Despite the apparent need for them, it would seem that, in the present political circumstances with the attendant budgetary constraints, access to grants and other official funding sources to support the Northern Ireland economy will be restricted, writes Professor Simon Bridge exclusively for Business First Online.
This is in contrast to the situation during the ‘troubles’ when, in effect, the Westminster government ensured that there was enough money available to support supposedly worthwhile activity, especially if it could claim to be making an economic contribution.
However, over thirty years ago and in some economic development circles, it began to be suspected that the proliferation of grants was not the great benefit that many people supposed if to be. While the recipients of grants, and the beneficiaries of the activities thus supported, welcomed them, those who took a wider look were beginning to suggest caution.
It was, for instance, observed that there was tendency to think that, if something was worth doing, there would be a grant for it and therefore, conversely, if a grant was not forthcoming, it probably wasn’t a good idea anyhow – so there were stories of bank funding for small businesses being withheld if a government grant for the business was not forthcoming.
Also grants seemed to be so ubiquitous that one observer, in commenting on economic conditions here, noted the emergence of a number of ‘grantrepreneurs’: people who were prolific in writing convincing grant applications but did not necessarily have the ability actually to deliver the projects thus funded.
Northern Ireland economy
Induced or acquired dependency is an acknowledged medical condition in which patients become dependent on the medical support they are given and, even when ‘cured’, cease to be able to thrive when it is removed. Indeed it seemed that the availability of grants was like a drug because the application of grant support induced dependency on that support and the loss of the ability to operate without it. So what happened when this started to be recognised and early moves contemplated to control the drug and its availability? Actually nothing because EU grants and in particular Peace funds them became available.
So, instead of reducing the dependency, the ‘market’ was flooded with lots of this new form of the drug – especially as the emphasis was often on distributing the grants, seemingly in case a slow take-up might lead to a suggestion that they weren’t really needed. So awarding grants had a high priority and any real consideration of whether they might be justified and what they might be achieving only appeared to follow later. While they lasted those grants may have funded lots of jobs and community schemes – but did they actually achieve any significant permanent improvement?
Undoubtedly for many this is not an acceptable message and they point to all the things that were done with peace money which might not otherwise have been funded – but that does not mean that the warning is not realistic. Indeed, after the start of the ‘peace’ bonanza, some still recognised the danger which for them had become more obvious now there was more grant money to pursue
. An example is an article written over 15 years ago which suggested that a by-product of the years of peace money was that, while millions had been pumped into dubious schemes, the much-needed overhaul of essential services such as water, transport, education and health-care had been ignored[*].
Today that does not appear to have changed but, the article suggested, it was not the most damaging aspect of the grant situation. Instead it concluded that the greatest long-term damage was to the internal psyche of Northern Ireland where a dependency culture of the worst kind had developed.
Of course contrary opinions have been expressed but is there nevertheless some truth in the dependency suggestion? If so, in such a situation when the supply of their drug dries up, what can be done to help those who, by force of circumstances, have become drug addicts?
Rehabilitation costs money so, if we are coming to the end of easy money, how can we afford it? Is it too late to try to learn how to combat dependency?
We can hope that somehow Stormont will begin to function again and start to address the issue – but, while that might be better than doing nothing, it does not look as if it will be easy. Therefore should we start now to reduce our dependency, even if it is hard, or just wait for a sudden cut-off, which would be worse?
[*] ‘Dependency Culture’, Fortnight April 2006 p.12
