Ireland is among the most meritocratic of societies. This has important implications for the politics of social justice, argues Dan O'Brien.
According to the UN's Human Development report, Ireland continues to have one of the biggest gaps between rich and poor in the developed world. But if income inequality is considerable, on another indicator of fairness - equality of opportunity - the Republic is at the other extreme.
When it comes to those who make it to the top - in wealth, politics and administrative power - what is so striking about Ireland is just how few were born privileged and how many have succeeded on the basis of ability alone.
Start with money. According to the Sunday Times rich list, most of the wealthiest 10 started at the bottom of the money pile, and of those who didn't, none were born into anything approaching the lifestyles to which they have become accustomed. The only one of the 10 who started life with a silver spoon in his mouth is an American citizen resident in the Republic.
This is quite extraordinary. In most countries, super-rich cliques are usually closed golden circles dominated by blue bloods and moneyed dynasties. Even in zealously egalitarian Scandinavia, the tentacles of inherited privilege spread far and wide.
In Sweden, the Wallenberg family empire is worth $100 billion and controls close to half of the value of the entire stock exchange. In Denmark, the Maersk dynasty is almost as dominating, holding preference shareholdings in companies in every significant sector of the economy. In Ireland, there is nothing remotely similar to such an embedded concentration of economic power, and rich patriarchs (think O'Reilly or Smurfit) look like small time nouveaux by comparison.
At the other end of the wealth spectrum, there is also plenty of social mobility. Richard Layte, a sociologist at the ever-authoritative ESRI, believes it is a mistake to consider the poor as a single unchanging group of unfortunates. Although there is a grave problem of an impoverished underclass, he says that 70 per cent of those who endure poverty in Ireland have escaped its privations within three years.
But it's not only Irish wealth that is determined by merit rather than inherited privilege. Consider political power. A majority of all 11 taoisigh started out in non-fee paying schools. Compare this to Britain, where eight out of the last 10 prime ministers went to elitist Oxford.
And the office of Taoiseach looks set to stay patrician-free. When the next general election comes round the choice will probably be Bertie Ahern or Enda Kenny. Neither is rich, neither is high-born, and both were educated by the Christian Brothers. In the US, for instance (and by contrast), both serious contenders in November's presidential election are ivy league-educated, fabulously rich and from establishment families.
For another perspective, look at the current Cabinet. The line-up of school teachers, small-town solicitors, farmers and accountants - almost all from modest backgrounds - may be mostly undynamic, but it is about as demotic as any government anywhere.
The third big locus of power in any society is its bureaucracy. Frank Litton of the Institute of Public Administration makes the important point that Ireland's civil service was modelled on Britain's: with one important exception. Instead of two entirely separate streams - one recruited from Oxbridge to run the empire, the other from the lower classes to labour forever on more mundane tasks, regardless of ability - the Irish system gave everyone who entered the opportunity to rise to the top.
The legacy is to be seen today: Irish mandarins are ordinary Joes, not Sir Humphreys; and nobody would contest that advancement is based on ability, not connections and certainly not bribery, as is so often the case around the world.
None of this is to say Ireland is perfectly fair in opportunities (the professions remain a largely middle-class preserve), nor that snobbery and elitism do not exist. But when compared to any other country, it's hard to find one in which where you start in life has as little influence on where you end up.
This is important for the conduct of politics. One might expect that given such equality of opportunity, there would be little demand for the state to act as a leveller - it is often said, for instance, that the American left has never made inroads because in a land of opportunity those at the bottom believe they are destined for the top and don't want big government in the way as they make their journey.
This could explain the failure of explicitly left-leaning parties ever to end the Fianna Fáil-Fine Gael duopoly, particularly now that the traditional explanations - civil war politics, red-scaremongering and hostility from the church - no longer stand up.
But something is not quite right here. While self-consciously left-wing parties have never thrived, Ireland looks and feels much more like Europe than the US, where trade unions are weak, social partnership non-existent, working weeks long, holidays short, social welfare benefits meagre and worker protection laws few.
This is true for tax too. In 2003, government receipts equalled more than 41 per cent GNP. This is far above the US level of 31 per cent and much closer to the EU average of 45 per cent (figures based on GDP suggest the tax burden is much lower, but serious commentators agree that this is woefully misleading in Ireland's case).
So if Ireland's model is influenced by social democracy, why does the left continue to languish electorally? The answer is in its theory of Irish injustice.
The main reason for the convergence of left and right internationally is that each has listened to the other's view on social justice.
In the past, the right equated justice with liberty, saying equality didn't matter much. The left, by contrast, spoke only of income equality and was cavalier about freedom. Modern social democracy accounts for both.
Without more explicitly acknowledging the importance of liberty in its vision of a just society, the Irish left will continue to frighten the comfortable majority who need convincing not only that greater redistribution can make society fairer (the record is mixed), but also that the liberties that allow Ireland to be so meritocratic will never be curbed.
In Britain, Tony Blair calmed majority fears by symbolically removing his party's hard-left Clause Four. Bill Clinton signalled his intent by promising to reform welfare programmes in the 1992 election. What will Pat Rabbitte do?
Dan O'Brien is a senior editor at the Economist Intelligence Unit. His book, A Short History of the State of Ireland, will appear next year.