David Connolly, Director, Dublin Inner City Partnership.
 
Presentation on : BUILDING AN INCLUSIVE CITY (Page 2)
 
Scale of disadvantage to be addressed.
 
The first issue to be addressed is the actual scale of disadvantage remaining in the city despite the recent boom. In many respects the Celtic tiger is an urban myth. Dublin remains a deeply divided city in terms of class, housing location, access to services, earned income and future potential as a resident. This has been the situation historically however the divisions have been further perpetuated in recent years. The physical divisions are a result of housing policies pursued over a prolonged period. Unlike many other cities of a similar size in Europe Dublin has tended to reinforce differences in class and to institutionalise exclusion.
 
An analysis of the 1996 census graphically illustrates this point. Large sections of the city are concentrated in the 10% most disadvantaged areas in the country while alongside these DEDS are areas in the wealthiest 10% category in the country. What is unusual in Dublin is both the scale of the disadvantage and the sharp contrast between concentrated wealth and concentrated poverty. These divisions are further reflected in limited access to well paid work, good quality education, leisure facilites, adequate health provision and enhanced life chances. The government has designated as a disadvantaged area a total of 84 DEDS in the Dublin region including a total population of 264,101 and with 192,283 in Dublin city alone where 40% of the total population live in designated disadvantaged areas.
 
Despite recent efforts through public policy to bridge this divide it has proved almost impossible to achieve a significant change. I would suggest that this failure was due primarily to an unwillingness to tackle the underlying causes of generational disadvantage. In general there is institutional resistance to countenance structural changes that would result in a greater distribution of wealth or an increased role for the state in the provision of services and facilities at a local level. This attitude is also articulated through the media and perpetuated through the various national institutions both public and private that control opinion and resources. Most of the national media have continued to portray whole sections of the city as less desirable despite the fact that the housing shortage has resulted in increasing numbers purchasing homes in the "so called" less desirable areas. They have also tended to ignore the serious social problems except for when treat them in a sensational way.
 
There is an accumulation of problems that have occurred in these neighbourhoods over a prolonged period. Among the main issues identified are inadequate education provision, poor public service delivery, the deterioration of the lived environment, housing conditions, lack of leisure facilities, the transport system, standards of community care and health services for the young and old, community safety and policing.
 
There was some hope and expectation that the approach to national partnership would result in a significant redirection of income and resources to the cities. To be fair to those involved in the agreements there have been a number of attempts to alter the present policy in favour of addressing the specifically urban issues in a more coherent and sustainable manner. However the actions taken to date have not yet resulted in major change and maybe this was never an option. State policy tends to progress on an incremental basis and rarely succeeds in achieving a noticeable shift. In addition, in Ireland I would suggest there is a prevailing mind-set that views the small town and rural environment as the preferable location. This is despite the fact that the majority now live in cities and larger urban areas. This view has influenced the strategy or lack of it on urban policy.
 
A key issue in relation to promoting and achieving inclusion for the majority of citizens is an economic system that relates and responds to their needs. Low income will not develop the local economy. Employment of residents will not improve the physical environment. We already know that market forces can not provide for the essential needs of local communities. The theory of 'trickle down economics' has been proven to be fraudulent. The issue therefore is not solely about income distribution policy to the individual but rather the targeting of increased and sustained public investment to the areas and communities that require this subvention. As an example, the Employment Pact last year costed a social investment plan for local infrastructure for the designated areas at £500 million over the next six years.
 
This approach promotes positive discrimination on behalf of the less well off areas and seeks a long term commitment to public policies that support this approach. It can not be achieved by once off or piece-meal reactions. This is the essence of an urban policy. If this demand can not be met by the national government then the city government requires to assume responsibility and develop the capacity to meet these needs. In these circumstances the scale of disadvantage identified above can not be tackled through nationally determined programmes. What is required is the delegation of responsibility and resources to the city level in order to resolve the disadvantage over a prolonged period. This will require the integration and reduction of the statutory sector and the merging of budgets and resources in order to provide a coherent and comprehensive response tailored to the needs of the city. This reform of an over compartmentalised state sector in the interests of the city is long overdue.
 
However, I would suggest that what needs to be acknowledged is the incapacity of the national government to address these issues at a city level. If this was accepted then we would be in a position to begin to construct the means to redirect public resources to the areas of need on a sustainable basis.