The Anglo Irish Economic War - Is History repeating itself and where are we at now ??

CDfm

In school we were taught that the Economic War 1932 -1938 was almost a good thing .The slogan "Burn everthing British except their Coal" was the catch phrase of economic sovereignty. A visit to the Irish Coal Mine Arigna a few years back told me that compared with British Coal -the Irish product was poor quality and the seams of coal 6 inches in width as opposed to 6-12 feet in width in Lancashire making it expensive to extract.

So when I heard James Larkin and the foundation of the state invoked in the news reports of last Saturdays protest march , with apparently the same economic theories of that era , it made me think.

The background to the Economic War was fairly simple. FF was elected with a majority in 1932 and one of his first acts was to suspend the repayment of Land Annuities to Britain, (land annuities being the repayments by farmers under the Land Acts and the purchase of tenant farms), and diverted them to the Irish Exchequer. Britain responded with a 20% tariff on Irish imports. In 1938,Ireland sought "economic peace" with a £10 m settlement.Small country -small power, big country big power.

The similarities, of course, was that Ireland was a small open economy -within the context of Britain.

The other issues, which I learned about later, was that economists at the time, was that Ireland at that time was at a stage of primary or primative capitalist development. It did not have a domestic capital base. If anything, we had come from a semi-feudal, colonial situation and if anything independence had caused an outflow of capital.

The Economic War was not without its consequences and WWII put the Irish Economy on hold also. In 1948, General Marshall included Ireland in the Marshall Plan.

Where this is relevant today, is that our current woes are caused by foreign investment and "sovereign debt". This is not about criticising DeValera on the Land Annuity issue

What I would like to explore with this thread is what actually happened rather than the poitics. The similarities and the differences and what were the major mistakes and what were the right things we did.

I think probably a good cut off point would be 1960 when we had an boom period.

This is not about ideologies here, more about, what made us tick (or tock as the case maybe) economically.Triumphs and disasters. Movers and shakers.

Japer

CDfm wrote: »

This is not about ideologies here, more about, what made us tick (or tock as the case maybe) economically.Triumphs and disasters.

In the 19th century we got the British to build our harbours, canals, fine old buildings, infrastructure, universities, railways etc.
In the early / mid 20th century we relied mostly on the few bob sent home from our children in America and England. We relied on others to protect us during WW2 and the cold war. Since joining the EC we relied on tens of billions of payments from the EC ( mostly Germany and the UK ).
Now we cannot borrow from anyone any more , only the lender of last resort, the IMF.
Maybe we should do what Gay Byrne once suggested, hand the country back to the Queen with a note of apology ?
Instead of the OP asking " what made us tick economically", maybe the question should be " what made us NOT tick economically" ?

Morlar

Japer wrote: »

In the 19th century we got the British to build our harbours, canals, fine old buildings, infrastructure, universities, railways etc.
In the early / mid 20th century we relied mostly on the few bob sent home from our children in America and England. We relied on others to protect us during WW2 and the cold war. Since joining the EC we relied on tens of billions of payments from the EC ( mostly Germany and the UK ).

During WW2 we relied on our neutrality to protect us not the americans/british, in fact the greatest actual threat of invasion came from the people you describe as our protectors.

The Cold war - no (non nuclear) nation of approx 4m people is in a position to defend itself against the superpower might of Nato or the Warsaw Pact countries.

In the 19th century 'we relied on the british to build our infrastructure' ? Nonsense. Who else exactly was in control of our assets at that time and would have therefore had responsibility on infrastructure ?

In addition to what we recieved from the EC we also gave away our fishing industry and crippled our agriculture industry. You seem to view the Ireland & EC/EU relationship as a one way street with all the benefits flowing in one direction To Ireland. This is incorrect. In fact the current fiasco is arguably as a result of the EU policy of 'no bank left behind' meaning we could not cut anglo loose this triggered and then snowballed the disastrous 'bailout all banks' ff policy hence the current situation.

The EU may be LOANing us money at a penal interest rate but they are not giving it to us - we would arguably not have needed it or have needed so much were it not for eu policy before or during this current disaster so your view on the EC/EU + Ireland dynamic seems one sided in my opinion.

fontanalis

Morlar wrote: »

During WW2 we relied on our neutrality to protect us not the americans/british, in fact the greatest actual threat of invasion came from the people you describe as our protectors.

The Cold war - no (non nuclear) nation of approx 4m people is in a position to defend itself against the superpower might of Nato or the Warsaw Pact countries.

In the 19th century 'we relied on the british to build our infrastructure' ? Nonsense. Who else exactly was in control of our assets at that time and would have therefore had responsibility on infrastructure ?

In addition to what we recieved from the EC we also gave away our fishing industry and crippled our agriculture industry. You seem to view the Ireland & EC/EU relationship as a one way street with all the benefits flowing in one direction To Ireland. This is incorrect. In fact the current fiasco is arguably as a result of the EU policy of 'no bank left behind' meaning we could not cut anglo loose this triggered and then snowballed the disastrous 'bailout all banks' ff policy hence the current situation.

The EU may be LOANing us money at a penal interest rate but they are not giving it to us - we would arguably not have needed it or have needed so much were it not for eu policy before or during this current disaster so your view on the EC/EU + Ireland dynamic seems one sided in my opinion.

How have we given away our fishing industry? Anyway if it was left in our own hands we would plunder it to the point there would be nothing left in 10 years. Believe me I've seen the size of some of the fish that were being caught and there was no way it was sustainable.
Regarding farming, is there anyway small famrs could compete with cheaper over seas produce?
As far as the bail out fiasco goes, much of that is due to bad leadership as a result of voting for people based on their surnames (look who the top three people in the country were at the time).

Morlar

fontanalis wrote: »

...Anyway if it was left in our own hands we would plunder it to the point there would be nothing left in 10 years. ....
Regarding farming, is there anyway small famrs could compete with cheaper over seas produce?
As far as the bail out fiasco goes, much of that is due to bad leadership as a result of voting for people based on their surnames (look who the top three people in the country were at the time).

Sorry but I think your views regarding the Irish are imbalanced & probably a better use of both of our times if we leave it at that. I don't see us agreeing anytime soon & don't want to waste either my time or yours on this.

To go back to the OP - if there are historical paralells in this current situation it's arguable that there is more in common with Weimar Germany at this stage than there is with the economic war.

Ridiculous Versailles reparations foisted on an innocent population vs the estimated 275BN debt by 2014 ? Loss of soveirgnty ? We even have our own shower of 'November criminals' signing our futures away etc.

CDfm

The idea is not about ideologies but really what happened 1932 onwards - Ireland is small and the Brits and others big. So what worked.

The infrastructure would be taken as a given -inherited or not from the British.

What policies were disasters ?.The witholding of Land Annuities was a disaster -Germany may have reneged on War reparations - but we were not in the same league. WE are a small economy.

DeValera dominated economic policy in the 1930's so what fundamental mistakes did he make and what did he get right.

So, how much were the few bob home worth in this period -how significant ?

We also had companies like Ford, Dunlop which depended on foreign investment.

It would be nice if we can drop the rhetoric for hard facts .

MarchDub

I wondered how long it would take for a thread like this to appear - we're all losers, we always were, always will be etc etc.

The quote "Burn everything English except the coal" dates to Jonathan Swift in the early 1700s and his particular peeve at the bad handling of the Irish economy by English laws curtailing Irish trade and production.

MarchDub

And don't forget - let's give DeValera a bashing while we're all at it. Always works.

fontanalis

MarchDub wrote: »

I wondered how long it would take for a thread like this to appear - we're all losers, we always were, always will be etc etc.

The quote "Burn everything English except the coal" dates to Jonathan Swift in the early 1700s and his particular peeve at the bad handling of the Irish economy by English laws curtailing Irish trade and production.

Seriously I'd like to know how we sold our fishing industry (which was always localised and seasonal), I worked in a fish factory and the size of mackerel that were being caught one year in particular was scandalous. I'm not trying to bring it into we're all losers territory but I really want to know how the EU destroyed our fishing industry. I've seen it brought up on ther threads and no one can say how. There's also the fact that Irish trawlers chose to unload their catches in Norway instead of at home.Regarding farming you have to admit that there is no way small farmers (any where in the world) can compete with cheaper products from overseas without receiving subsidies. That's not an imbalanced view of Irish people but a fact.

fontanalis

Morlar wrote: »

Sorry but I think your views regarding the Irish are imbalanced & probably a better use of both of our times if we leave it at that. I don't see us agreeing anytime soon & don't want to waste either my time or yours on this.

To go back to the OP - if there are historical paralells in this current situation it's arguable that there is more in common with Weimar Germany at this stage than there is with the economic war.

Ridiculous Versailles reparations foisted on an innocent population vs the estimated 275BN debt by 2014 ? Loss of soveirgnty ? We even have our own shower of 'November criminals' signing our futures away etc.

I don't expect you to agree, I want you to back up your arguement. Not unreasonable.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

And don't forget - let's give DeValera a bashing while we're all at it. Always works.

Thats not the intention here MD.

MarchDub wrote: »

I wondered how long it would take for a thread like this to appear - we're all losers, we always were, always will be etc etc.

The quote "Burn everything English except the coal" dates to Jonathan Swift in the early 1700s and his particular peeve at the bad handling of the Irish economy by English laws curtailing Irish trade and production.

Really, I think its a topic where you had the Great Depression which was worldwide , war, and you also had Lemass arrive on the scene. So you had a quick learning bright boy too.

4. The Irish economy in the 1930s

The economic aspects of the election manifesto were quickly acted upon as the new government sought to distance the Irish from the British economy. In March 1932 payment of the Land Annuities to Britain were withheld. At the same time Seán T. O’Kelly attended the Imperial Trade Conference in Ottawa and negotiated a series of trade agreements with various Dominion governments, but notably not with Britain. With attempts to resolve the situation described as ‘unproductive’, Westminster imposed a 20% duty on two-thirds of Irish exports to the U.K. in order to recoup the lost annuity payments. In response, on the 23 July, the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act empowered the Free State government to retaliate. The so-called ‘Economic War’, which in reality was more about politics than economics, had begun. De Valera imposed tariffs on British goods entering the Free State, notably 5 shillings a ton on coal and coke and 20% on cement, machinery, electrical goods, iron and steel. However, as Britain was the market for 96% of Irish exports and Ireland was the market for less than 10% of Britain’s such a contest was decidedly one sided.
Despite a definite improvement in world trade conditions, the value of Irish Agricultural Exports dropped from £35.8 million in 1929 to £13.5 in 1935, because of the ‘war’. The total value of exports to Britain fell from £43.5 million to £18 between 1929 and 1935. The cattle trade was particularly badly hit, with exports of live cattle falling from 775,000 to 500,000 between 1929 and 1933. In 1934, a quota of 50% of 1933 imports was fixed and the import of Irish beef or veal was restricted. The position began to improve after 1935 when the so-called Coal-Cattle Pact was agreed, under which Britain agreed to increase the quota for Irish cattle by 50% in return for Irish agreement to import coal only from British sources. Further concessions followed and by 1938, both parties felt able to enter into discussions aimed at ending the crisis. The resulting Anglo-Irish Agreements produced a final settlement of the Land Annuity question and reopened unrestricted trade between Britain and Ireland


http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Ireland_society__economy_1912-49#4TheIrisheconomyinthe1930s

It might do some of our modern theorists good to read accounts of DeValera's visit to London to conclude the agreement in 1938.

EDIT -@Morlar I cant see how a comparisson with Weimar Germany is anyway possible , large industrialised nation vs small agricultural economy. Poland maybe or a Balkan State.

Morlar

fontanalis wrote: »

I don't expect you to agree, I want you to back up your arguement. Not unreasonable.

That is not 'my argument' it was one single point in isolation. In any event here are a few links which back up what I said :

http://www.timpatcoogan.com/blog/2009/04/the-disaster-that-is-the-irish-fishing-industry/

Development within the fishing industry was more or less governed by its scale at the time of joining the EEC. A handful of fishermen made fortunes around traditional fishing centers such as Killybegs. But fishing limits were restricted and overall Irish quotas were fixed at low levels.

Landings continued to be irregular, boats repossessed, vital infrastructure, such as transportation and freezing facilities neglected. Above all little money was devoted to the education of fishermen – a trawler is after all a small, sea-going factory, part of a complex process in which a business training is as necessary as a course in navigation. In many cases Paddy learned too late that if you drink last week’s catch, you may not have boat to catch anything next week..

It was as though the fact that the Apaches did not develop gold mines meant that it was OK for the white man to take them.

From a vantage point on the Aran Islands one windy night, I looked out at the Atlantic. There was nothing between me and Boston and the night should have been black and howling. It howled all right but the sea was lit up as if magically a town had appeared. The “town” was an armada of French trawlers from L’Orient, fishing the rich prawn grounds off Aran’s western cliffs. And it wasn’t only European Union nations which profited from the denudation of Irish fishing grounds.

Another time, on the South East Coast, off Wexford, returning from France, our ferry sailed though a flotilla of forty two Russian trawlers, accompanied by two huge factory vessels which were also towing nets.

And so the rape of the Irish coastal waters has meant, as it meant world wide, that fish stocks must be conserved, resulting in wasteful side-effects such as the destruction of the trawlers I was interested in. Brian Lenihan certainly knew what he was talking about. I only hope his son Brian, can manage the nation’s finances rather better than his ministerial colleagues dealt with my interest in their fate.

- First published 2nd April 2009 at IrishCentral.com

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1129/fish.html

Minister of State with special responsibility for Fisheries Sean Connick has objected to Irish fish quotas being transferred under this year's EU-Norway fisheries agreement.

Under the EU-Norway agreement each year, Norway and the EU swap fishing opportunities in each other's waters.

At the EU Fisheries Council in Brussels, Mr Connick outlined the parameters of a deal that Ireland could support with the Faroe Islands on mackerel.

However, this has resulted in the EU giving fish stocks off the west coast of Ireland to Norway in exchange for Norwegian cod.

Minister Connick said that Ireland does not benefit from the transfers from Norway, other than a very small quota of Arctic cod.

He said the EU needs to develop a new framework whereby countries who want to avail of the cod on offer can contribute to a communal EU pool for exchange with Norway.

In this way, he said, member states who want the Cod can avail of it but not to the detriment of countries that do not benefit.

& From the Eu itself :

http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/ireland_in_the_eu/impact/effects/index_en.htm#3

Fishermen

Rossaveal port facilities, Co. GALWAY, co-financed by ERDFIn line with the global decline in fish stocks, a reduction of the EU's total catch allowance and the temporary closing of some fishing zones, Irish fleets are - like certain species of wild fish- under pressure and in decline.

Ireland has benefited and continues to benefit from European Fisheries Funding. A total of €70 million was received during the 2000-2006 funding period, which was mainly used to support the decommissioning of fishing vessels and for investments in aquaculture.

For the funding period 2007-2013 Ireland is projected to receive EU funding of €42,266,603. This will go towards projects aimed at establishing a viable fisheries sector that respects the environment and towards supporting vulnerable coastal fishing communities.

Top

Morlar

CDfm wrote: »

EDIT -@Morlar I cant see how a comparisson with Weimar Germany is anyway possible , large industrialised nation vs small agricultural economy. Poland maybe or a Balkan State.

Comparisons between 2 different timeframes involving different countries and scenarios do not necessitate both countries being of equal size in order to be relevant.

InTheTrees

Ireland before independence included the north.

The Republic in effect "lost" the industrial centre of Belfast so it was a given that there would be some decline in fortunes.

Morlar

CDfm wrote: »

But Morlar - what does that have to do with the 1930's economy ??

Let's recap here. You said the current economic situation had paralells with the economic war with britain. I said

To go back to the OP - if there are historical paralells in this current situation it's arguable that there is more in common with Weimar Germany at this stage than there is with the economic war.

Ridiculous Versailles reparations foisted on an innocent population vs the estimated 275BN debt by 2014 ? Loss of soveirgnty ? We even have our own shower of 'November criminals' signing our futures away etc.

To what are you referring when you say 'What does that have to do with the 1930's economy' ? It is unclear which aspect of which post you are replying to.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

Thats not the intention here MD.

OK fair enough. Work away.

CDfm wrote: »

Really, I think its a topic where you had the Great Depression which was worldwide , war, and you also had Lemass arrive on the scene. So you had a quick learning bright boy too.

The Lemass thing - like the reports of Mark twain's death - has been greatly exaggerated. But anyway who is our 'bright boy' today?

CDfm

Morlar wrote: »

Comparisons between 2 different timeframes involving different countries and scenarios do not necessitate both countries being of equal size in order to be relevant.

It kind of does make a difference because comparing a large industrialised nation with a small agrarian economy.

Its like in the 1930's Ireland accounted for 10% of British exports and Britain accounted for 94% of Irish.

A small country will always be more vulnerable.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

OK fair enough. Work away.

Its an area I am not that familiar with by the way. Its something I would like to know more about without the rhetoric.

But we did see the growth of Plunketts Co-op movement and we had some industrialisation.

The Lemass thing - like the reports of Mark twain's death - has been greatly exaggerated.

How so ?

Enlighten me MD. Who were the movers and shakers.

But anyway who is our 'bright boy' today?

I don't see one.

Morlar

Originally Posted by Morlar View Post
Comparisons between 2 different timeframes involving different countries and scenarios do not necessitate both countries being of equal size in order to be relevant.

CDfm wrote: »

It kind of does make a difference because comparing a large industrialised nation with a small agrarian economy.

Its like in the 1930's Ireland accounted for 10% of British exports and Britain accounted for 94% of Irish.

A small country will always be more vulnerable.

I am having a hard time following which post you are replying to here to be honest and some of these are post-specific points.

In any event I would hold by what I said above and in earlier posts. No it is not a perfect comparison (weimar with the current situation) however neither is yours (economic war and the current situation). I would still hold that there are more valid comparisons to the weimar period than the economic war (for the reasons already given) but won't derail your thread with it beyond pointing that fact out.

CDfm

Morlar wrote: »

In any event I would hold by what I said above and in earlier posts. No it is not a perfect comparison (weimar with the current situation) however neither is yours (economic war and the current situation). I would still hold that there are more valid comparisons to the weimar period than the economic war (for the reasons already given) but won't derail your thread with it beyond pointing that fact out.

Weimar was a very different situation and they are not Irish. So lots of people here will not have an in-depth knowledge of Weimar Germany and its personalities in the same way they will know 1930's Ireland.

It is also a period where Ireland had to recover from an economic hole.

Lemass/Dev's version of nationalisation was different to Gemany and we came full circle between 1932 to 1960 from protectionism to free trade and an application for EU membership.

One thing people forget is that Ireland was one of the poorest countries in Europe in the 1920's .

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

The Economic War was not without its consequences and WWII put the Irish Economy on hold also. In 1948, General Marshall included Ireland in the Marshall Plan.

Where this is relevant today, is that our current woes are caused by foreign investment and "sovereign debt". This is not about criticising DeValera on the Land Annuity issue

What I would like to explore with this thread is what actually happened rather than the poitics. The similarities and the differences and what were the major mistakes and what were the right things we did.

I think probably a good cut off point would be 1960 when we had an boom period.

This is not about ideologies here, more about, what made us tick (or tock as the case maybe) economically.Triumphs and disasters. Movers and shakers.

The comparison with now and 1930's is valid as it was a worldwide financial problem in the 1930's which was exacerbated by our governments choices. The govenment persisted with the economic war policy with great stubborness in the same way as current leaders refuse to look at the damage being done to ordinary people as they seek to repay every penny. What happened due to this was a stagnation in Ireland following WWII until Lemass's reforms were allowed. Thus what eventually to bring greater prosperity was reform policy by our government. When compared to today it is hard to say where the hope should lie. I try to look on Fine Gaels health policy proposals positively and I think it would not be difficult to see some social reform aspects in this that were begining in 1960.
The mistake to be avoided if the comparison is valid: do not delay widereaching reforms as they are required to change a system when it clearly is'nt working (perhaps the unions which prompted your post would be a good starting point for reform)

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

I am having a hard time following which post you are replying to here to be honest and some of these are post-specific points.

In any event I would hold by what I said above and in earlier posts. No it is not a perfect comparison (weimar with the current situation) however neither is yours (economic war and the current situation). I would still hold that there are more valid comparisons to the weimar period than the economic war (for the reasons already given) but won't derail your thread with it beyond pointing that fact out.

OP was comparison with Ireland in 1930's- Why not respond to this rather than argue against it? If you disagree with the comparison in OP you are asked to highlight 'differences' as well as similarities.

CDfm

The Irish Freestate of 1930 was a very new country and it was an agricultural based economy with little industry.

Here is an interesting article from UCD's Dept of Economics and one of the things that is how economically unsophisticated they were.

It discusses protectionism

Housebuilding programmes

Irish pounds link to sterling

Growth of industry/ job creation

Emigration

The relative policies of FF & Cumann na Gaedhael pre 1932

Lack of foreign investment

Urban vs Rural Policies

http://irserver.ucd.ie/dspace/bitstream/10197/396/3/ogradac_article_pub_098.pdf

MarchDub

The impression I get about the 1930s is that it was much more a time of social awareness and concern for ordinary people than the Celtic Tiger years.

John Maynard Keynes praised Dev for keeping Ireland from the worst aspects of the world depression. And as bad as things were - they likely could have been a lot worse.

Remember the Irish government had inherited a very poor country in 1922. Housing conditions for many people was abysmal - amongst the worse in Europe. Many families in Dublin were crowded into one room with no running water in the tenements.

De Valera re housed over 90,000 rural families in the 1930s. For those of us who can remember those houses which were still considered to be great homes in the 1960s - and some of them still around today - they were luxury for those families who had been living in little more than cow sheds. Really. This was the reality of the legacy of British rule - poverty on a scale unimaginable today and the fact that within 10 years a major re-housing scheme was underway - funded by the Government - is admirable.

Yeah, we could learn a lot from the 1930s.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

The impression I get about the 1930s is that it was much more a time of social awareness and concern for ordinary people than the Celtic Tiger years.

John Maynard Keynes praised Dev for keeping Ireland from the worst aspects of the world depression. And as bad as things were - they likely could have been a lot worse.

Remember the Irish government had inherited a very poor country in 1922. Housing conditions for many people was abysmal - amongst the worse in Europe. Many families in Dublin were crowded into one room with no running water in the tenements.

De Valera re housed over 90,000 rural families in the 1930s. For those of us who can remember those houses which were still considered to be great homes in the 1960s - and some of them still around today - they were luxury for those families who had been living in little more than cow sheds. Really. This was the reality of the legacy of British rule - poverty on a scale unimaginable today and the fact that within 10 years a major re-housing scheme was underway - funded by the Government - is admirable.

Yeah, we could learn a lot from the 1930s.

The housing standards by the 1930's in Ireland were greatly improved from the previous 40-50 years. This change was not resultant on De Valera, rather it had been the policies of the 'congested districts board' and local council housing which had been continued (although the board was dismantled). The board in particular had a wide ranging scheme that supported many improvements to infrastructure as well as housing although problems persisted in Dublin. There are alot of council cottages from the turn of the century era that are still used today (modified).

A Housing Act of December 1908 gave local authorities the power to build houses and to establish funds to support home construction. Belfast, like most cities, had its share of slums and health problems. Nonetheless, it contrasted strongly with Dublin where the great Georgian terraces, formerly the luxurious and comfortable homes of the gentry, were now divided into filthy cramped accommodations for over 21,000 families. An enquiry in 1914 reported that 28,000 Dubliners were living in houses considered ‘unfit for human habitation’. Largely as a result of the unsettled nature of early twentieth-century political life, poor conditions prevailed until well into the 1940s. Indeed, in some cases they got worse. Housing conditions in rural areas varied considerably, but by the early years of the twentieth century it was reported that around 70% of the rural population lived in houses categorised by officials as ‘good farmhouses’ or better.

http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Ireland_society__economy_1870-1914#10TheCongestedDistrictsBoard

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The housing standards by the 1930's in Ireland were greatly improved from the previous 40-50 years. This change was not resultant on De Valera, rather it had been the policies of the 'congested districts board' and local council housing which had been continued (although the board was dismantled). The board in particular had a wide ranging scheme that supported many improvements to infrastructure as well as housing although problems persisted in Dublin. There are alot of council cottages from the turn of the century era that are still used today (modified).

I am not disputing the need and identification of poor housing prior to the 1930s but figures show that the problem had not been properly addressed. When DeValera came into office in 1932 FF set housing as a priority as little had actually been done about the condition of housing in spite of the problem being identified prior to his tenure.

Lemass made a statement to this affect stating that housing had to be a priority. As Lemass said to the Dail "The social need for improved housing is so great that the problem should be faced as one of first magnitude." Sean T O'Kelly minister for Local Government then embarked on a housing programme which according to JJ Lee was "much more extensive than that of Ernest Blythe". As a result massive amounts of rural families were re-housed in a government programme that far outreached anything that had been done prior to this time. In the half decade between 1932-38 over 70,000 homes were built. Only 20,000 homes had been built in the previous whole decade to this.

FF also set as a priority improvement in the Old Age pensions, ignoring many of the 'qualification"obstacles that had prevented prior applications from getting on the rolls.

CDfm

Just to fill in the other Gaps in Economic Policy

Policies of promoting small-scale tillage farming and industrial development behind high tariff walls, reinforced by the Economic War, reflected the traditional nationalist goal of economic self-sufficiency. On the political front, de Valera saw off the threat from both the Blueshirts and the IRA and in 1937 his new constitution was enacted. In foreign affairs de Valera achieved some notable successes. The Economic War was concluded in 1938 on very favourable terms and at the League of Nations de Valera was president of both the council and the assembly.
http://www.ucd.ie/archives/html/collections/devalera-eamon.htm

First Programme of Economic Development

Fianna Fáil won the 1957 election with a big majority and in the last two years of de Valera's political career the First Programme for Economic Expansion was implemented. In 1959 he resigned as Taoiseach and ensured the succession for Lemass. He served two terms as president 1959–73.With the opening of private and public archives since the 1970s, many aspects of de Valera's complex political legacy are being reassessed

Abandoning Protectionism

Ireland first applied for membership of the EEC on 31 July 1961.

To view our letter of application click here.

http://www.eumatters.ie/getdoc/b6fe991a-fd18-4eba-84e4-fc39170f4b77/Letter-of-Application-EEC-31-July-1961.aspx

Why we joined the EU - sovereignty vs poverty

That application was made because the Government considered EEC membership and economic modernisation as vital to Ireland's economic development.

The 1950s were times of deep economic crisis in Ireland. We had a small protected economy primarily based on agriculture. Our society was besieged by mass emigration and mass unemployment. For example, nearly two hundred thousand people had left Ireland in the five years between 1951 and 1956. We were one of the few European countries whose population fell during the 1950s.

Irish living standards were also much lower than in other European countries. As well as being one of the poorest European countries, Ireland was also totally dependent on Britain as a market for our exports. In 1959, the UK was the destination for 75% of our exports.

Indeed our first application for membership happened because it was clear that Britain was soon to apply to join the EEC. At that stage Ireland was so economically dependent on Britain that membership “could not be envisaged” without British membership.

Speaking of our application to join in July 1961 the Taoiseach, Seán Lemass said:
“the Government believes that there is general acceptance of their view that, in the circumstances now developing, this policy is dictated by the national interest”.

Britain's application for membership was lodged ten days after Ireland's. Norway and Denmark also applied in the following months

http://www.eumatters.ie/How-the-EU-Works/Why-we-are-an-EU-member-.aspx

.

Now don't forget that DeV was a mathematician and lots of his idea's were very complex -like the Constitution etc.

The end of the Economic War and the terms recieved were very influenced by Britain preparing for war and time had passed.

The Marshall Plan & Ireland



Here is a link to a great paper on Ireland and the Marshall Plan and how we fitted in.

You also see how policy was formulated and how the post war Marshall Aid Plan was "forced on us" whether we wanted it or not.

Its a good read as you will see comparisons of the FF parties position and the Coalition Government of the late 1940's early 1950's.

http://www.arts.manchester.ac.uk/subjectareas/history/research/manchesterpapers/files/fileuploadmax10mb,125125,en.pdf

MarchDub

One of the main driving forces for Ireland to join the Common Market/EEC - as it was then - was that the British had decided to apply for membership. The economic argument in the Republic of Ireland was that we could not be left outside when our main trading partner was going in.

When De Gaulle stood against British membership and issued his famous "non" veto against the British in 1963 and again in 1967 we then withdrew our membership applications and waited until the time when the British were going to be accepted.

I miss De Gaulle - what a hoot he used to be!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/27/newsid_4187000/4187714.stm

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

I am not disputing the need and identification of poor housing prior to the 1930s but figures show that the problem had not been properly addressed. When DeValera came into office in 1932 FF set housing as a priority as little had actually been done about the condition of housing in spite of the problem being identified prior to his tenure.

Lemass made a statement to this affect stating that housing had to be a priority. As Lemass said to the Dail "The social need for improved housing is so great that the problem should be faced as one of first magnitude." Sean T O'Kelly minister for Local Government then embarked on a housing programme which according to JJ Lee was "much more extensive than that of Ernest Blythe". As a result massive amounts of rural families were re-housed in a government programme that far outreached anything that had been done prior to this time. In the half decade between 1932-38 over 70,000 homes were built. Only 20,000 homes had been built in the previous whole decade to this.

FF also set as a priority improvement in the Old Age pensions, ignoring many of the 'qualification"obstacles that had prevented prior applications from getting on the rolls.

Where did you get your figures for houses built in this period. Id love to compare the period (20 years) before independence with the same period after. In the same way it would be interesting to see the figures for the 1960's when Lemass gets credited with modernisation.

CDfm

Here are some extracts from a paper By Dr Gary Murphy at the DCU Business School which is very readable http://www.dcu.ie/dcubs/research_papers/no23.html


Interesting that you mention Lemass and Modernisation and of course TK Whitaker the Economist and public servant greatly influenced his thinking on Free Trade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._K._Whitaker

Yet Lemass still faced opposition from his old stomping ground of Industry and Commerce. While it was Whitaker who convinced Lemass that free trade had to be taken on board, it was Lemass who had to ensure that Industry and Commerce left their protectionist mentality behind (Whitaker, 1994). He did this to such an extent that by 1963 Industry and Commerce were maintaining that they ‘wholeheartedly’ supported a phased cut in tariffs. While European economic integration was not an explicit feature of either Economic Development or the First Programme for Economic Expansion (1958), developments within the economic superstructure had shown policy makers that they could not exist independently of the free trading blocs that had emerged in Europe from the 1950s onwards. This was particularly true once Britain decided that she could no longer ignore these developments. Whitaker was the main instigator in Ireland’s move towards economic interdependence with Western Europe. Lemass took some convincing, but once persuaded, he became the most enthusiastic advocate of membership to such a bloc, in Ireland’s case the EEC, since Britain had applied to join that body, and used his political power to ensure that some of the more reluctant civil service departments supported him. Ireland’s economic needs had taken on a new agenda

The Emergence of the Corporate State in Ireland or what we would call the Social Partners

It is within these parameters that one can see Lemass’s courtship of the various economic interest groups in the period. He instinctively knew that the development of the country in economic terms necessarily revolved around a corporatist style arrangement with the government leading these groups in a new economic partnership. For that to happen, Lemass realised that government in its political form would have to be the hegemonic player in the administrative system. Of even more importance was that he be at the head of such a system, and for that to happen he would have to devise a long term economic strategy that would return Fianna Fail to government.

Unions, and Farmers become part of the Decision Making Process

In essence Lemass, from 1957 the undisputed prime economic player in government, embarked on a programme to haul the Irish economy out of the dark ages of financial austerity, mass emigration and inadequate employment. He did this by setting out to establish a broadly European style proto-corporatist social democracy, involving all the key players collectively in responsible decision making. By the early 1960s most states in Western Europe were actively intervening in the economy in order to achieve the economic expansion that their citizens were demanding. This was particularly true of the Scandinavian states, although most other countries also pursued a consensual approach to economic management in this period (Katzenstein, 1985). Lemass wanted Ireland to share in the rapid economic growth that had been a feature of most European states after the second world war. He had a long range vision for the Irish economy and realised that age old methods had not worked in the past and were most unlikely to do so in the future. His relations with ICTU and the NFA are clear examples of his attempts to build such a social democracy. The emergence of both players as recognised elements in national policy making is the crucial sign in Lemass’s attempts to build what we might call the broad based church of economic interest groups. It was essential that both farmers and unions be involved as well as business.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Where did you get your figures for houses built in this period. Id love to compare the period (20 years) before independence with the same period after. In the same way it would be interesting to see the figures for the 1960's when Lemass gets credited with modernisation.

The figures are in a number of places. I got them in the JJ Lee book Ireland 1912-1985.

I am searching around to see figures prior to 1922 also.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Where did you get your figures for houses built in this period. Id love to compare the period (20 years) before independence with the same period after. In the same way it would be interesting to see the figures for the 1960's when Lemass gets credited with modernisation.

These things are always valid indicators and it is worth digging out what info there is even if it is approximate.

I have seen the figure 91,000 (edit) quoted for new houses built between 1922 to 1939 (65,000) after 1932.

I will have a look too as it could be an interesting footnote.

EDIT -@ johnniebgood check here page 254

http://irserver.ucd.ie/dspace/bitstream/10197/396/3/ogradac_article_pub_098.pdf

Conditions in Schools may also be an indicator

http://www.tara.tcd.ie/jspui/bitstream/2262/6939/1/jssisiVolX539_547.pdf

CDfm

And theres more pre 1922 figures

Tony Fahey, in “Social Housing in Ireland. A Study of Success, Failures, and Lessons Learned“, calls the provision of social housing acts a “consolation prize” for the labourers - the initiative came from land reform and the Parliamentary party, rather than from separate demands for social housing. Even with this caveat, significant legislation was, nonetheless, passed -

starting with the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883 (as amended in 1885), which enabled boards of guardians to provide cheap housing for rent to farm labourers, subsidised out of local rates and low-cost loans from central government… This initiative, together with the Labourers Act, 1886, which extended housing eligibility to part-time agricultural labourers, resulted in the completion by rural local authorities of 3,191 labourers’ cottages in 1890 alone. Output over the following decade averaged at 700 dwellings a year, but it rose dramatically after the introduction of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906. This Act established a dedicated labourers cottage fund to provide low-interest loans for rural local authority house-building and, most significantly, sanctioned that 36 per cent of the loan repayments would be met by central government. (”Local Government in Ireland, Inside Out“, p.169)

By the time the Free State came into being, local authorities were firmly established as the main providers of social housing for rent and, eventually, purchase.
By 1922, rural local authorities had built 50,582 dwellings - 41,653 of which had been built under the terms of the various labourers acts, and which accounted for about 10 per cent of the total rural housing stock. (Local Government, p.170). At the same time, only 8,861 dwellings had been completed by urban councils. The Cumman na nGaedheal governments did little to change this imbalance, preferring to subsidise private, rather than public, housing.


http://dublinopinion.com/2007/06/25/irish-home-ownership-myths-and-reality/

There is a good explanation of how Local Government worked and especially housing here

http://deskeenan.org.uk/6pochapter6.htm#housing

There also was a plan in 1919 for the British to build 65,000 houses in Ireland on the back of an election promise and turning up here in Irish Legislation enacted in 1928

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1928/en/si/0070.html

So maybe it was an inherited policy .

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

So maybe it was an inherited policy .

The policy of building and improvement goes back to at least the end of the Land War - and the granting of the 'Three Fs' - and the so called 'Killing Home Rule with Kindness" policies that grew out of all that. So no surprise there.

But the question is how much of it all was actually implemented and how much was actually done. Seems by the time we get to the 1930s there was an imperative need to do something about housing both in Dublin and the rural areas. Lemass was quite vocal in making housing a priority. I see figures quoted from the Statistical Abstract by Lee for 12,000 new homes built a year from 1932 to 1942.

Alongside all this was a massive redistribution programme during the 1930s of shifting rural people into larger farms of 12 acres and above and away from the 5 acre holdings that had been typical. I know the family of a friend of mine were moved from a small 4 acre holding in Cavan to a larger 12 acres around 1935.

I also see as regards Dublin that the number of families living in one room was reduced in the 1930s by half.

CDfm

I knew I saw it somewhere

This allows an 8% return on capital with a repayment time of the borrowing over 60 years (Cork Weekly News 3 Jan. 1920). The Chief Secretary in 1919, Ian Macpherson promised to bridge the gap between the rent charged and the proper rent. The post-War Government took the issue seriously, and the Housing Act (1919) envisaged the construction of 350,000 new houses for the working classes, and 65,000 for Ireland. Compulsory purchase was allowed in England, but not in Ireland. The owners of condemned property would receive only the value of the cleared site (Weekly Irish Times 12 April; 17 May 1919).

http://deskeenan.org.uk/6pochapter6.htm#housing

Most people also lived in rented accomodation in 1922.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

I knew I saw it somewhere



http://deskeenan.org.uk/6pochapter6.htm#housing

Most people also lived in rented accomodation in 1922.

I take it that the plans for 'Ireland' would have been for the whole 32 counties.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

I take it that the plans for 'Ireland' would have been for the whole 32 counties.

I don't know and if you look at it universal suffrage was on the table at that time so who knows. The 65,000 houses may have been a campaign issue of sorts.

Anyway, lets stay out of that territory but it sounds like a Lisbon promise to me.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

The 65,000 houses may have been a campaign issue of sorts.

Anyway, lets stay out of that territory but it sounds like a Lisbon promise to me.

Just what I was thinking....:)

MarchDub

But just to get even creepier I have a great quote from Lee - my copy was published in 1989. Referring to the great building programme established by FF in the 1930s he states:

"This housing programme soon proved grist to the pockets of the contractors. Fortunes were more easily made in this industry than manufacturing. The building industry came to be soon widely regarded as an extension of the Fianna Fail patronage system." :eek:

But at least the poor were getting housed!

CDfm

An aside, one of the reasons cited for the events that brought about the jealousey of Bridie Cleary and led to her killing was her getting one of the Local Authority Cottages.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055739655

And, no doubt houses were allocated to people by patronage too. Our political system has not changed that much.

grenache

MarchDub wrote: »

And don't forget - let's give DeValera a bashing while we're all at it. Always works.

I myself have no problem with Dev bashing. His economic policies were overly protective and utterly inward looking. Were it not for the foresight of Sean Lemass this country would still be a second world economic backwater. Lets not also forget that had Mr De Valera and his irregular friends won the civil war, there's a good chance we'd still be part of the UK now. The only thing of worth that Dev did for Ireland was to draft the 1937 Constitution, which to give credit where it is due, was fifty years ahead of its time.

MarchDub

grenache wrote: »

I myself have no problem with Dev bashing. His economic policies were overly protective and utterly inward looking. Were it not for the foresight of Sean Lemass this country would still be a second world economic backwater. Lets not also forget that had Mr De Valera and his irregular friends won the civil war, there's a good chance we'd still be part of the UK now. The only thing of worth that Dev did for Ireland was to draft the 1937 Constitution, which to give credit where it is due, was fifty years ahead of its time.

That's not history - it's just your opinion.

Historically DeValera's economic policies fitted right within the context of the time and as has been well recorded and discussed here and on other threads Keynesian economics at the time were considered the wise way to go. Many economic historians consider that they actually protected Ireland from what could have been a worse situation. Lemass was a vocal supporter of these polices in the 1930s.

Remember the situation world wide was so bad that unemployment in the US reached over 25% in the 1930s - and FDR implemented his own protectionism for the US which included stopping immigration as a protection measure there.

grenache

MarchDub wrote: »

That's not history - it's just your opinion.

Historically DeValera's economic policies fitted right within the context of the time and as has been well recorded and discussed here and on other threads Keynesian economics at the time were considered the wise way to go. Many economic historians consider that they actually protected Ireland from what could have been a worse situation. Lemass was a vocal supporter of these polices in the 1930s.

Remember the situation world wide was so bad that unemployment in the US reached over 25% in the 1930s - and FDR implemented his own protectionism for the US which included stopping immigration as a protection measure there.

I am referring more so to the post-war period, the 50s and early 60s in particular when his goverment continued with protectionism while the rest of Europe was starting to open up trade barriers.

CDfm

grenache wrote: »

I am referring more so to the post-war period, the 50s and early 60s in particular when his goverment continued with protectionism while the rest of Europe was starting to open up trade barriers.

It was not really a golden period and if you look at our trade analysis we were linked to Britain and were a small open economy.

When we dropped protectionism in the 70's on EU membership we had massive unemployment and our textile and manufacturing industries were wiped out. CAP protected farming and agribusiness.

Our highly unionised workforce was not able to adapt and our relative wage advantage was not translated into exports.

To compete we will always need some advantage , like protectionism or low corporation tax or low wages to jump the hoop of an ocean to get product to market.

We started at a very low industrial base and were coping with conditions going into the 50's & 60's that other countries had already dealt with. We were 10 or 20 years behind.

In other words, we were a developing economy in a developed economy world. So the challenges were different. Mass emigration & reliant on the UK for trade for 75% of our exports.

brianthebard

grenache wrote: »

I am referring more so to the post-war period, the 50s and early 60s in particular when his goverment continued with protectionism while the rest of Europe was starting to open up trade barriers.

Many postcolonial nations who were successful in building themselves up depended on protectionism and import substitution (Korea). The opening up of Ireland by the IDA and Lemass brought some wealth from outside but negated any attempts to build up national businesses and ultimately left us more open to the whims of foreign businesses and markets.

CDfm

brianthebard wrote: »

Many postcolonial nations who were successful in building themselves up depended on protectionism and import substitution (Korea). The opening up of Ireland by the IDA and Lemass brought some wealth from outside but negated any attempts to build up national businesses and ultimately left us more open to the whims of foreign businesses and markets.

I always find gaps in the rhetoric- especially to do with money and wealth as I cannot see where it would come from. As a country Ireland had/has few natural resourses etc.

One thing that I can't see is domestic wealth invested in Ireland and a big question is did we did have wealth available for investment. Today you would not be able to borrow money to invest so back then was there money for investment in industry ?

You did have

- The Co-operative Movement
- Semi State Companies

Was there an outflow of capital with Independence etc or had it already gone ? .

The Marshall Plan - did it mean growth but what was the cost and benefits. How sucessful was it ?

brianthebard

CDfm wrote: »

I always find gaps in the rhetoric- especially to do with money and wealth as I cannot see where it would come from. As a country Ireland had/has few natural resourses etc.

What resources do you want that we don't have? Ireland built the biggest hydroelectric dam in Europe the twenties. Wind energy has always been a possibility. We should be a lot closer to producing the majority of our electricity by renewable energy than we are tbh.

One thing that I can't see is domestic wealth invested in Ireland and a big question is did we did have wealth available for investment. Today you would not be able to borrow money to invest so back then was there money for investment in industry ?

You did have

- The Co-operative Movement
- Semi State Companies

Was there an outflow of capital with Independence etc or had it already gone ? .

The Marshall Plan - did it mean growth but what was the cost and benefits. How sucessful was it ?

The marshall plan was definitely an opportunity. There was obviously a certain amount of trade, the government has various methods and opportunities for raising capital, there were many missed opportunities. I'm not saying that protectionism was a success, only that it had definite positives and could have been used to better effect.

CDfm

brianthebard wrote: »

What resources do you want that we don't have?

Really, we didn't generate employment to stem emigration.

We didn't have coal and steel industries. So on the heavy industries we lost out.We had Ford in Cork from that era but it closed.

Ireland built the biggest hydroelectric dam in Europe the twenties. Wind energy has always been a possibility. We should be a lot closer to producing the majority of our electricity by renewable energy than we are tbh.

OK - but we had oil and coal Power Stations

The marshall plan was definitely an opportunity. There was obviously a certain amount of trade, the government has various methods and opportunities for raising capital, there were many missed opportunities. I'm not saying that protectionism was a success, only that it had definite positives and could have been used to better effect.

That is interesting - I just wonder where the skill set was missing.

I am amazed that today we have 6 teachers in the cabinet being advised by Civil Servants -technocrats ? - back in the day what was it like ?

The Civil Service was inherited from the British.

I am a bit confused as it does seem a bit like government by the blind leading the blind .

Listening to the politicians and union leaders today -they use the language and skills of back then. Is it fair to say they have not developed.

brianthebard

CDfm wrote: »

Really, we didn't generate employment to stem emigration.

We didn't have coal and steel industries. So on the heavy industries we lost out.We had Ford in Cork from that era but it closed.

Absolutely and I think its fair to say that was a failure of government, but I wouldn't ascribe it to protectionism. You mentioned the co-op movement earlier, that was fatally damaged by the creation of two Irelands, there's no one answer to why we didn't develop.

The Civil Service was inherited from the British.

Many in that civil service were quite dismissive of their new leaders, but again I don't know how mcuh that could have contributed overall.

CDfm

brianthebard wrote: »

Absolutely and I think its fair to say that was a failure of government, but I wouldn't ascribe it to protectionism. You mentioned the co-op movement earlier, that was fatally damaged by the creation of two Irelands, there's no one answer to why we didn't develop.

How so with the co-op movement - Sir Horace Plunkett is fairly revered as a visionary for his ideas and theories for Developing Economies.

Many in that civil service were quite dismissive of their new leaders, but again I don't know how mcuh that could have contributed overall.

An aside, the infamous Sam Maguire who had been Head of the Intelligence in UK for the IRB during the War of Independence got sacked from the Irish Civil Service in 1924.

He obtained a job in the newly created Irish Civil Service, but after the Civil War clashed with superiors over the British way of doing things being retained, rather than the Irish way, and was sacked. Due to failing health, he returned to his home near Dunmanway, where he died from tuberculosis on 6 February 1927, at the age of 48. His home town honoured him in 1974, when the Sam Maguire Park was opened by Dr Donal Keenan, then president of the GAA. http://www.carlow-nationalist.ie/tabId/392/itemId/2041/Dunmanway-Sam-Maguire-and-Canon-Magner.aspx



"In 1924, he was sacked and deprived of his pension. They (the Irish Government) gave him £100 and that was it.
"In 1925, he came back to west Cork to live. He then developed TB and died in penury in 1927. They say that he died of a broken heart and penniless," she says.

http://www.irishcentral.com/sport/Irish-icons-Sam-Maguire-and-Liam-McCarthy-died-penniless-101255369.html

It probably is fair comment that Irelands Civil Service have not been very dynamic.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

It probably is fair comment that Irelands Civil Service have not been very dynamic.

Hold on here, you're talking about some of my relatives

The Irish Civil Service did grow out of the original British model but many of the actual Irish who worked at the Castle under the British were given the option of jobs in London or in the Empire after 1922. They didn't just lose their British civil service jobs. Some actually stayed on at the Castle but others that I know of chose to go to London, India and Hong Kong.

Hiring practices changed somewhat. It became easier for Catholics to get jobs there and to get promotions when hired - now, I say easier because I had relatives who were Catholics who had jobs at the Castle but Protestants seemed to have an easier time of it prior to 1922. But the same was a fact about Jacobs biscuits and Guinness, which were privately owned companies.