| 'Research Is Not Free'. Paresh Narayan’s response to Fijileaks is, in essence, a defence of the institutional legitimacy, academic integrity, and contractual basis of the FCCC - APAEA collaboration. His explanation attempts to rebut Premila Kumar’s insinuation that the research project was improper, politically motivated, or an unjustified use of public resources. The response can be broken down into five core arguments. First, Narayan says the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) existed because the Fijian Competition and Consumer Commission possessed large quantities of raw data but lacked sufficient internal technical and research capacity to fully analyse and convert that data into policy-oriented research. |   |
According to him, the role of the Asia-Pacific Applied Economics Association was therefore to provide technical expertise in data formatting, organisation, statistical analysis, and policy research writing.
This is an important clarification because it reframes the collaboration not as a casual academic exercise but as an outsourced policy research arrangement designed to support “evidence-based policy-making”. In regulatory economics, this is not unusual. Many regulators and central banks collaborate with universities, think tanks, or economic associations because they lack in-house econometric capability or research manpower.
Second, Narayan stresses that the outputs were public-facing rather than secretive. He says 10 research papers were produced and presented in stakeholder forums, and that the purpose was dissemination, scrutiny, policy discussion, and feedback. He further argues that publication was intended to contribute to a “knowledge economy” by making the research freely available to policymakers, academics, students, and the public.
That point is strategically important because one of the implicit criticisms raised publicly was whether FCCC resources were being used for private academic branding or politically aligned advocacy. Narayan counters this by portraying the initiative as transparent and publicly accessible.
Third, he directly addresses the authorship controversy. His central argument is that all individuals who made substantive intellectual contributions had to be acknowledged as co-authors. He argues that excluding contributors would itself breach academic ethics and potentially amount to plagiarism.
This is a strong defence from an academic standpoint. In scholarly publishing, co-authorship is normally justified where contributors materially participate in conceptualisation, methodology, analysis, interpretation, drafting, or supervision of the research.
If the former Finance Minister Biman Chand Prasad genuinely participated substantively in the research process, then listing him as co-author would not, in itself, violate academic norms.
However, this does not entirely eliminate the governance concern that critics are raising.
The real issue being debated publicly is less about authorship and more about institutional proximity and regulatory independence.
Critics are essentially asking the following questions:
Narayan’s response partially addresses the academic side of the controversy, but only indirectly addresses the institutional independence question.
Fourth, he defends the payment structure. He states bluntly that “research is not free” and that the MoU explicitly provided for fees and compensation because the work required funding, expertise, analytical capability, and time.
That is also institutionally normal. Policy research consultancies, commissioned studies, and academic partnerships routinely involve payment arrangements. The key governance questions therefore become:
Those are governance and accountability questions rather than purely academic ones.
Finally, Narayan attempts to place the FCCC arrangement within a broader regional context by saying APAEA conducts similar joint policy research with 10 central banks and multiple policy institutions across the Asia-Pacific region. This is designed to normalise the collaboration and show that such partnerships are standard practice internationally.
Overall, Narayan’s response is persuasive on several technical points:
But his response does not completely extinguish the broader public-interest concern.
The unresolved question is not simply whether the work was academically legitimate. It is whether the visible closeness between a serving Finance Minister and the head of an independent regulator created an appearance problem regarding regulatory autonomy and policy neutrality.
That distinction is likely to remain at the centre of the public debate.
This is an important clarification because it reframes the collaboration not as a casual academic exercise but as an outsourced policy research arrangement designed to support “evidence-based policy-making”. In regulatory economics, this is not unusual. Many regulators and central banks collaborate with universities, think tanks, or economic associations because they lack in-house econometric capability or research manpower.
Second, Narayan stresses that the outputs were public-facing rather than secretive. He says 10 research papers were produced and presented in stakeholder forums, and that the purpose was dissemination, scrutiny, policy discussion, and feedback. He further argues that publication was intended to contribute to a “knowledge economy” by making the research freely available to policymakers, academics, students, and the public.
That point is strategically important because one of the implicit criticisms raised publicly was whether FCCC resources were being used for private academic branding or politically aligned advocacy. Narayan counters this by portraying the initiative as transparent and publicly accessible.
Third, he directly addresses the authorship controversy. His central argument is that all individuals who made substantive intellectual contributions had to be acknowledged as co-authors. He argues that excluding contributors would itself breach academic ethics and potentially amount to plagiarism.
This is a strong defence from an academic standpoint. In scholarly publishing, co-authorship is normally justified where contributors materially participate in conceptualisation, methodology, analysis, interpretation, drafting, or supervision of the research.
If the former Finance Minister Biman Chand Prasad genuinely participated substantively in the research process, then listing him as co-author would not, in itself, violate academic norms.
However, this does not entirely eliminate the governance concern that critics are raising.
The real issue being debated publicly is less about authorship and more about institutional proximity and regulatory independence.
Critics are essentially asking the following questions:
- Was it appropriate for a serving Finance Minister to co-author papers with the head of a state regulator (Joel Abraham) whose policy performance and regulatory interventions affected the national economy?
- Could the collaboration create the appearance that the regulator was too closely aligned with the political executive?
- Did the arrangement blur the line between independent policy evaluation and government policy advocacy?
Narayan’s response partially addresses the academic side of the controversy, but only indirectly addresses the institutional independence question.
Fourth, he defends the payment structure. He states bluntly that “research is not free” and that the MoU explicitly provided for fees and compensation because the work required funding, expertise, analytical capability, and time.
That is also institutionally normal. Policy research consultancies, commissioned studies, and academic partnerships routinely involve payment arrangements. The key governance questions therefore become:
- Were procurement and approval processes properly followed?
- Were the payments proportionate and transparent?
- Was there adequate separation between regulator funding and political influence?
- Were taxpayers clearly informed of the arrangement?
Those are governance and accountability questions rather than purely academic ones.
Finally, Narayan attempts to place the FCCC arrangement within a broader regional context by saying APAEA conducts similar joint policy research with 10 central banks and multiple policy institutions across the Asia-Pacific region. This is designed to normalise the collaboration and show that such partnerships are standard practice internationally.
Overall, Narayan’s response is persuasive on several technical points:
- collaborative policy research is common;
- outsourced analytical work is normal where regulators lack capacity;
- co-authorship itself is not inherently improper;
- publication and dissemination are legitimate policy objectives;
- funded research partnerships are standard institutional practice.
But his response does not completely extinguish the broader public-interest concern.
The unresolved question is not simply whether the work was academically legitimate. It is whether the visible closeness between a serving Finance Minister and the head of an independent regulator created an appearance problem regarding regulatory autonomy and policy neutrality.
That distinction is likely to remain at the centre of the public debate.
Did Biman Chand Prasad Receive Payment Under the FCCC–APAEA Research MoU? Questions Arise After Parmesh Narayan Says “Research Is Not Free”
Based on Paresh Narayan’s response alone, there is no explicit confirmation that Biman Prasad personally received payment.
However, Narayan does make several statements that naturally raise that question. He says that the MoU “clearly specifies the agreed fees and compensation arrangements associated with undertaking this work”; research required “funding, technical expertise, analytical capability, and substantial time commitment”; and authorship reflected substantive contributions.
What he does not clarify is who exactly was paid; whether payments went to individuals, APAEA institutionally, or external consultants; whether Biman Prasad personally received consultancy fees, honoraria, research allowances, or any other compensation; and whether he participated in a paid capacity while simultaneously serving as Finance Minister. That distinction matters.
If the payments were made solely to APAEA or external technical researchers, and Biman Prasad merely participated academically without remuneration, that is one scenario.
If, however, a sitting Finance Minister personally received payment under an MoU funded through a statutory regulator operating within his own governmental sphere, that would raise significantly more serious governance and conflict-of-interest questions.
The key unresolved issues therefore are: Was Biman Prasad personally remunerated?If yes, in what form? Consultancy fee? Research honorarium? Speaking fee? APAEA allocation?
Moreover, who approved the payments? Were the payments disclosed publicly? Did Cabinet, FCCC Board structures, or procurement rules address the conflict dimension? Did he declare any such income or benefit where legally required?
Narayan’s email to Fijileaks does not answer those questions directly. It only confirms that the MoU contemplated “fees and compensation arrangements” for the research work generally.
Was Biman Chand Prasad paid out of the $200,000, for "Research is NOT Free".
However, Narayan does make several statements that naturally raise that question. He says that the MoU “clearly specifies the agreed fees and compensation arrangements associated with undertaking this work”; research required “funding, technical expertise, analytical capability, and substantial time commitment”; and authorship reflected substantive contributions.
What he does not clarify is who exactly was paid; whether payments went to individuals, APAEA institutionally, or external consultants; whether Biman Prasad personally received consultancy fees, honoraria, research allowances, or any other compensation; and whether he participated in a paid capacity while simultaneously serving as Finance Minister. That distinction matters.
If the payments were made solely to APAEA or external technical researchers, and Biman Prasad merely participated academically without remuneration, that is one scenario.
If, however, a sitting Finance Minister personally received payment under an MoU funded through a statutory regulator operating within his own governmental sphere, that would raise significantly more serious governance and conflict-of-interest questions.
The key unresolved issues therefore are: Was Biman Prasad personally remunerated?If yes, in what form? Consultancy fee? Research honorarium? Speaking fee? APAEA allocation?
Moreover, who approved the payments? Were the payments disclosed publicly? Did Cabinet, FCCC Board structures, or procurement rules address the conflict dimension? Did he declare any such income or benefit where legally required?
Narayan’s email to Fijileaks does not answer those questions directly. It only confirms that the MoU contemplated “fees and compensation arrangements” for the research work generally.
Was Biman Chand Prasad paid out of the $200,000, for "Research is NOT Free".
