Economic analysis: It is inevitable that the Enterprise Strategy Group report will be compared to the Culliton report, but such comparisons may be misleading. There are some recommendations in the report that will need firm political backing if they are to be implemented, writes John McManus.
The Industrial Policy Review Group chaired by industrialist Mr Jim Culliton was asked in 1991 to try and plot a way out of a very serious crisis brought about by the failure of the government's economic policy.
The Enterprise Strategy Group under Mr Eoin O'Driscoll was given the very different task of ensuring that the gains that flowed from the national consensus of which Culliton formed a part are retained and built on.
The distance Ireland has travelled in the 12 years since the publication of the Culliton report is best summed up by comparing two quotes. The first is from the preface to Culliton which reads: "We need to foster a spirit of self reliance and determination to take charge of our future . . . to build an economy of real strength and permanence which will give jobs and wealth sufficient to our needs."
The second comes from the last paragraph of the executive summary of the Enterprise Strategy Group report. It reads "our people have the confidence and the creativity to succeed and to cement Ireland's place among the leading global economies".
It is not surprising then that the Enterprise Strategy Group report contains little that is radical or particularly new.
There is not much in its analysis of the strength and weakness of the Irish economy with which anyone would seriously quibble.
The main challenges to continued prosperity are identified as the flip side of those factors that drove economic expansion.
The globalisation that brought foreign investment to Ireland, now puts us in competition with India and China.
The European Union that gave billions in aid to Ireland has now been expanded to include countries that will emulate our low tax, low cost strategy. Against this background the report attempts to identify "areas of activity in which Ireland already has or can most readily develop a position of competitive strength" in order to ensure continued economic growth. They include many existing areas and some new ones.
In order to capitalise on these opportunities Irish industry will have to complement its existing expertise - which is primarily in operational aspects of manufacturing and services - with similar expertise in both the development of products and the sales and marketing of them.
In simple terms this means that Ireland must shift from being a very efficient manufacturer of export goods, to being equally good at developing the goods in question and selling them internationally. The areas in which Ireland has, or could have a competitive advantage are marketing; product and service development; education and training; taxation and effective, agile government.
Underpinning this needs to be cost competitiveness, infrastructure, and a culture of innovation and management skills, according to the report
None of this is terribly new, and to that extent this aspect of the Enterprise Strategy Group report is just another reiteration of the general consensus on the economic challenges facing Ireland and how they should be tackled.
You will not hear the ICTU, IBEC, the National Economic and Social Council, or anyone else take serious issue with it. But the meat of the report - and the area in which there may be some contention - is the 52 policy changes the group believes are needed to bring about this vision. Again, many of them are already part of the economic orthodoxy and others have already been put in place, such as the appointment of a chief scientist.
But some recommendations are either expensive or controversial and unlikely to be seen through without considerable political backing.
They include reforms of the governing bodies of the universities, reform of the regulatory structures and more powers for the competition authority.
Central to the strategy is the retention of Ireland's low tax strategy, the benefits of which have been challenged in recent weeks. The next step is for an interdepartmental group chaired by a senior official from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to "report back to the Government within three months as to how best to give effect to the recommendations". Once that has happened an implementation strategy will be put in place.
There is an obvious danger that the Government will cherry pick the report, and implement those elements that are in agreement with current policy or neutral in cost terms. The risks of this happening are heightened by the Tánaiste's well-flagged desire to shift portfolios in the Cabinet reshuffle in the autumn.
Whoever succeeds her will not have her personal commitment. And unlike Mr Des O'Malley - who commissioned the Culliton report - and his successors, they will not have an unemployment rate of 15.5 per cent to keep them focused.