Comment: The regional development debate in Ireland is becoming bipolar: it is more and more a case of east versus west. Much attention is paid to the fact that the west has in recent years 'lost out,' and that future government policy should seek to address this deficit.

However, Ireland cannot be divided as crudely as this because the east and west are not homogeneous blocks. In fact there are very significant sub-regions within these blocks. An effective regional development strategy should recognise these sub-regions and avoid simply splitting the country roughly down the middle.

The reason such strong polarity has developed may lie in the dependence of our regions on central government for resources, and the lack of financial power at regional level to achieve regional goals. Irish regions depend on central government to build the infrastructure needed for transport, education and health services.

There is therefore a sense that one region's gain is at the expense of another. Not only that, but parts of the country such as the midlands and the south-east may feel left out completely of this competition between east and west, their voices lost in a larger regional conglomeration, thus feeling left behind in the share-out of the national cake.

The south-east region, consisting of Carlow, Kilkenny, Tipperary South, Waterford and Wexford, has a population of 424,000 people. Waterford City and its hinterland are home to 111,000 of these. The region is locked between the Greater Dublin area to the north and the emerging 'Atlantic Alliance' of Cork, Limerick and Galway to the west and south.

The south-east region has seen its relative wealth slip slightly during the Celtic Tiger era. However it benefits from strong urban and rural traditions, and has a 'gateway' in Waterford and two 'hubs' in Kilkenny and Wexford, identified in the National Spatial Strategy. This region, like others in Ireland, must now make critical choices about its future or risk being overtaken very quickly by other parts of the country.

Regional strategy is informed nationally by looking at regional models in Europe, and by examining theories of industrial/service clusters which are especially visible in larger countries.

International examples much cited are Denmark, where co-operation between regional interests in Jutland has benefited the entire economy of the area, and Silicon Valley in the US where a global technology cluster has emerged. These two examples are based on very different economic models and their successes can be explained in multiple ways. They may therefore pose more questions than answers for Irish regions.

As Irish regional strategies are currently being finalised, there is a question as to whether these strategies should be developmental or transformative.

Should the south-east region be arguing for steady growth or quantum investment - for example, a dual carriageway linking Wexford town and Clonmel to the new M9 Waterford-Dublin motorway, major investment in postgraduate education, and critical national bodies located uniquely in the region?

Should a region like the south-east develop specialised industrial clusters that will drive future investment? Indeed, what distinctive strengths does the region have to do this? Environment, tourism, engineering and financial services sectors offer some possibilities, but what best creates a sustainable future?

Some will argue that in an enterprise economy, a government's role is to create a level playing field by providing infrastructure in a fair way across all regions. Commercial and social entrepreneurship will then be enabled to do the rest. In other words, there should be a sameness to state intervention in regions.

It can be hard to know if this sameness is being achieved when we have different budget lines and a variety of regional governance forms, as is the case in the border, midlands and western (BMW), and southern and eastern regions.

If we knew how much public money was being spent in each county by way of public account, policies based on equality and choice would emerge. If state investment in health or education is skewed to certain regions then this can be assessed. Perhaps there are specialist reasons for imbalances. Without full information there is a suspicion of 'winners and losers' when it comes to regional investment. And if state investment is biased towards any particular region, private capital will often follow its lead.

Equality rather than geopolitics should inform national policy. In an innovation economy the State should open up and let its citizens determine investment patterns and how their money is spent. The regions that naturally fit together will develop co-operative policies autonomously, and in turn be responsible for self-sustainability.

This will in time eradicate the total dependence of the regions on central government, and move us away from the 'winners and losers' mindset that currently overshadows all of our thinking at regional level.

Dr Tom O'Toole is head of the business school at Waterford Institute of Technology