries hold permanent positions abroad.

Consider, hypothetically, that if this were generally possible, internationally established academics could easily come to Portugal and obtain a salary supplement. Anyone can apply to CEEC as long as they conduct their activity in Portugal. The purpose of stimulating scientific employment in Portugal would then be undermined.

In summary, I have serious doubts that CEEC was intended to finance researchers or professors who already hold permanent positions. If it is possible, it appears contrary to the spirit of the law, which is clearly to stimulate scientific employment, not to provide additional income to those already employed.

Everything therefore suggests that Nuno Palma may have accumulated two sources of income over several years: his salary from Manchester (presumably the main source) and CEEC remuneration (supported, it bears repeating, by European funds, which Palma himself describes as a cause of Portugal’s "backwardness").

To benefit from this kind of "salary supplement," the economic historian and fierce critic of European funds not only fed once again from the generous European funding system but also took a position that might otherwise have gone to a precarious researcher, thereby pushing that researcher into unemployment or keeping them there.

In other words, someone living in Portugal and conducting research in the country may have been denied employment and income so that Dr. Nuno Palma could receive an additional source of remuneration.

Other questions could also be raised:

How did Portugal’s investment in Nuno Palma, rather than another researcher, benefit the national scientific system?

Did his scientific output benefit Portugal, or the University of Manchester and the United Kingdom?

Did he actually conduct his research in Portugal, as required by CEEC regulations?

If events unfolded as described, is that fair and moral?

At the limit, is it even legal?

These are merely doubts — only doubts. Now, let him answer them.

    In memory of Diogo Ramada Curto (1959–2026), whom Nuno Palma called "dishonest."

                                                                            João Pedro George