"awarding contracts to domestic companies is a good way to make influential friends and win public support"

• "Portugal tem todas as capacidades para fabricar comboios"
• "Seis candidatos a fornecer comboios à CP. E há grupos portugueses interessados"

"O ministro das Infraestruturas, Pedro Nuno Santos, defendeu que o concurso deve ter “repercussão na indústria e no povo português”.

“Queremos produção e fabrico em Portugal. Quem quiser cumprir as regras do caderno de encargos, será bem-vindo. E quem quiser produzir aqui, terá condições para criar não só para Portugal como para outras zonas do mundo”, disse o ministro em dezembro na cerimónia de lançamento do concurso.

Pedro Nuno Santos disse ainda que “este concurso é um impulsionador para que Portugal venha a fazer parte do clube dos fabricantes de comboios na Europa."

Lembrei-me destas cenas e de muitas outras em que se apela aos "campeões nacionais":

• Campeões nacionais versus campeões escondidos

por causa destes trechos de "How Big Things Get Done" de Bent Flyvbjerg:

"MARGINALIZING EXPERIENCE

...

Politicians everywhere know that awarding contracts to domestic companies is a good way to make influential friends and win public support with promises of jobs, even if the domestic company will not perform as well as its foreign competitor because it is less experienced. When this happens -and it happens routinely -those responsible put other interests ahead of achieving the project's goal. At a minimum, such an approach is economically dubious, and sometimes it is ethically dodgy, too, or downright dangerous. And elected officials are far from alone in doing this. Big projects involve big money and big self-interest. And since "who gets what" is the core of politics, there is politics in every big project, whether public or private.

...

A Canadian example is arguably even more egregious. When the Canadian government decided it wanted to buy two icebreakers, it didn't buy them from manufacturers in other countries that were more experienced with building icebreakers, deciding instead to give the contracts to Canadian companies. That's national politics. But rather than give the contracts to one company so that it could build one ship, learn from the experience, and deliver the second ship more efficiently, it gave one contract to one company and the other to another company. Splitting the contract "will not lead to these natural learning improvements," noted a report by the parliamentary budget officer, Yves Giroux - a report that found that the estimated cost of the icebreakers had soared from $2.6 billion (Canadian) to $7.25 billion. So why do it? One company is in a politically important region in Quebec, the other in a politically important region in British Columbia. Splitting the contracts meant twice the political payoff -at the cost of experience and billions of dollars."