Ireland in 2008: The Context Download Pdf

The current national agreement, Towards 2016, opens with a statement of the principal goals for Irish society over the period 2006-2016. The first of these goals aims at “nurturing the complementary relationship between social policy and economic prosperity”. Also in its opening passages the national agreement states that “in the past the performance of the economy set limits to our social and environmental possibilities. However, economic policy and social provision can be mutually reinforcing and complementary” (2006:10).

These are important starting points for this review. They reflect the position CORI Justice has advocated for many years – that economic and social progress are necessarily complementary ambitions for any society. Adequate and sustainable progress is not possible unless both advance together.

Reflecting this vision of progress, this review opens with an assessment of the general economic and social position of Ireland in 2008. Given that context it then proposes a set of priorities for Irish society to achieve in the coming years. These priorities complement the challenges and approach outlined by the National Economic and Social Council (NESC) in its Developmental Welfare State report which we review before concluding this chapter.

2.1 Economy

Growth prospects, employment and the public finances Ireland has achieved enormous progress throughout the last decade. Sustained economic growth coupled with very significant job creation has transformed this country. Most significantly, unemployment has fallen to low levels and the era of forced emigration has ended. In 2008 this trend of high economic growth is
expected to continue, although not at the same rapid pace of recent years. However, Ireland’s economic growth rate will still continue to outperform the rest of Europe and the Developed World. In 2008 the Department of Finance expects Ireland to
achieve a GDP growth rate of 3 per cent and a GNP growth rate of 2.8 per cent.

Looking to the future, Budget 2008 projected an average GNP growth rate of 3.33 per cent for the period 2008-2010 and employment growth in 2008 of 1.1 per cent - approximately 21,000 jobs (Department of Finance, 2007:A6).

The public finances also remain in good shape. On a day-to-day basis the exchequer continues to collect more taxation revenue than it is spending in the current account. Detailed projections from the Department of Finance for the next three years indicate that the state will record current account surpluses averaging €5.43 billion annually; the 2008 figure being just over €4.7 billion.

When expenditure on Ireland’s large capital investment programme is taken into account (totalling €9,600 million in 2008) the government are planning for an overall budget deficit of €4,800 million in 2008. Projections for the next two years also suggest budget deficits driven by increasing levels of capital investment (over €10 billion per annum in 2009 and 2010) as set out in the National Development Plan and intended to address Ireland’s unacceptable infrastructural gap with the rest of Europe.

Table 2.1.1 presents a summary of the Department of Finance’s Budget day projections for Ireland over the years 2008-2010.

2.2 The Social Context

The dramatic economic successes of recent years have changed Ireland. We are now regarded as a very rich country and major progress has been achieved in many areas, particularly employment. The recent results of Census 2006 provide a further
reflection of this fact given that our population now equals almost 4.25 million people an increase of 322,000 people since Census 2002. Only recently did Ireland’s population exceed four million for the first time since 1871 and the CSO has projected that it will climb to five million people over the next 15 years (CSO,2004:26, 32; 2007: 11, 37).

However, it would be wrong to judge Ireland using traditional economic measures alone. On closer examination, Irish society still has many problems, some of which persist almost as if they were acceptable. These include sustained levels of poverty, an unequal income distribution, high levels of illiteracy including high rates among young early school-leavers, growing social exclusion and problems of racism and discrimination. In no way is this list complete; however, it underscores the necessity to look more broadly at our recent success and assess just how extensive it has been.

^{United Nations Human Development Report}

The United Nations Human Development Index (HDI) presents the best available comparative measurement of the quality of life offered in countries across the world. It assesses countries on a range of socio-economic indicators including life expectancy, education, literacy and adjusted real income. The accompanying report also contains tables of other indicators such as economic growth, health status, poverty, personal distress and information flow. For the first time Ireland entered the top ten countries in the world according to the 2004 index; in the 2007 report it was ranked fifth of 177 countries (UN, 2007:229). However, a more detailed assessment of the index’s components reveals contrasting progress within Ireland.

Ireland performs well according to the economic indicators, and records the fourth highest GDP per capita in the world (UN, 2007:229). However, the social indicators record a noticeably poorer performance1. A total of 22.6 per cent of the Irish
population are identified as being functionally illiterate, meaning that they are unable to read basic texts or a newspaper.

The proportion of GDP spent on healthcare (public) by the Irish government is 5.7 per cent. This compares with 6.9 per cent in the USA, 8.2 per cent in Germany and France, 7.7 per cent in Sweden, 7.1 per cent in Denmark, 6.9 per cent in Belgium, 5.7 per cent in the Netherlands and 7.0 per cent in the UK. Throughout Europe, the governments of countries such as Norway, Austria, Italy, Slovenia, Portugal, Croatia and the Czech Republic all allocate a greater proportion of GDP to health expenditure. Consequently it is of no surprise that the health status of the Irish population compares unfavourably with that of other developed countries. Life expectancy at birth in Ireland is 78.4 years, compared to 80.5 in Sweden and Spain, 80.2 in France, 79.8 in Norway and 79 in the UK (UN, 2007: 229, 247).2

Perspectives on Irish Society

During recent years a number of published reports and books have given interesting insights into the nature of modern Irish society. However, the contrast between their findings is interesting and reflects the emergence of an ever more prosperous, yet unequal, Ireland.

The OECD (2006), Economist Magazine (2005) and the ESRI (2005) have all identified Ireland as one of the most successful economies in the world. The OECD classified Ireland as one of the worlds “high income economies” alongside countries such as Luxembourg, Norway, USA and Switzerland. Concurrently, the CSO reported that 17.0 per cent of the Irish population are at risk poverty (see Section 3.1(a)). The Society of St Vincent de Paul also reported during the last year that the scale of poverty in Ireland has resulted in the society spending €42 million a year in assisting those in need; this is equivalent to almost €115,000 per day.

One interesting reflection on the current socio-economic position of Ireland is the parallel between where we as a country are going and where the United States currently is. Commenting on this at the CORI Justice 2003 social policy conference, David Begg of ICTU stated: “it is to European values that I look when seeking to promote the type of Ireland I want to see. In forming these opinions I have been, paradoxically, influenced by the writings of one of the greatest American thinkers, John Kenneth Galbraith. Forty years ago he wrote about his country degenerating into a state of ‘Private Affluence and Public Squalor’. In 1998 the United Nations Development Programme invited him to revisit this topic for the Human Development Report. He wrote that there was one significant change he wished to note; whereas there was a sense of guilt about this condition of growing inequality when he first wrote about it, now it is seen as acceptable” (2003:10).

2.3 Meeting Commitments

Throughout the last number of years the government has made a series of commitments regarding socio-economic policy and issues. As a means of tracking progress on these commitments CORI Justice published our first Monitoring Social Partnership Policy Briefing in September 2007. The function of this annual publication is to provide an assessment of progress on the implementation of almost one hundred key commitments.3

2.4 Establishing Priorities

In any country the list of potential reforms is extensive. Consequently, it is always necessary to rationally decide on a set of worthwhile priorities which should be pursued. Making these choices is difficult; no country can do all it wishes to do. However, at present CORI Justice believes that the following should be adopted as national priorities as we plan for progress and fairness.

• Addressing the social provision deficit
• Reducing poverty to EU-average levels
• Minimising social exclusion
• Building a fairer taxation system
• Adopting appropriate fiscal planning methods
• Developing long term planning
• Shifting policy to target growth of per capita national income
• Developing a rights-based approach

Each of these priorities is outlined below.

Addressing the Social Provision Deficit

Ireland continues to display serious deficits in its infrastructure and social provision. In a European context our roads, railways, IT broadband and transport systems compare badly. Similarly, our poverty rates, unequal income distribution, growing rich/poor gap and under-equipped health and education systems represent the most visible signs of the extensive gaps in our social provision. In the context of continued economic growth and per capita income well above the European average, the opportunity to address these deficits remains available.

An analysis of Ireland’s spending on social protection against that of other EU countries is telling. Social protection expenditure is defined by Eurostat to include spending on: sickness/health care, disability, old age, survivors, family/children, unemployment, housing and social exclusion initiatives not elsewhere classified (2007: 125). Table 2.4.1 uses the most recent figures, published by Eurostat, to show the size of this expenditure as a percentage of GDP for 2005 (the latest year for which figures are available).

A comparison is also made with Ireland’s GNP. Using either GDP or GNP, Ireland’s spending on social expenditure stands out as
being below the EU average (of 22.4 per cent). Although the Irish figure has been rising in recent year it is only poorer new member states that record lower proportions of social expenditure. Chart 2.4.1 develops this analysis further and examines the difference between the proportion of GDP allocated to social protection expenditure by each of the EU-27 countries and the EU average.

When social expenditure is assessed on a per capita basis Ireland’s position marginally improves. However, when these figures are compared to other countries the Eurostat figures show that the UK government spends 22.5 per cent more per person on social expenditure than Ireland does. Other comparisons against spending per Irish person include: Belgium 41 per cent more, Germany 28 per cent more, Austria 41 per cent more and Denmark 45 per cent more (Eurostat, 2008:17).4

Given the low levels of unemployment and the low numbers of elderly people in Ireland, relative to the rest of Europe, we would expect Ireland to be below the European average. However these factors are likely to account for only about 10- 15 per cent of the gap between Ireland’s figure and the European average.

In the context of these figures, it is of no surprise that all the reports mentioned earlier highlight the high levels of poverty and exclusion in Ireland. It is clearly necessary that we address these gaps in our social provision. Given the current strength of the Irish economy there now exists a window of opportunity where these gaps can be appropriately addressed. Section three of this review sets out the policies CORI Justice believes are necessary to achieve this.

Chart 2.4.1: Percentage Divergence in National Social Protection Expenditure levels from the EU average

Reducing Poverty to EU-Average Levels

The European wide social survey EU-SILC (Survey on Income and Living Conditions) allows accurate comparison to be made between the levels and rates of various socio-economic phenomena across the member states. The most recent poverty data indicates that throughout the EU-25 the average risk of poverty in 2005 (the latest year for which comparable statistics are available) was 16 per cent.

As we show later in this review, the recent increases in social welfare payments have begun to produce real benefits in terms of reducing Ireland’s relatively high rate of poverty (see section 3.1(a)). CORI Justice has long campaigned for these increases in the belief that they would deliver just such an effect.

Over the next few years we believe that it will be possible to reduce Ireland’s poverty rate to at least the EU average. This can be achieved through policies which continue to: benchmark social welfare payments to average industrial earnings; provide equity of social welfare rates across genders; enhance the early childhood supplement; and provide higher state pensions and a cost of disability payment. Throughout section 3.1 of this review we outline these policies. If adopted we believe that Ireland will reduce its poverty rate to at least the average EU level over the next few years.

Minimising social exclusion

Social exclusion results from a combination of deprivations. In particular, people experience exclusion when they live in poverty, cannot access employment, and do not have a say in the decisions that affect their lives. The agreement Partnership 2000 described social exclusion as ‘cumulative marginalisation: from production (unemployment), from consumption (income poverty), from social networks (community, family and neighbours), from decision-making and from an adequate quality of life’ (1996: 4.3). That agreement also stated that:

Social exclusion is one of the major challenges currently facing Irish society. To minimise or ignore this challenge would not only result in an increase in social polarisation, which is in itself unacceptable, but also an increase in all the attendant problems such as poor health, crime, drug abuse and alienation, which impose huge social and economic costs on our society.

Poor people are excluded from decision-making even when the decisions concern their level of income or their right to work. They are seen by many as a commodity, or are viewed as surplus to the requirements of society, and are dismissed accordingly. Society is now structured in such a way that people in these groups have no future prospects. Social and cultural life today requires money, and very often is organised around the place of employment. People who are poor and unemployed are excluded from the main life of the community.

Exclusion is experienced in many ways and can be multifarious. What does it mean if you are excluded? It means that your opinion is not sought and it doesn’t count. In fact, you are not expected to have an opinion; rather you are encouraged to trust the opinion of the shapers and movers of the society. Ultimately exclusion is not only the feeling but also the reality of powerlessness.

When you are one of the excluded, politicians and policy-makers can ignore you without fear of censure or loss of position. When your rights are compromised, the avenues of redress open are very few and haphazard. Since society fears excluded groups, you are always suspect and live under a cloud of being guilty until you prove your innocence.

Observing the conspicuous consumption of the better-off in the society while watching one’s own children grow up without proper nourishment or access to appropriate education is demoralising. When these children begin to read reality for themselves, become disillusioned, and drop out of school, the cycle is complete. Another generation is added to the group of alienated and excluded.

People with a disability are, for the most part, among the excluded in our society. They and their families are expected to be grateful for whatever the rest of society decides to do for them. They have an inadequate voice in shaping the decisions that affect them. This needs to change.

The largest excluded group in Irish society is women. Since their exclusion is historically deep-seated and too complex for this publication, we can only acknowledge that it is experienced in various social, political, economic, cultural and religious areas. Exclusion is also experienced by ethnic groups, especially Travellers, and others because of their race, sexual orientation or religious beliefs.

A new excluded group in Irish society comprises migrants, refugees and asylumseekers. In recent years, people of various ethnic origins have sought refuge here. Others have come here to work and have made a huge contribution to Ireland‘s booming economy. For many of them, their experience of ‘Irish hospitality’ has not been good. It is ironic that a country which encouraged emigration as a way of solving its economic problems a few short years ago (when an average of 35,000 people were leaving our shores annually) is now making life difficult for migrants as well as for a substantially lower number of refugees and asylum-seekers who have come here in recent years.

Exclusion is a concern not just of the excluded. When some of its members are not allowed to contribute or participate, all of society is poorer because it is deprived of the creativity, insights, skills and talents of the excluded members. In the context of Ireland’s dramatic economic success over the past few years, it seems to be that the group which has benefited least is the excluded. It remains the case that government has the resources to redress this imbalance and minimise social exclusion.

Building a fairer taxation system

Addressing the deficiencies in Ireland’s social provision will require the government to allocate further resources to the implementation of policies in this area. Currently, one argument levelled against this move is that funding is unavailable. However, CORI Justice has shown that this argument is false and that sufficient resources are available if the government raised Ireland’s tax take to a fairer level. Our 2004 social policy conference specifically focused on this issue.

An analysis in section 3.2 of this review compares Ireland’s tax take with that of our fellow European countries. It shows that in 2005 (the latest year for which comparable figures are available) Ireland’s tax take was the fifth lowest in the EU-27. Ireland’s tax take stands at 30.8 per cent of GDP and 36.6 per cent of GNP. These figures imply that Ireland’s taxation rate is at least one percentage point below the EU average.

Commenting on the future prospects for Ireland Jim Power, the chief economist at Friends First, stated: “we will have to accept that, if we as a nation expect top quality public services, we will have to pay for them. Ireland has one of the lowest levels of taxation as a percentage of GDP in the European Union. Consequently, it is not terribly surprising that it also has one of the poorest levels of public services amongst the more developed EU nations. If we want to change the quality of services, the tax burden will have to rise…the balance between the level of taxation and the quality of public services is a choice we as a nation will have to make over the coming years” (2003:43).

It is an obvious reality that Ireland can never hope to address its deficits in infrastructure and social provision if we continue to collect substantially less tax income than that required by other European countries. Small increases in taxation are certainly feasible and there is little evidence to suggest that such increases would have any significant negative impact on the economy. CORI Justice believes that these increases should not be attained through income taxation, but rather via reforming and broadening the tax base so that Ireland’s taxation system becomes fairer.5

Adopting appropriate fiscal planning methods

The exchequer comprises two accounts, a current account and a capital account. The former accounts for the day-to-day activities of the state and incorporates inflows of taxation revenue and outflows of state expenditure on wages, social welfare and training programmes among others. The latter primarily accounts for government investment in infrastructure, buildings, roads and so on. Normally it is accepted that a nation’s capital account will be in deficit (expenditure greater than revenue), because this generally involves costly investments which generate little immediate revenue. However, in the long run, capital investments are regarded as worthwhile given that their provision facilitates economic activity which in turn produces future flows of taxation revenue.6
When managing the current account, the established approach is to plan for a surplus in the account (revenue exceeding expenditure) or to balance the account. In the UK the former Chancellor, Gordon Brown, adopted a “golden rule” for budgetary policy which commits him to balance the current account over a cycle of Budgets while running his capital account in sustained deficit.7

Producing a budget deficit is not regarded as a problem by economists or by most Finance Ministers. As long as the current account is in surplus or balance, the existence of capital account deficits, equalling small percentages of overall GDP, is accepted; indeed it is expected.

In recent years Ireland has attempted to be an exception to this form of fiscal management. During the boom years of the Celtic Tiger the Irish exchequer was awash with money. In spite of cuts in taxation rates, revenue kept coming in and allowed the exchequer to record sizeable current account surpluses. So large were these surpluses, they exceeded capital account deficits and allowed government to record overall budget surpluses. Budget 2008 projections (see earlier) from the Department of Finance indicate that over the next few years Ireland will record overall Budget deficits and that these will be driven by sustained levels of capital account investment amounting to over €10bn a year. This investment represents an important part of Ireland’s infrastructural catch-up with the rest of Europe. The reality of this fiscal outcome is that the Irish Economy has returned to a position that other European countries regard as the ‘optimal’. Indeed, if anything the Irish exchequer’s position would be regarded as super-healthy given the large current account balances.

It is clear from the Department of Finance projections that there remains room for further current account spending over the next few years. As table 2.4.2 shows, additional spending of up to €1.1 billion a year is feasible. Its effect would only be to reduce the sizeable current account surpluses and to marginally increase the scale of overall budget deficits. Following such a move, the General Government Balance (GGB) as a percentage of GDP (the key indictor used by the European Central Bank to judge fiscal policy control) would be 1.74 per cent in 2008, 1.96 per cent in 2009 and 1.81 per cent in 2010. These outcomes comfortably comply with the 3 per cent limit set in the Stability and Growth Pact. In spite of this additional spending, the average annual current account surplus in the 2008-2010 period would be €4.33 billion.

Based on these figures, it is clear that the exchequer can afford to spend significantly more money over the next few years. However, many of the comments recently voiced with regard to levels of state spending in Ireland have suggested that Irish
government expenditure has become too high. Associated with these views have been suggestions that expenditure levels should be scaled back.

In that context, it is worthwhile examining levels of government expenditure in an EU context. The most recent figures from Eurostat, the EU’s statistical agency, report the total expenditure by governments across the EU-27 in 2006 (Eurostat, 2007:165). Table 2.4.3 reports this data for all 27 member states and shows total Irish government expenditure is below the EU average. Only Latvia and Lithuania record lower levels of government expenditure. It remains a myth that Irish government spending is too high.

In the context of the socio-economic problems persisting in Ireland today, problems that are discussed throughout section three of this review, CORI Justice believes that these funds should be used to address them. Major changes could therefore be achieved in the next few years if Ireland is willing to take a more realistic and standard approach to managing its fiscal policy.

Developing long term planning

An essential element of any society is its ability to plan for the future. In that context an important insight into Ireland’s future was provided during late 2004 as part of the Central Statistics Office (CSO) report on expected population trends. Entitled Population and Labour Force Projections, 2006-2036 the report signalled a dramatic demographic transformation due to occur in Ireland over the next three decades.8 Table 2.4.4 presents its main findings.

As table 2.4.4 shows the CSO forecast that Ireland’s population will climb from approximately 4 million people today to 5.1 million people by 2121 and on to 5.8 million people in 2036. In simple terms, this implies that our population will increase by almost 50 per cent or almost 2 million people in just 34 years (2002-2036).

There are major implications for many public policy areas as a result of this increase. Where will all these extra people be housed? How will they travel around? What additional education and health facilities are required to provide for such additional numbers? How can Ireland ensure that we build a fair and inclusive society which can adequately cater for all these extra people?

CORI Justice believes that these figures necessitate the development of long term planning. Rather than cope with the implications of this population growth once it has happened, we believe it is important to begin to plan now for its arrival. To do this successfully, policies need to be framed within a time frame of at least 10 years. These policies also need to look beyond economic growth as the principal priority driving Government, the policy formation process and society generally.

One welcome development in this area has been to reform the structure of the current model of social partnership such that the new national agreement is based on a ten-year vision. In the 2005 edition of this publication we called for such a development and we welcomed its evolution (see CORI, 2005:15). Such agreements allow the Government and social partners to adopt focused long-range strategies as a part of building the Ireland of the future. Given the scale and multifaceted nature of this challenge it is also of significance that the new agreement acknowledges that economic policy and social policy are two sides of the one coin.

This is a welcome development and suggests Ireland’s social provision deficits will be comprehensively addressed in the years immediately ahead.

Shifting policy to target growth of per capita national income

CORI Justice believes that a series of new indicators are needed to measure the development of societies. Later in this review we discuss the need to develop such alternative scorecards and in particular address the Towards 2016 commitment to investigate the possibility of developing a set of shadow national accounts (see section 3.10).

In the short-term we believe that it is worthwhile for economic policy to focus on growing per capita national incomes rather than just their nominal levels. Per capita national income is calculated by dividing GNP (or GDP) by the population – establishing GNP per person. Moving to such an approach is particularly important in the context of the aforementioned population growth projections. Reporting and monitoring increases in these indicators would enhance policy making and provide a more realistic yardstick to assess economic developments.

Developing a rights-based approach

CORI Justice believes strongly in the importance of developing a rights-based approach to social, economic and cultural issues. The need to develop these rights is becoming ever more urgent for Ireland and the EU. Social, economic and cultural rights should be acknowledged and recognised just as civil and political rights have been. Among others, we believe that seven basic rights that are of fundamental concern to people who are socially excluded and/or living in poverty should be acknowledged and recognised. These are the rights to:

sufficient income to live life with dignity; meaningful work; appropriate accommodation; relevant education; essential healthcare; cultural respect; and real participation. Until these rights are effectively recognised then Ireland and the EU will continue to have a major credibility problem, as they will be failing to match their commitment to civil and political rights with an equal commitment to social, economic and cultural rights.

To ensure that the recognition of social, economic and cultural rights goes beyond words, however, it is essential to address the question: how can such rights be made justiciable (capable of being vindicated in law)? In particular, how can this be done in a way that respects the political process and does not destroy the balance of power between the judicial and the governmental dimensions of society while also respecting the social, economic and cultural rights of people?

CORI Justice suggests the following as a viable way forward that would respect concerns expressed particularly by politicians while also respecting the need for people’s rights to be justiciable. Our proposal has a number of components.

First, these social, economic and cultural rights should be recognised in the Irish Constitution. Following on this recognition there would be a requirement to have legislation ensuring these rights could be vindicated. We suggest the following might achieve this without producing a non-viable situation that would see every individual pursuing, for example, access to appropriate accommodation, all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Second, there would be a legal requirement on each incoming Government to set out concrete targets on each of the range of social, economic and cultural rights recognised in the Constitution. The specific list of rights would already be set out in legislation and should cover the listing outlined above or some similar range of rights.

Finally, the targets set out in such legislation would have to be for specific periods of time e.g. two and four years (these particular time-frames would also be set out in the legislation). Failure to achieve these targets would be justiciable on a classaction or similar basis but not on the basis of every individual bringing their particular case to court.

We believe a mechanism along these lines should be developed and put in place in all EU states. It would mean that social, economic and cultural rights were placed on the same level as civil and political rights. It would also mean that the EU’s over-concentration on the economic dimension would be re-balanced in part at least by a growing recognition of the importance of the social dimension to citizens in all EU member states9.

2.5 NESC Report – The Developmental Welfare State

When considering how Irish society should address these priorities one worthwhile perspective is that offered by NESC in its report entitled The Developmental Welfare State (NESC, 2005). Chart 2.5.1 presents the core structure of the model NESC presented. It comprises three interrelated areas: services, income supports and innovative measures.

Chart 2.5.1 The Core Structure of the Developmental Welfare State

In building the developmental welfare state NESC has argued that Irish society should take a ‘life-cycle’ approach. As table 2.5.1 shows, such an approach would focus on identifying the needs of children, young adults, people of working age, older people and people challenged in their personal autonomy such as those in care. The council has suggested that for each group we should focus on securing an effective combination of income supports, services and social innovations.

CORI Justice welcomed this approach. We also welcomed its incorporation into the Towards 2016 national social partnership agreement. Successfully implementing this approach will underscore each of these groups ability to play a real and sustained
role in Irish society and thereby play an important role in tacking social exclusion.

This approach provides each sector involved with key challenges if the best options are to be taken and if the approach is to be successfully developed as a template for policy. We look forward to being part of that process.

2.6 Planning for Progress and Fairness

In 2008, it is clearer than ever that Ireland is a country of growing socio-economic divides. Any society is measured by how it treats its most vulnerable people. By this measurement Ireland is failing. Despite the substantial resources which have been
available, Ireland’s poorest people have been excluded from what is required to live life with dignity. As this review shows, the rich/poor gap continues to increase. Simultaneously, pay increases and the sustained low-tax environment ensure that many of those who earn most continue to pay less than a fair level of taxation.

Consequently our already unequal society grows more unequal. A reversal of this trend will only occur if we as a society adequately plan for progress and fairness.

To achieve this it is necessary that society as a whole, and leadership in particular, respond by adopting an agenda focused on achieving these goals. In the following pages, we outline what this agenda should entail and how through choices Ireland can become fairer. Throughout the review we address a range of issues including:

• Income
• Education
• Taxation
• Migration and Intercultural Issues
• Work
• Participation
• Public Services
• Sustainability
• Housing and Accommodation
• Rural Development
• Healthcare
• The Developing World

On each of these issues, we propose a core policy objective. We also provide an analysis of the present situation, review relevant initiatives and outline policy proposals aimed at planning for progress and fairness. In doing this, we clearly indicate the choices CORI Justice believes should be made when the available resources are divided in the years immediately ahead.

Notes:

1 The United Nations Human Development Index includes poverty indicators (see 2007:241). On this measure Ireland continues to be ranked 18th out of the 19 industrialised countries reviewed. A full discussion of these figures and of poverty may be found in section 3.1(a).
2 A more comprehensive assessment of Ireland’s healthcare performance is presented in section 3.6.
3 This publication is available for download on our website www.cori.ie/justice
4 All figures sourced from Eurostat (2008) and adjusted for purchasing power standards (PPS).
5 Detailed assessments of these policies are presented in section 3.2.
6 This assumes that value for money is achieved when Governments make capital investments.
7 This golden rule is often summed up as allowing Britain only to “borrow to invest”. It has also been adopted by Brown’s successor.
8 See also Punch (2006).
9 For a further discussion of this issue see Healy and Reynolds (2003).