3.2 Nothing New Under the Sun:
Strategy 2010 in Perspective
By Esmond Birnie and David Hitchens
Economic Outlook and Business Review 15.2 June 2000 (Published by First Trust Bank)
1. The Context: The Latest of Many Strategies
Henry Ford may have said, "history is bunk", but a failure to learn lessons is likely to mean that we repeat the errors of the past. Given this, there is value in placing the recent Strategy 2010 into the perspective of the last half century of economic policy documents in Northern Ireland (NI).
It is certainly of note that periodically, and sometimes with much heralding, a series of major economic policy reviews have been launched in NI over the last decade.
* In 1999, Strategy 2010: A Draft Economic Policy Review, hererafter Strategy 2010
* And before that, in 1995, Growing Competitively, (Department of Economic Development (DED), 1995)
* And, in 1990, Northern Ireland Competing in the 1990s The Key to Growth, (DED, 1990)
It may indicate a sort of collective amnesia that there was little recognition that the 1990s policy documents were preceded by eight policy statements during the previous four decades.
* The first of these being in the mid 1950s: K.S. Isles and N. Cuthbert reporting in 1955 but publishing in 1957 as An Economic Survey of Northern Ireland (Isles and Cuthbert, 1957)
* This was followed by : Report of the Joint Working Party on the Economy of Northern Ireland (1962) cmd. 446 (all, 1962)
* Belfast Regional Survey and Plan: Recommendations and Conclusions (1963), cmd. 451 (Matthew, 1963)
* Economic Development in Northern Ireland Including the Report of the Economic Consultants (1965) cmd. 479 (Wilson, 1965)
* Northern Ireland Development Programme 1970-75 (1970) (Matthew, Wilson and Parkinson, 1970);
* Review of Economic and Social Development in Northern Ireland (1971) cmd. 564 (Cairncross, 1971);
* Economic and Social Strategy for Northern Ireland Report by Review Group (1976) (Quigley; 1976)
* And Building a Stronger Economy The Pathfinder Process (DED, 1987).
A cynic might conclude that the more things change the more they say the same. What analysis of Strategy 2010 alongside all the other documents since Isles and Cuthbert in the mid 1950s can do is to answer a number of key questions.
* Does the large number of policy documents indicate that they were relatively ineffective?
* How did the political and economic change during the 1955-99 period influence the documents?
* Does the comparison with the earlier documents indicate anything regarding the likelihood of success of Strategy 2010?
However, before answering these questions, it is worth comparing and contrasting
Strategy 2010 to the earlier strategies in terms of how the various documents
were constructed paying special attention to the characteristics of the
authors and the extent of wider consultation. |
