In some respects we fall behind most of our EU partners but in others we do very well, writes Garret FitzGerald
WHERE DO we stand in Europe today? Well, in terms of the Lisbon Treaty ratification and our current economic performance, we're certainly not doing too well. But perhaps we should take a break from these immediate issues and look at other aspects of our performance in relation to the rest of our continent.
Happily, the Central Statistics Office has chosen this moment to update us on many aspects of our society, comparing our situation in many social and economic respects with those of our European partners. (Measuring Ireland's Progress. CSO €5).
In some important respects we fall behind most of our EU partners but in others we do very well.
We are, indeed, a country of extremes; only rarely do we conform to a European average.
The most striking demographic fact about our country is that we have more children and (Macedonia excepted) less old people than any other European country. Not alone are we the youngest European country, but we are also the second most fertile - after France, our fertility rate is almost one-quarter higher than the rest of the EU.
It is also worth remarking that, contrary to what is widely believed, the data shows we have been successful in minimising the pay gap between men and women. Only four states and only two in western Europe have a better record.
Our next most striking feature is our high national output and national income. The best measure of the resources we create and retain for our own use is our gross national income, which consists of the value of what we produce each year, less the net outflow of profits, royalties etc (mainly to US companies), plus the transfers we receive from the rest of the EU. (These transfers are not negligible.)
Far from Ireland being a contributor to the EU, as many people seem to imagine, we have consistently received net transfers from our partners, which throughout this decade have been running at almost €2 billion a year, almost five times the amount we are required to contribute to the EU.
The purchasing power per head of our gross national income is one of the highest in Europe, exceeded only Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria and Denmark.
However, because we were investing such vast amounts in the construction of dwellings until last year, the proportion of resources available for current consumption has been at about the average level for western Europe, with nine states still enjoying current consumption levels and material living standards in excess of ours. Britain's living standards are currently about 5 per cent higher than ours.
What is most striking about our social situation is that, while as recently as 10 years ago we were one of the lowest cost countries in Europe, unhappily by 2006 prices in Ireland were 18 per cent higher than in the rest of western Europe, and in the two years since then there has since been a further disimprovement.
How did this sharp deterioration come about? Unfortunately, just when we were approaching full employment and entry into the single currency, in the early years of this decade, Charlie McCreevy introduced a grossly extravagant 50 per cent increase in current public spending, with little to show for it in improved public services.
This helped to double our inflation rate and we have never recovered from the consequences of this splurge.
Two other respects in which this CSO report shows us to perform badly involve our environmental policies or lack of them.
First of all, in terms of exceeding the Kyoto emission limits, we are one of the six worst EU states. And, second, apart from Cyprus and Malta, our use of landfill to dispose of waste, to the tune of almost half-a-tonne per head each year, is a quarter greater than anywhere else on the continent.
There are five countries which have managed to achieve waste landfill rates of less than one-tenth of ours.
Our performance in respect of social protection is also towards the bottom end of the European list. Despite being one of the most prosperous of EU states, our record in alleviating poverty is similar to the poorer states of southern Europe and to that of Britain, whose poor performance we have chosen to emulate.
Our record on teacher/student ratio and class sizes at primary level is also one of the worst in Europe, only Germany has larger classes.
However, it should be said that class size is not the only or best criterion by which to judge educational performance.
In Portugal, the average primary class size is a fraction of ours, but the poor quality of the education offered at that level is one of that country's biggest problems.
By contrast, our underfunded primary education system is generally seen to perform well, although it clearly needs more resources, especially where there are problems of disadvantage.
At secondary level, our class sizes emerge from this comparative data as among the smallest in Europe but quantitative data can tell us nothing about the impact on students of our damaging teacher promotion system, which is based on seniority rather than on rewarding teaching skills.
Where we certainly shine educationally is in the proportion of our young population (25-34) who have benefited from higher education.
Almost 40 per cent more of this age cohort in Ireland are educated to third level than in the rest of western Europe and we have 20 per cent more young people with third-level education than in Britain.
There may be some definitional issues here as between "higher" and "further" education, but we clearly have a considerable advantage vis-a-vis most of our EU partners.