Is a prosperous economy synonymous with an unfair society? The challenge for those who believe in the market economy is to show that economic prosperity and democratic prosperity can go hand in hand.

There is a mindset that believes if you sort out the economy everything else comes out right in the long run. What I know from 30 years of campaigning for and with the low paid and the marginalised, is that trickle down doesn't work. It does not produce change.

Last week in Seattle thousands of demonstrators challenged a notion of a world order based on trade and business without fairness, rights and justice being built into the equation.

Those on the streets were trade unionists, human rights groups, women's groups, environmentalists, local communities and many others.

There were also business communities who believed the ethic of fairness and the action of business could go hand in hand.

The argument on the inside was that such issues would have a damaging impact on effective trade and business.

The argument outside was that trade and business impact on the lives of everyone and unless there is a dialogue of equals between the inside and the outside, the real damage is to the quality of life. The anger on the streets was caused by governance by "closed doors".

In Dublin why are similar groups having the insider/outsider row with a Government which has opened its doors and brought the outsiders into the room? I don't believe there is duplicity or bad intent. At the National Economic and Social Council which reflects this style of governance, there was agreement that social inclusion and equality were central to an effective economy and a socially cohesive society, and - more fundamentally - are the basis of a functioning democracy.

Our job in the partnership talks was to produce agreed strategies to turn that vision into hard practice. We thought we were doing that.

We were discussing the restructuring of decision-making to enable those on the outside to have a say and believe they can make a difference.

This would cost the Government little and is the problem and challenge facing national, regional and local good governance in all societies.

We thought we were tackling the problems of sustaining a successful economy by looking at the skills and resources needed for an enterprise economy in a new millennium.

We thought we were setting benchmarks to reduce inequalities over the next few years which would make child poverty a matter of history, make life for carers leavened with hope and resource, ensure those on social welfare would be above the European poverty line level of income and citizens with disabilities would be resourced for access to the economy and society. That all our children would be within a national framework for childcare with a focus on the most disadvantaged.

We were examining resources to tackle health and educational inequalities and create affordable and social housing.

Yes, the trade unions want a significant pay increase for our members, particularly the low paid. There is real anger amongst working people about the tax scandals.

Yes, middle-income trade unionists wanted to do well, but none of those I have talked to wanted to do well at the expense of the have-nots and the vulnerable.

Why are women so angry? Those of us who fought for individualisation of income on the basis of equality are angry this has been distorted into removing rights from women who want or need to stay at home.

We want an economic and social framework, of which individualisation is a part, to ensure women and men have the choice on how to exercise their responsibilities to nurture their children and other family members.

We believe the value placed on such a resource reflects the prosperity of our democracy. The use of individualisation to serve the needs of narrow sectionalism demeans that democracy: it is precisely that which sparked the protests in Seattle.

One effect of last week's Budget is to widen existing inequalities, the very opposite of what was a clear consensual view of the social partners. This Budget does give something to everybody, but the real point is it gives the most to those who have and the least to those who have not.

Why have we ended up in this position, where the same amount of money would have produced results both for an enterprise economy and a fairer society?

TAXES could have been cut in a way which removed those at the bottom from the tax net, while still giving middle-income earners respite from high tax rates.

For instance, £400 million would provide the childcare that tackles the needs of labour shortages in the economy and the rights of women and children, especially the most disadvantaged. A further £400 million would have brought those on social welfare to the European poverty line level of income.

Why has this happened to a Government which has set its heart on the practice of partnership, and taken decisions in the National Development Plan to tackle social exclusion?

I believe somewhere a door closed in the mind of some insiders to the possibility that the information from the lived experience of the outsider is of equal value to economic and financial information.

To me, as a northerner coming into this process, the challenge has been to learn and participate in a process which is open, inclusive and can produce real outcomes for jobs and justice. I do not believe there was duplicity. I do believe the risk that open governance could really deliver good business and good justice was a little too enterprising for some.

I have spent a lifetime in the North saying dialogue and democracy was about the capacity to disagree in respect and then find ways of solving our problems. That is what we need to do now. The cost of failure to the powerful emerging idea of a democracy based upon genuine participation, and in the long run to the economy, will be high.

Inez McCormack is President of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions