3.2 Nothing New Under the Sun:
Strategy 2010 in Perspective
2. Characteristics of the authors
The characteristics of the author(s) does much to set the tone of each report. It is therefore worthwhile considering the contrasts between the authors of the eleven reports since 1995 (see Table 1 below).
In every case except Isles and Cuthbert's book (where the data collection, analysis and write-up was probably done within the Department of Economics at Queen's University Belfast (QUB) there was a substantial NI Civil Service input, either because the authors themselves were members of the NI Civil Service or because they had back-up secretarial and statistical assistants supplied by that Civil Service.
In some cases the authors were academics usually professors of economics (though Matthew was a professor of geography). Some of the authors were brought in from outside NI (eg Hall, Matthew Wilson (1) and Cairncross) whereas in the remaining cases local civil servants and/or academics were used.
It is worth considering these contrasts because one of the main authors of Strategy 2010 was very forthright in defending the current strategy of not using outsiders or academic economists (Gillespie, 1999). Gillespie (1999) suggested that far from being a weakness this was a strength because Strategy 2010 benefited from input which was very much anchored in local experience and business orientated. No evidence was provided as to how the earlier economic reviews had suffered because they did employ outsiders or "abstract economics".
Although there was a prevalence of senior civil servants and economists amongst the authors they were a somewhat varied group in terms of characteristics. As can be seen, one respect in which there were contrasts was in the extent to which they could bring outside experience to bear on the Northern Ireland economic problem.
3. Extent of Consultation - How Much Wider Input Into the Process?
To what extent did the authors engage in a consultation process with the wider community and in particular the main economic partners (ie business and trade unions) (see Table 1 below).
There has been a huge variety of approach in this regard. The extent of consultation by Hall (1962) and Matthew (1963) seems to have been limited. There was more in the case of Wilson (1965), Cairncross (1971) and Quigley (1976). (5) This paralleled the trend in UK-wide economic policy making towards greater consultation with the economic partners (so-called corporatism or tripartism in wage bargaining and macroeconomic management). That approach to UK policy was perceived as somewhat discredited after the mid 1970s and so it may not be surprising that in DED (1987), (1990) and (1995) there was apparently little consultation at the preparation stage (6).
Strategy 2010 certainly has had the widest and most formalised consultation process. About 300 business managers, trade unionists and others were members of a variety of working groups which at either a sectoral or cross-sectoral level attempted to conduct appropriate SWOT analysis (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat).
These working groups met, analysed and then reported over a period of about
six months. Their deliberation then informed the work of the 13 member steering
group along with the draftsmen within the DED as they wrote up the synthesis
report as it appeared in early 1999. (Comparison of the early draft reports
of the various working groups with the 1999 document suggests that the steering
group along with the DED may well have had a much more decisive say over
the form of Strategy 2010 than the 300 persons in the working group).(7)
|
