It is with great pride and also with some emotion that I take part in this commemorative ceremony of the centenary of the Higher Institute of Economy and Management. I do so in the treble quality of President of the Republic, former Alumnus and also former Lecturer.

I wish to begin by congratulating the Lisbon Technical University, represented by its Chancellor, Prof. Ramôa Ribeiro, for commemorating eight decades of existence. The Technical University congregated and provided a collective feeling to a number of reputed higher education establishments that, in differing areas of knowledge, greatly marked the training of several Portuguese generations, as well as the economic and intellectual life of our Country.

In this very special day for ISEG, it is with great pleasure that I address all those who study, lecture, research or work here, and also to leave a personal testimony of the decisive influence that this institution exerted in the production and dissemination of knowledge and in the valuation of many generations of young people.

I can assert that, in one way or another, this school deeply impressed the different stages of my life and influenced many of the decisions I had to take.

This was my first University. In it I graduated and lectured during many years. In it I made lasting friendships.

Never, until now, did I stop valuing the much that I learned here and the wish that remains of always wanting to learn more. This is what a School must be, and this is the greatest asset that a young person may carry: what he learnt and the capability and will to learn more.

Much of the development and progress recorded in the different cycles of this Country’s life is owed to ISEG’s action, to its lecturers and researchers and to the vision of those who, throughout these 100 years, held in it positions of responsibility.

In 100 years of existence, this Higher Institute graduated, with recognized levels of excellence, economists and managers who are equally informed citizens and active participants in multiple areas of Portuguese public life.

One of the more characteristic traits of the “genetic code” of this School was, exactly, its intense involvement in the dynamics of the society and of the economy of our Country.

But intellectual freedom was also one of its distinctive markers. It has always closely followed national reality, in the light of a culture of permanent opening and cooperation with Portuguese society, to which it renders inestimable services, assuming an encompassing perspective of Economy as a social science.

Scientific work developed here was innovatory and decisively contributed towards the line of thinking and acting of the economic decision takers and of the entrepreneurial officers, as well as towards the setting up of an analytical and reflection unit covering the development of our country.

In a period of account rendering, which commemorations always imply, we can and must ask ourselves, with the redoubled opportunity of the experience of the past, what is the role that economists must have in current Portuguese society?

This query reminded me of an oration of wisdom I addressed in February 1982, precisely on that topic, and that is published in the “Economy” Magazine. The second coming to Portugal of the International Monetary Fund was then being anticipated, in the context of the understanding that was later concluded in 1983. And, peculiarly, re-reading what I then wrote, I concluded that many of the then queries and expectations have not lost their timeliness.

A grievous economic crisis was then being lived, marked by unemployment, especially among young people: there was great inequality in the distribution of wealth; economic productivity was low and the trend towards unsustainable external deficits was visible.

Although since then, much has evolved in several levels, the fact is that the grievousness of some of the old issues that subsist or the new ones that emerged meanwhile demands, more than ever, a “decisive contribution from economists”.

I shall thus closely follow that address of mine in 1982 in the words I chose for the commemoration of this centenary. Their timeliness shows, on the one hand that time has rhythms that largely differ from those that we often demand from it.

Referring to the responsibilities of economists I stated then that these “become still greater if we add that a correct assessment of the costs that such issues represent for society cannot be limited by considering just a few key economic variables, as is current in the books on economy, but requiring that certain negative social and political incidences that subsist in today’s Portugal, must be taken into consideration”.

And, following on this theme, I added that “taking measures for resolving economic issues is the essence of economic policy; however, (...) economic policy is set by politicians and not by economists as such”. But, I then emphasized, this could not mean relief, since “the credibility of a profession would never be attained if immunity from responsibilities should be claimed”.

I thus asked, such as can be asked today: “What is the role of economists in setting economic policy? What is their influence on the decisions?”

And I believed then, such as I continue to believe today, that it pertains to economists “to convince politicians and other decision takers of their use”; meaning that, “the economic decisions based upon their knowledge are more liable to be correct than decisions based on ignorance”.

This, of course, accepting, as I pointed out at the start, that a type of politician such as that described by Keynes cannot be taken as a model and that, according to him, “had his ears so close to the ground that he could not hear what was said by an upstanding man”.

And, I went on, “ensuring a role for economists means (…) recognizing that they are those that work and supply the ingredients with which politicians set economic policy”. Then explaining that “providing an opinion on what must be carried out is clearly included amongst the responsibilities of economists”, since the economic and social reforms that – then such as now, I would add – the Country requires “may be productive and fair, if correctly carried out, but, if incorrect, may also be disastrous and unfair”, as I asserted in 1982.

Almost 30 years later we live days of great international instability, that disturbed many of our convictions and that breached bonds of trust without which the rebuilding of our path towards development will be extremely difficult.

At a stage when, also within national life, trust has become the most determining factor for economic recovery, the recommendation I then made is still timely: in case his proposals are not accepted by those whose duty is to decide, the economist must not easily be resigned, but what “he must not accept is to betray the rules of the scientific method and subvert the logic of his thinking in order to obtain the conclusions demanded by his customers”.

This point is particularly important for the credibility of either those who give advice or of those who take decisions accepting such advice since, as I then stated, referring to the economists themselves, “their influence on the choices does not exclusively reflect scientific criteria”.

I recover, for this reason, part of the thoughts that I reserved for the issue in 1982: “Although rationality is the basic assumption of the economist, his intervention in the process of setting economic policies is not just that of a mere specialist on rational and neutral policies. (…) In effect, ethical judgements are present in the most diverse levels of an economist’s activity, that reflect his own system of preferences(…),” but “I must add that I do not share the opinion that this implies the loss of rationality and of the scientific status of Economy. I believe, however, that it is necessary to guarantee (…) objectivity to theoretical analysis in order that economic opinions are not just a simple issue of personal choice (…)”.

This perception leads us again to the role played by the schools of economy in the current world and to their interaction with the political decision takers or, better said, to the preparation of students for professional life and for civic and political intervention.

It so happens that nowadays, such as 30 years ago,“two fundamental features are singled out in the training of economists in which the University plays a relevant role: That of scientific knowledge and that of the system of values”.

In the field of knowledge, as I stated in 1982, the demand is for “a solid and updated analytical training capable of “establishing the adequate relationships and to draw the logical conclusions”, as well as an “adequate training in the area of other social subjects (…), since Economy concerns man” and to the several dimensions of his “social deportment”.

On the other hand, I added, economists must know how to “act in a material reality, the Portuguese reality, with its particular characteristics (…), often ignored to the level of abstraction at which economic models are developed”.

All this continues valid nowadays, if not even reinforced. But, if there is anything that has deeply changed with the means of communication and the swiftness in the dissemination of messages, is that the period of political action has been excessively shortened: medium and long term policies have little electoral acceptance and weak media support, and what is of interest tends to be, above all, what is visible at the moment.

This strongly conditions the scientific activity of economists, called upon to support political decision makers with their advice, thus running a serious risk to abandon their capacity to see at a distance, to deliver solutions that only consider the immediate context.

Then, just as now, the essential issue lies in the way science and research can help understand the world in which we live and to take advantage of the opportunities.

It is true that information and knowledge circulate very swiftly, causing changes that are so fast that they create difficulties for societies to become adapted.

However, it is more important than ever to preserve the capacity to reflect, to measure and to estimate the long term, in order that institutions are not made prisoners by the immediate.

The university institutions thus require being able to combine three periods, the past, the present and the future in order to be able, as is their duty, to ensure conservation, transmission, production and dissemination of knowledge.

For this reason they require independence, autonomy and freedom, in order to develop the critical thought which is indispensable for the evolution of science.

The other fundamental feature that I touched on in my 1982 address, which I have been quoting, and which I believe pertinent to remember here today, is the relevance of the system of values that is transmitted during the training of economists. It was already then recognized that “the University plays or may play a determining role in establishing the identity of the student, of which an essential component is the system of values with which he understands, accepts and defends (…), values that may come to exert considerable influence on the activities of an economist”.

The university is equally a privileged means for the training of free and participating citizens, aware of the importance of their choices.

The size and complexity of the issues that we face today, the global uncertainties, but also the immense field of opportunities and innovation that show up in the near horizon demand, more than ever, schools of economy that are able to train “individuals that know and want to answer the demands of today’s society”.

I am aware that ISEG will know how to answer this craving. Throughout a whole century, redoubtable professors and all those who worked here trained generations, transmitted cognizance, and, above all, values and principles.

For this reason they engraved, in each student, the inestimable trace of his school’s memory.

As a public recognition of the work and the merit shown throughout a century at the service of education and of development in Portugal, I decided to award the Higher Institute of Economy and Management the title of Honorary Member of the Military Order of Sant’iago da Espada, the insignia of which I shall be pleased to deliver to its President, Prof. João Duque.

I do so in full justice and confirming the exalted demand and expectations that this decoration interprets for whoever receives it.

In the 100 years of ISEG, I highly congratulate all and every one of those who contributed to the success of this school and those who were able to learn there, and expect that its standards of demand and plurality of learning continue infusing in the new generations the spirit of freedom and the desire for knowledge.

Many congratulations to the Lisbon Technical University and many congratulations also to the Higher Institute of Economy and Management.

Thank you