Placing Ireland in a Comparative Perspective

Some recent publications have raised the question of placing Ireland in a comparative perspective. Three such comparative frameworks are investigated in this paper: advanced capitalist countries, (West)European countries, and finally semi-peripheral European societies. Although not an advanced capitalist economy, Ireland displays the central institutional features of such societies. But on closer inspection, it seems that such features can be attributed to a European institutional framework, rather than to advanced capitalism as such. Furthermore, Ireland is located, in economic terms, in broadly the same position as countries such as Greece, Portugal and Spain. But it has very little in common with them in terms of socio-political characteristics. Ireland provides in that sense a striking illustration of the disjunction which may emerge between a process of capitalist development and institutional development. I I N T R O D U C T I O N R ecent publ icat ions h a v e sought to place I r e l a n d i n a c o m p a r a t i v e perspective. T h e whole debate on the n a t u r e of I r i s h polit ical life h a s a l r e a d y focused attent ion on the type of polit ical sys tem I r e l a n d should be compared to ( M a i r , 1987). I n her s tudy of pay de terminat ion i n I r e l a n d , N i a m h H a r d i m a n (1987) wonders w h y I r e l a n d h a s not followed the p a t h of other s m a l l E u r o p e a n countries towards a stable corporatist arrangement . She asserts tha t the requirements of competitiveness i n a n open economy are better satisf ied w i t h such corporatist agreements. Joseph L e e (1989) seeks to exp la in w h y I r e l a n d , u n l i k e the other s m a l l countries i n E u r o p e w h i c h have found themse lves i n a s i m i l a r s i tuat ion, h a s not succeeded i n i ts effort to modernise a n d industr ia l i se . T h e study of I r i s h society by B r e e n et al. (1990) concludes that , i n the w a y the state contributes to the s h a p i n g of society, I r e l a n d h a s a great dea l i n common w i t h countr ies s u c h as G r e e c e , a n d possibly the E u r o p e a n periphery as a whole. W h e n L i a m O'Dowd asked: "What is the most appropriate in ternat iona l a n d comparat ive f r a m e w o r k for a n a l y s i n g any state a n d the two states i n I r e l a n d i n part icu lar?" , he placed th i s i ssue r ight at the core of the study of the s tate i n I r e l a n d . T h i s quest ion concerns the def init ion of the type of society I r e l a n d i s , a l though the question is u sua l ly discussed i n a paradoxical way . Most of the t ime , the a n a l y s i s does not a i m to identify a comparat ive framework, but to account for the fact that I r e l a n d deviates, that i t refuses to correspond to a type. W h y does the I r i s h polit ical sys tem differ so rad ica l ly from most other l i b e r a l democrac ies? W h y h a s I r e l a n d not developed the stable corporat is t f ramework w h i c h i s observed i n other s m a l l , open econo­ mies of E u r o p e ? W h y h a s i t failed to industr ia l i se , whi le most other E u r o p e a n countries i n a s i m i l a r s i tuat ion have managed to? T h e choice of a comparat ive f ramework depends on the k i n d of quest ion be ing a s k e d . B u t w e m a y useful ly follow D u r k h e i m ' s pr inc ip le t h a t com­ p a r i s o n is mean ingfu l only i f i t concerns societies of the same type. I n t h a t sense, the present paper is ma in ly interested i n identifying the k i n d of society I r e l a n d i s . I t endeavours to locate i t w i t h i n a category of countries w h i c h s h a r e s i m i l a r features. Shou ld we t h i n k of i t as belonging to the category of countr ies d i v e r s e l y re ferred to as capi ta l i s t , i n d u s t r i a l or even a d v a n c e d societies? S h o u l d we t h i n k of i t as a per iphera l or semi -per iphera l society? T h e need to compare obliges u s to place I r e l a n d i n a c lass of countries w i t h w h i c h i t c a n be associated. I t m a y be safely a s sumed that any discourse about I r i s h society s tarts by re la t ing i t to a type. I I I R E L A N D A N D A D V A N C E D C A P I T A L I S T S O C I E T I E S A l t h o u g h I r e l a n d cannot even remotely be ca l led a n advanced capi ta l i s t society, i t p a r t i c i p a t e s i n d iverse i n t e r n a t i o n a l associat ions , s u c h as the O E C D , w h i c h b r i n g together the most advanced capital is t societies. I t i s also engaged, w i t h i n the E u r o p e a n U n i o n , i n a process of integration w i t h some of the most advanced capita l i s t countries. F o r this reason, i t i s routinely placed i n s u c h a comparat ive context. B u t does i t m a k e sense to compare I r e l a n d , as i t i s frequently done, w i t h such "advanced" countries? T h e m a i n features of the type of capi ta l i s t society w h i c h developed after W o r l d W a r I I have been described by A . Shonfield i n the following terms: I n the chapters w h i c h follow I s h a l l t ry to identify the charac ter i s t i c i n s t i t u t i o n a l f e a t u r e s of the economic order w h i c h h a s g r a d u a l l y emerged i n pos twar cap i ta l i sm. T h e r e are big differences between the key ins t i tut ions a n d economic methods of one country a n d another. T h e differences a r e often the subject of s h a r p ideological c leavages . Y e t , w h e n the total p icture is examined, there is a certa in uniformity i n the texture of these societies. I n t e r m s of w h a t they do, r a t h e r t h a n w h a t they say about i t , a n d even more m a r k e d l y i n t e r m s of the p a t t e r n of the i r behav iour over a period of y e a r s , the s i m i l a r i t i e s a r e s t r i k i n g . (Shonfield, 1965, p. 65). T h e a u t h o r accepts the w i d e v a r i a t i o n s w h i c h ex i s t b e t w e e n s u c h countr ies , b u t he s t i l l cons iders t h a t they const i tute a type or a c l a s s of society. H i s model emphas i se s the growing in tervent ion of the s tate i n the economy, the provis ion of soc ia l serv ices by the publ ic author i t i e s , r a p i d technological development, a recourse to some k i n d of p l a n n i n g and , r e l a t e d to the latter, concertation between the major social partners a n d the state. T h e a n a l y s i s of contemporary capi ta l i s t societies h a s been i m b u e d w i t h s u c h a v iew. I n th i s context, c a p i t a l i s m does not correspond to a type of economy, but pr inc ipa l ly to a type of society. T h e foremost charac ter i s t i c of these societies, i n contrast w i t h ear l ier so-called l ibera l capi ta l i sm, consists i n the mode of art iculat ion of the economy, the polity a n d also the "social". T h i s mode of art icu lat ion h a s brought the state at the centre, not only of pol i t ical l i fe, b u t of society a s a whole . M o d e r n c a p i t a l i s t societ ies h a v e h a d to elaborate a whole range of ins t i tut iona l a r r a n g e m e n t s w h i c h m a r k t h e m i n m a n y w a y s : ..."their own efficient functioning [of capital is t m a r k e t economies] i s thereby threatened a n d c a n continue only to the extent t h a t th i s des tab i l ­ i s i n g effect i s offset a n d c o n s t r a i n e d by qui te 'exogenous' i n s t i t u t i o n a l a r r a n g e m e n t s " (Goldthorpe, 1984, p. 4) . S u c h i n s t i t u t i o n a l a r r a n g e m e n t s i m p l y s ta te a c t i v i t y . T h e y i n c l u d e , a s t h e i r t y p i c a l e l e m e n t s , s t a t e m a n a g e m e n t of the economy, state regulat ion, a welfare state a n d , i n m a n y cases , corporatist tendencies (ibid, pp. 317-323). Serious p l a n n i n g efforts have been dropped i n a l l such societies, but the replacement of a faci l i tat ive state by a directive state h a s been given as one of the major h a l l m a r k s of advanced cap i ta l i s t societies ( W i n k l e r , 1976). F o r ins tance: "The state c a n no longer m e r e l y faci l i tate pr ivate production; i t m u s t a i m to direct a n d r e s t r u c t u r e economic act iv i ty i n n u m e r o u s ways" (Scott, 1979, p. 176). H e goes on to ident i fy d e m a n d m a n a g e m e n t , we l fare expendi ture , d irect p l a n n i n g a n d "bringing together the var ious economic interests" as the major features of s u c h state activity. A picture of the ins t i tut iona l features of modern cap i ta l i sm, as defined by Shonfield, pervades the whole field of ana lys i s . I t h a s appeared i n a n a l y s e s w h i c h belong to very different perspectives. A l a n C a w s o n (1982), for instance , closely l i n k s far-reaching economic state intervent ion, welfare state, p lann ing a n d even, i n some c ircumstances , corporatism. H e observes that p l a n n i n g is u s u a l l y t r i p a r t i t e , a n i n s t i t u t i o n a l set-up w h i c h m a r k s the corporat i s t framework. I a n G o u g h (1979) also emphas i ses the expanded role of the state both i n economic a n d social policy matters , a n d he points to the emergence of t r i p a r t i s m i n public pol icy-making. I n the same way, C l a u s Offe (1984) sees a l i n k b e t w e e n a d v a n c e d c a p i t a l i s m , economic s tate i n t e r v e n t i o n a n d the provis ion of social protection. "Organised capi ta l i sm" is the generic n a m e w h i c h h a s recent ly been g iven to the form of c a p i t a l i s m w h i c h h a s evolved from the beg inn ing of t h i s cen tury , a n d a s s e r t e d i t s e l f after W o r l d W a r I I ( L a s h a n d U r r y , 1987). A range of character i s t i c s are at tr ibuted to th i s organised capi ta l i sm, a n d most of t h e m are quite conventional , a l though debatable (concentration of capi ta l , s epara t ion o w n e r s h i p a n d control of the m e a n s of production, growth of a b u r e a u c r a t i c a n d inte l l igents ia middle c lass , etc.). Some centra l features of th i s model h a v e to do w i t h the state a n d its place i n society, a n d correspond quite closely to the model of advanced capi ta l i sm we have presented: growth i n state organisat ion of the labour market ; welfare orientation; change i n the n a t u r e of s ta te i n t e r v e n t i o n t o w a r d s a d irect ive role; corporat i sm. O n e recognises then , r ight at the core of such a model, the ins t i tut ional arrange­ ments w h i c h h a v e been highl ighted by Shonfield a n d others. T h e purpose of th i s paper i s not to test the val id i ty of a general model of capi ta l i s t society. R a t h e r , some inst i tut ional features have emerged i n m a n y advanced capi ta l i s t countries , or are at least frequently associated w i t h them. T h e m a i n ques t i on for u s i s how does I r e l a n d fare i n compar i son w i t h advanced capi ta l i s t societies? W e need to remember at th is stage that I r e l a n d c a n h a r d l y be c lass i f i ed as a n advanced capi ta l i s t economy, a l though i t i s frequently placed i n the context of advanced societies. However, T a b l e 1 gives the r a n k order of 18 O E C D countries , inc lud ing I r e l a n d , on four r e l e v a n t d imens ions of the model of advanced capital ist societies we are considering. A short indicat ion of the procedures used to elaborate scores a n d r a n k countries for e a c h d i m e n s i o n i s g iven i n the Note below. I r e l a n d fits n ice ly i n the picture , a n d r a n k s quite h igh on three of the dimensions. O n l y i n re lat ion to the o r g a n i s a t i o n of i n d u s t r i a l re la t ions , w i t h i ts t r a d i t i o n a l e m p h a s i s on v o l u n t a r i s m , i s I r e l a n d located lower t h a n average. W e t h e n end up w i t h the paradox t h a t a country, w h i c h does not belong to the category of advanced c a p i t a l i s m , f inds i t s e l f v e r y m u c h at home i n the in s t i tu t iona l set u p of advanced capita l i s t countries. I r e l a n d , despite the re lat ive ly low leve l of capita l i s t industr ia l i sa t ion , h a s a c q u i r e d the c e n t r a l ins t i tu t iona l features of advanced capi ta l i s t countries . B u t one wonders i f the model u n d e r discuss ion does not i n fact represent a model of E u r o p e a n cap i ta l i sm, r a t h e r t h a n of capi ta l i sm i n general . F o r h is ­ tor ica l reasons , i t c a n be considered that E u r o p e a n countries have developed a n i n s t i t u t i o n a l s ty le , t h a t they re ly on a t y p i c a l range of i n s t i t u t i o n a l devices. S u c h a n hypothes is would also account for the fit w h i c h exists , i n Table 1: Rank-Order of Countries on the Scores of the Dimensions of the Model of Advanced Capitalism