CAN AUSTRALIA PUT A TIGER IN ITS TANK?:

From dozy cat to Celtic Tiger in 20 years - and Australia can do it, too. (MairŽad Browne, 17/1/03, Online Opinion)

Growth rates went from 3.5 per cent in the early '90s to eight per cent in the late '90s - outperforming all other EU countries. The numbers at work rose by a staggering 45 per cent over 12 years, with an average increase of jobs of three per cent per year. Unemployment dropped from 17 per cent in the 1980s to less than four per cent in 2001.

For the phenomenon that was labelled the 'Celtic Tiger' to occur required some important contributing factors that by good fortune prevailed at the crucial time. These included the sustained US economic boom and availability of EU funding for infrastructure development. But there were also areas where conscious, bold decisions by politicians and business leaders on matters within their control paid dividends in terms of fuelling the growth. These factors included creating a favourable environment for foreign investment through low corporate tax rates, vigourous and creative promotion of Ireland as a good place to locate and a strong macroeconomic environment with strong public finances.

And there was also the long history of Irish investment in education since the 1960s, which was an essential element in the growth. From the '60s, no matter what government was in power, there was no faltering in public spending on education, even in face of huge unemployment figures and a bleak economic outlook. [...]

The question to be asked is what does this mean for Australia? What lessons are there from the Irish experience if we are to become a Tiger economy? First, government policy is important, as was the case in Ireland. The critical role played by what was a handful of visionary, and in many ways desperate, Irish politicians to turn around a very depressed economy has been recognised. There was bi-partisan support for new tax regimes, continued investment in education, and decent industrial practices. Would Australian politicians be capable of a bi-partisan approach to creating the policy framework for the development of a real, as opposed to a rhetorical, knowledge economy? I fear not. And even if there was bi-partisan leadership in Australia the question of how Australian industry might respond remains.

A major difference between Australia and Ireland lies in the way in which the Irish community and businesses responded to government leadership; the Irish started from a position where they did not think education and research were luxuries or the pastimes of elites. They recognized that these were fundamental strategies to improve the economy and, through that, the quality of everyone's life. Educators and researchers were seen as people to be taken seriously and not the subject of jokes about their irrelevance to the concerns of the 'real' people, the 'battlers'.

We have the policies here in Australia such as the Coalition's 'Backing Australia's Ability', with the Labor Party's 'Knowledge Nation' and 'Research: Engine Room of the Nation' waiting in the wings. But none of these addresses the cultural and attitudinal issues that face Australia if research and innovation are to become part of the fabric of the way we do things here. Adequate funding and support will never come as long as researchers and university people are regarded, even affectionately, as 'boffins'.

One of the good side-effects of the Sputnik shock and the race to the moon, as opposed to the many bad ones, was that suddenly science and scientists became sexy. An emphasis on math and basic science in school and a healthy respect for those who pursue careers in science can't help but benefit a society. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 22, 2003 8:31 AM