The simple world of the Western Development Commission

ishmael whale

A half predictable and disappointing contribution from the Western Development Commission. I’m taking it that the reference to “The capital city is like some cannibalistic, out-of-control monster, devouring all around it to simply to keep itself sustained” is a comment from the journalist writing the article rather than the WDC. I take it I don’t need to point out that Dublin simply generates wealth which it shares with the regions. It doesn’t ‘devour’ anything, nor is its growth at the ‘expense’ of the regions, its growth is despite resources being diverted to the regions. Why so many Western commentators find it so hard to simply accept Dublin’s growth as something welcome for the country, I cannot understand. The impression you get is they’d only be really happy if Dublin was impoverished and depressed.

The article still seems to continue the undue emphasis on the idea that ‘infrastructure first’ is what will power the West forward, rather than the encouragement of concentration within the regions. There also seems to be the usual confused begrudery, on the one hand acknowledging Dublin’s needs and on the other hand expressing the fear that providing Dublin with the infrastructure it needs will make it more successful. Dublin’s success seems to be a perpetual source of fear to people with this mindset, as illustrated by talk of ‘devouring’ and ‘sucking’ the regions. (There’s no need to put a lid on a tank of Irish lobsters. If one makes a break for it the other will drag him down.)

What do they think is achieved by support for the sheer misdirection of resources represented in the case of the Government decentralisation or case of the WRC? It would be far more helpful if the WDC were to address the real issues which are the actual cause of regional imbalance, rathering than hankering after the arguments that don’t hold water.

http://www.unison.ie/sligo_champion/stories.php3?ca=44&si=1516883&issue_id=13345 … Transport 21 ….. sets out to cater for the needs of Dublin and the east coast - which nobody denies needs urgent attention. …. the continuing burgeoning of Dublin at the expense of the rest of the country. The capital city is like some cannibalistic, out-of-control monster, devouring all around it to simply to keep itself sustained.
According to Dr. Patricia O'Hara, Policy Manager at the Western Development Commission (WDC), the burden of growth on Dublin will become unsustainable and will drain the lifeblood out of the regions unless development is accelerated outside the capita. Addressing a major regional development conference titled Rural Development: A Time of Transition, Dr. O'Hara said it's time we recognised that investment in the regions is actually good for Dublin and essential for Ireland. Indeed, wondering why opinion-makers in the greater Dublin area are not the most vocal proponents of the development of the regions, she said this would be of major direct benefit to them.
And she pointed out that despite Dublin's relative prosperity it is, without a doubt, the most pressurised, expensive and congested part of Ireland. Massive public investment has, quite rightly, been earmarked to tackle these pressures. However, she told the conference: "Beware the vicious investment circle. The more investment and resources that the greater Dublin area takes up, the more Dublin will dominate the economy, attracting more industry and people and causing even more congestion. Without substantial investment in enabling infrastructure and other supports that can be absolutely justified on the basis of their spatial impact, the regions will fall further behind.
"We're in danger of tilting the country's infrastructure so much towards Dublin that the rest of the country will fall into the capital. Solving Dublin's problems cannot be at the expense of the regions; rather, enabling the regions to prosper will serve national goals and add to the welfare of those living in the Dublin area."
Dr. O'Hara continued: "One of the difficulties with taking regional issues into account in decision-making on public spending is that the electoral system is organised spatially so that quite sensible initiatives for regional development tend to be judged in terms of their perceived political‚ rather than spatial impact. The government decentralisation programme, and investment in the Western Rail Corridor, both of which will bring substantial benefits to regional towns, are cases in point.
"Many cutting-edge businesses are trading very successfully in the regions. The WDC's experience with the Look West campaign has convinced us that many more businesses and individuals wish to locate in the regions provided that they can access the basic infrastructural facilities of a modern well-developed society."
Dr. O'Hara pointed out that those who have moved, or who wish to do, say that they do not expect metropolitan facilities everywhere, but they do need quick and reliable transport access, broadband telecommunications, and quality services at reasonable cost. Current prosperity is so recent that we may have difficulty recognising the opportunities we can create for regions over the longer term, at relatively little public cost, considering our wealth. Now that we are a prosperous county, the payback from funding enabling infrastructure in the regions will be to deliver substantial benefits including easing the pressure on Dublin.
The refrain of 'amen to all of that' may be heard stage left - not least from the people of Dublin themselves who find themselves living in a city in danger of becoming an urban nightmare.

ishmael whale

I was thinking about this a little more. Here's the kind of thing the WDC could be saying if they acutally wanted to make a contribution to regional development.

http://www.ahcps.ie/newslettersissued/AHCPS%20June%202005%20Newsetter.pdf

Frank McDonald, Environment Editor, The Irish Times, at the AHCPS Annual Conference, May 6th 2005.

….In 1969, as [Noel] Dempsey noted, Colin Buchanan had set out to put things right by plotting a course for more balanced regional development to counter the unrestrained growth of Dublin. But this leading planner of the late 20th century had his blueprint torn to shreds by parish-pump politics. For the record, Buchanan’s plan proposed two “national growth centres” — Cork and Limerick-Shannon. By 1986, the population of Cork was to have reached 250,000, while the projection for Limerick-Shannon was 175,000. These two cities were to be complemented by five regional centres (Galway, Waterford, Sligo, Dundalk, Drogheda and Athlone) and four growth towns (Letterkenny, Cavan, Castlebar and Tralee)……

….The key thing was for a limited number of other centres to develop “critical mass” so that they could compete with Dublin. … After three years of dithering over Buchanan, Fianna Fail ministers decided in 1972 to adopt a “laissez faire” approach, allowing Dublin to expand to accommodate its “natural increase” in population, while pledging an IDA “advance factory” for virtually every town and village in Ireland. ...

With no other cities to match the momentum of Dublin, the share of Ireland’s population living in the Greater Dublin Area continued to grow until it was nudging 40% by the 2002 Census. That contrasts with a share of 25% in the mid-1920s..…….

The N[ational] S[patial] S[trategy] came so close to a “county towns” approach that it invited attack. Not only had Dublin, Cork, Limerick-Shannon, Galway and Waterford been named as “gateways”, but also Dundalk, Sligo, Letterkenny and a triangle formed by Athlone, Tullamore and Mullingar – “ATM”. There were also to be nine “hubs” ….. it designated far too many growth centres, spreading development as widely as possible, and as thinly, too. As a result, the likelihood is that nowhere will develop a sufficient “critical mass” to compete for investment with the economic engine of Dublin.…..

Last June, Michael Bannon, former professor of urban and regional planning at UCD had this to say: “In themselves, the Government’s [decentralisation] proposals are ill-considered. They will damage the coherence and efficiency of the public service. They fly in the face of the National Spatial Strategy, and they are likely to sound the death knell for regional policy in Ireland. This reckless dispersal of government work is a follow-on from years of scattering industrial plants in every town and village, with the disastrous consequences we have today. Would an Irish government go to a corporation such as Intel and propose that it should break up its Leixlip campus in favour of thirty, forty or fifty dispersed locations? Not only does this adventure give us all a bad name, but it represents a tragic lost opportunity to do the right thing, to do it with wisdom and to do it well”.