Mairéad Browne* analyses the factors leading to the 20 year transformation of Ireland from a sleepy backwater to its transformation into the Celtic Tiger, with implications for what needs to be done in Australia if we are to learn from the experiences of the Irish -- especially in regard to changes within our business culture.

This morning over my cornflakes I read once more in my newspaper that Australia's research outputs and the scope of what business does are out of kilter. This time the news is about a study by Scott Stern and Joshua Gans pointing out 'the dissonance between what business does and what universities are good at' (Australian Dec 4, 2002, p.35).

What's the problem here? Over the past 10 years we have had what can only be described as a glut of reports, commentaries and government policy documents highlighting the gap between what is supposedly needed by industry and the existence of a major shortfall in the local take-up of excellent Aussie ideas from the universities and research institutions. And we have had endless proposals of ways to deal with the deficiencies in the amount of overall expenditure on research to bring us into at least a middle ranking position among that of developed nations. But to no avail; our relative position against other developed countries simply keeps slipping and the match between what industry says it needs and what the universities produce seems no better.

Invariably, those of us concerned with Australia's research and development performance have looked to government to solve the problems of poor funding and pick-up of research outputs. Government has responded with additional funding for applications of research, tax incentives and so on. But it's nowhere near enough. Yet we remain pathetically optimistic that research and innovation will become such a high priority that the amount of government support and programs will change the current depressing situation. But in my view it hasn't -- and it won't.

The fact is that even in an age of unprecedented prosperity, research and innovation are not funded adequately suggests that nothing will change at government level for a very long time. I believe change will come only when the community demands it and threatens the hold on power of whomever is in government at the time. And I believe we must face the fact that the problem lies not simply with government and the lack of visionary leadership, although that's a major factor too. The difficulty we face is also a product of community and business ignorance of the critical role of education, research and development for economic advancement.

So how do we engender a valuing of research and development and recognition that it is the keystone of prosperity in an age when knowledge, not the resources we dig from the ground, determines how we fare economically?

One way to find answers is to look at other societies which have been successful in making the shift to being knowledge economies.

One country that in this respect has surprised the world (and itself, come to that) is Ireland which went from being a sleepy protected agricultural economy to an export driven industrial economy in about 20 years.

Growth rates went from 3.5% in the early 90s to 8% in the late 90s outperforming all other EU countries. The numbers at work rose by a staggering 45% over 12 years, with an average increase of jobs of 3% per year. Unemployment dropped from 17% in the 1980s to under 4% in 2001. (P. Clinch, H. Convery and B. Walsh. After the Celtic Tiger. Dublin, O'Brien Press, 2002)

For the phenomenon of what was labeled the Celtic Tiger to occur there were some important contributing factors which 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.

Why did the Irish continue to be generous in funding education during in those very difficult days in the 70s and 80s? The cynics used to claim that it was to prepare young Irish men and women for the emigrant ships and ensure that at least some would not have to work in menial jobs in England, US and Australia. If economic rationalism had prevailed in Irish university places, areas such as medicine and engineering would have been curtailed as output of graduates far exceeded demand. Nor would there have been a massive investment in the development of computing technology courses. As it happened, the adopted countries of the graduates of these courses did benefit from the expertise. But in the long run it was to Ireland's benefit because with the emergence of the Ireland's Tiger economies the graduates returned home, enriched by the experiences of living and working internationally. They were key leaders of the sustained social and economic development of their native land in the 1990s.

A second factor that influenced the continuation of Irish investment in education in the lean years was the existence of a fundamental respect, even awe, for people who have had the benefit of education especially tertiary education. This goes back to colonial times when the masses were excluded, by policy, from even basic educational opportunities. The Irish found ways such as the 'hedge' schools (literally, conducted under a hedge) for clandestine education of the peasantry. Travel to Spain and France for further education was the solution for the more well-heeled native Irish. So education was historically something to be fought for and valued. I recall the way I hid my university scarf under my coat as I made my way on the bus to university lectures in Dublin in the early 60s; I did not want to draw attention to the fact that I was one of the privileged attending university thereby being the cause of envy. There is little evidence of an attitude of envy of those in tertiary education among our Australian-born population although the patterns of university enrolment of local non-native-English speaking students and international students which suggest that some communities value education very highly. Perhaps when this current generation assumes leadership positions we will see priorities change sufficiently to bring about a shift in government thinking about the absolute necessity for a well-educated populace.

In Ireland in the new century support for education is finding expression with a more focused emphasis on research and development aspects. With an educated workforce in place the creation of new knowledge and the fostering of innovation, especially interdisciplinary work, is the next logical step. This is simply because research and development are seen as natural corollaries of a skilled workforce and as such the underpinning for increasing productivity of that workforce. In Ireland there is limited potential for further massive expansion of the workforce size owing to social, demographic and infrastructural constraints, but there is seen to be scope to extend the productivity of the existing workforce. The idea is to increase the output per person in the economy and, inter alia, put to rest the old joke about the number of Irishmen needed to change a light bulb.

Increases in productivity especially need capacities to develop and apply new technologies and to exploit the best in physical infrastructure such as equipment and buildings. In this regard, Ireland is in the same position as Australia in that its research expertise across the board is far from leading the world. There is, however, a difference in the way that capacity for increased productivity is being built. Certainly the Irish government is funding research and development for the knowledge economy but, more significantly, there is very strong leadership coming from Irish and multi-national businesses. Even the smallest companies are investing in research and are wait-listed for places in technology parks such as the one attached to Dublin City University (DCU). At DCU I was intrigued to find that one of the issues facing staff there is how to manage the high volume of requests for university-business research collaborations. One academic told me that he felt overwhelmed by the number of businesses wanting to access his department's expertise for major work-place projects. Allocating money is not the issue for businesses looking ahead rather it is finding the expertise to drive their innovation programs.

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? Firstly, 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 recognized. There was bi-partisan support for new tax regimes, continued investment in education, and decent industrial practices. Would our 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 were 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 faces 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 if affectionately, as 'boffins'. In the past Australian governments have been very effective in changing perceptions, for example, in the drive to establish a harmonious multicultural society. And while there are many outstanding examples of how science and technology is being communicated to general audiences we need to find out why the community's general interest in science has not translated into an understanding that it is fundamental to any effective modern economy and the quality of life.

There are two challenges for our politicians if they are serious about developing a knowledge economy in Australia. Firstly, there needs to be a bi-partisan approach to establishing a policy framework for research and development to underpin the movement forward. Secondly, government needs to foster a climate of respect and valuing of research and development. This has to be done through funding strategies but even more critically, by symbolic action, promotion and 'talking up' the importance of R&D. There has to be a climate within which it is seen to be smart (cool) to be involved in research, development and education generally.

For business, the task is simple if they believe they are not getting what they need from Australian research. Instead of expecting to pluck relevant research and innovation ideas when needed off a state-funded tree, business might put energy and resources into planting a few trees of the type that will bear the kind of fruit they want. Or to put it more crudely perhaps  -- business could put its money where it's mouth is and make the kind of contribution to its own future that is characteristic of business in other developed countries.

 Born and educated in Ireland, Mairéad Browne is Professor of Information Studies, University of Technology, Sydney and was a member of the Knowledge Nation Taskforce chaired by Barry Jones. She has taken a long-term interest in the way concepts of the Information Society, Knowledge Society and Knowledge Economy have evolved within organisation and government policy frameworks. Returning frequently to Ireland has allowed her to follow events critically.