According to economist Henry Lei (see pages 6 to 7), the “Consumption Grand Prize” has its days numbered. This transitional instrument, designed to respond to periods of greater weakness in consumption and local commerce, will have fulfilled its role once the economic recovery benefits the majority of residents, consumer confidence improves, and the global context shows positive signs. There is, therefore, no automatic or imminent end, but rather a clear condition: a real improvement in the economic environment.
That caveat is essential, but it also contradicts the programme’s results. Difficulties persist; Macau’s small and medium-sized enterprises remain exposed to structural changes in consumption patterns, external competition, and the uncertainty that marks the regional and global economy. Even so, it still serves as a cushion during a period of transition.
It is important to recognise that the Government has been adjusting the measure. The changes introduced show an attempt to correct distortions and broaden its reach among SMEs. However, it remains a cyclical instrument, a palliative rather than an economic policy capable of opening the door to a sustainable future.
Macau’s small and medium-sized enterprises remain exposed to structural changes in consumption patterns, external competition, and the uncertainty that marks the regional and global economy
It may mitigate impacts, buy time and generate occasional momentum. It does not, however, replace mechanisms capable of strengthening the local economic base and equipping SMEs not merely to withstand pressure, but to grow.
It is in this context that the new government fund has raised expectations. In theory, it represents a more robust tool: less geared towards the immediate stimulation of consumption and more focused on investment, competitiveness and economic transformation.
Between one measure and the other, however, there remains a risk that should not be ignored. If the “Grand Prize” — or similar initiatives — is discontinued before the fund is fully operational and producing effects, a support gap may open up at a time that remains sensitive for many operators.
The question now is not the end of one programme, but the quality of the transition. It is up to the Government to ensure that what follows arrives in time — and works.
