11/3/2013: Irish Services Sectors Activity in 2012

Data for 2012 end of the year index of activity in Irish Services sectors is out and before I cover monthly data for January 2013, here are some annual results:

• Wholesale trade services activity expanded 4.03% in 2011-2012, after growing 14.2% in 2010-2011. In 2012 the sub-sector activity was up 31.6% on 2009 and up 18.8 on 2010 making this the fastest growing sub-sector in all Irish services since 2009.
• Wholesale and retail trade, repairs of motor vehicles and motorcycles sub-sector activity grew 2.24% in 2012 compared to 2011 after having expanded 7.2% in 2010-2011. Over 2009-2012 the sub-sector activity grew incredible 14.6% all of which was driven solely by growth in wholesale trade, offset by shrinkages in retail and other sub-sector activities.
• Transportation and storage sub-sector activity expanded 5.39% in 2011-2012 period, having grown at 3.8% in 2010-2011 period. Since 2009 through 2012 sub-sector activity shrunk by 1.88%.
• Accommodation and food services activities expanded at 2.27% in 2011-2012, following growth of 1.4% in 2010-2011 period. Between 2009 and the end of 2012, sub-sector activity was down 6.74%. Accommodation sub-sector alone grew 2.18% in 2011-2012 after posting growth of 5.4% in 2010-2011 and the index is on the aggregate still down 3.67% on 2009. Bizarrely, Food services activities grew since 2009 through 2012 at 1.76%, and this sub-sector posted expansion of 6.80% in 2011-2012 that followed growth of 2.9% in 2010-2011 period.
• Information and Communication sub-sector activity was the star of the show in 2011-2012, rising 8.40% on foot of 3.6% growth in 2010-2011. The sub-sector is now up 20.11% on 2009 making this the second fastest growing sub-sector in Irish services after Wholesale trade.
• Professional, scientific & technical activities sub-sector activity was the worst performing sub-sector in 2011-2012, shrinking 10.39%. This followed growth of 1.1% in 2010-2011. The sub-sector activity is now down 23.80% on 2009 making it overall the worst performing sub-sector, even worse than the Services (68, 92 to 96) sub-sector described below.
• Administrative and support services activity sub-sector clearly doesn't have much in common with the sub-sectors that usually require significant admin & support (e.g. professional, scientific and technical areas of activities) as it posted an robust growth rate of 7.54% in 2011-2012, albeit on foot of strong contraction of 7.2% in 2010-2011 period.The sub-sector activity is cumulatively up 2.67% on 2009. Either Irish exports are becoming more bureaucratised to warrant increases in Admin & supports, or there's some sort of substitution from shrinking public sector employment to temps and outsourced services. Otherwise, why on earth would an economy in a deep slowdown post growth in this category on 2009 figures?
• Services (68, 92 to 96) encompassing Real Estate activities, Gambling and betting activities and Other personal service activities were down 3.48% in 2011-2012, following virtually zero (+0.7%) expansion in 2010-2011. The grouping is down 19.67% on 2009 levels of activity.

Overall, for all services covered in the CSO data, sector growth clocked at 2.52% in 2011-2012 period, down from 3.3% growth in 2010-2011. Not a good sign, but better than posting negative growth, I guess. Compared to 2009, sector activity is up miserly 3.52%. And that is despite increases in R&D spending, massive hikes in availability of state-financed VC and angel investment (via Enterprise Ireland), big-time focus on incentives (including tax incentives) in 'key' sectors etc. Not exactly an achievement to brag about, but, again, could have been worse.

Here's another interesting chart:

As I mentioned above, Professional, scientific & technical activities sub-sector activity was down 23.80% on 2009 making it overall the worst performing sub-sector in all services sectors covered. Which isn't going well with the claims we keep hearing about our 'knowledge economy' and 'smart economy' and the rest of the hoopla surrounding branding like 'Innovation Island'. Looks like stripping ICT, there is not much of 'knowledge'-intensive trading going on out there. And we take out IFSC, the whole landscape of 'knowledge-based economy' might just as well start resembling a veritable desert? Instead, the 'traditional' (aka not 'smart' according to our Government policies priorities) wholesale trade is driving the sector activity, plus the 'smart' ICT sector.

And one last point. Here's the Services PMI data for Ireland for the period covered above in the index (see latest data here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/03/533013-irish-services-pmis-february-2013.html) ...

Strange that a lift-off in PMI from ca 35 average in 2009 to 52 average in 2012 should be translating into only 3.5% increase in actual services activity, no? Sort of suggests something bizarre going on in PMI data, right? Hello, Markit!.. Station Earth paging...

23/2/2013: Irish Knowledge Economy: Sources of Funding

In previous two posts, I have covered the broader trends for R&D spending in Ireland over 2007-2012 and more specific trends in terms of R&D-related employment. In this, last, post I will illustrate some trends in relation to R&D spend and activity by nationality of the firm ownership.

First, two charts:

The charts above clearly show that for indigenous firms (Irish-owned):

• Use of own company funds has declined in overall importance between 2009 and 2011, although the category still plays more important role in 2011 than it did in 2007 in funding R&D activities. This longer-term trend is most likely a result of a combination of factors at work: 1) reduced availability of credit and equity investment as the result of the crisis, 2) reduced emphasis in R&D on tangible IP that can be used to raise equity funding.
• Meanwhile, public funding (despite the fiscal austerity) rose in overall importance in 2007-2011 period, although 2011 result is showing some moderation in overall reliance on public purse sources for R&D funding. This is also consistent with the points raised above.
• All other sources funding share accruing to the Irish-owned enterprises is volatile (per second chart above), but overall these sources of funding are becoming less important to the Irish-owned firms (first chart above). It is unclear whether supply (bust financial system in Ireland and collapsed investment) or demand (firms struggling with already massive debt overhang and facing the prospect of multi-annual Government deleveraging) drives this. My gut feeling - both.

The contrast between the Irish-owned and non-Irish-owned enterprises is difficult to interpret outside the simple realisation that the latter are predominantly MNCs and as such have no difficulty in sourcing internal funds for R&D activities. Public funding for these types of enterprises is ca60 percent less important than for Irish-owned enterprises.

Table below summarises the data:

I guess the main lesson here is that we need to more aggressively stimulate the use of 'other' sources of funding for the Irish-owned enterprises. I have been speaking about the need for enhancing Ireland's tax system to increase use of employee equity shares as a major tool for raising funding for indigenous firms, especially medium-sized ones (see presentation here).

23/2/2013: Irish Knowledge Economy and the Labour Market

In a recent post I looked at some troublesome trends in the overall R&D spending in Ireland. As promised, here are some more details, with the employment levels and R&D spend breakdown by nationality of enterprise ownership. This data, unfortunately, only goes as far as 2011.

Here's the chart showing the spending by enterprise type (Small Enterprises (SE) with <50 all="" and="" as="" base="" categories="" category="" employees="" enterprise.="" enterprises="" for="" here="" is="" of="" on="" other="" p="" select="" specific="" spending.="" taken="" the="" total="">

As the chart clearly shows, the bulk of R&D spend is allocated to Labour costs. I wrote about this earlier, so no need to repeat. But time trend is interesting in all costs:

• The importance of labour costs is falling in 2009-2012 for Small Enterprises (from 61.6% to 53.4%) and is rising for all other enterprises.
• The importance of Purchases (defined as expenditure on land & buildings, payments for IP licenses, instruments and equipment purchases and purchases of software) is rising for SEs (from 9.7% in 2009 to 24.4% in 2011) and falling for all other enterprises (from 17.5% to 6.8%). 
• In comparative terms, SEs are spending nearly four times more on purchases than other enterprises.
• The above is consistent with general theme around the world: SEs require more inward purchasing, while larger enterprises carry out more in-house activities. In turn, this means that SEs must generate more value-added to offset higher costs associated with purchasing.
• Remarkably, there is much less difference across enterprises types in terms of spending on own in-house software development. This suggests that in-house development is not associated with cost-shifting by enterprises (reallocation of normal business costs to R&D activity category to reduce tax exposures).

In terms of employment generated / supported by the R&D spending, the chart below shows distribution across the core categories of employees:

Despite the fanfares around 'Knowledge Economy' jobs, the chart clearly shows that the numbers of R&D employees with PhD qualification - the basic level in modern science to engage in advanced research - has declined in 2009-2011 period by 8.6%, although it is still ahead of 2007 levels for the Industrial & Selected Services sectors. It also dropped in 2007-2009 and 2009-2011 in the Manufacturing sector, with 2009-2011 decline of 10%.

At the same time, 'Other Research Staff' numbers rose in 2009-2001 by 22.2%. 

This is probably consistent with the R&D activity shifting into ICT services sector, where share of PhD-led research is smaller and much of the research activity conducted is focused not on primary innovation, but adaptation, customisation, other incremental innovation. This is also consistent with much of the R&D activity in Ireland being secondary in nature - not patent-generating or new product development, but incremental improvement. The third potential factor driving these changes is possible expansion of collaborative work between academic institutions and producers.

A very interesting chart plots the sectoral R&D staff employment as a ratio to total R&D staff engaged:

It is very apparent that our flagship exporting sector, the 'Big Hope' for the 'Innovation Ireland' programmes - the agricultural sector is simply not engaged with much of R&D activity. The sector posts lowest share of R&D employment by far. Exactly the same holds for virtually every indigenous sector. The chart is extreme: MNCs-dominated sectors are clear leaders in R&D-related employment, domestically-oriented sectors are clear laggards. Remember renewable energy? We are supposedly filthy rich in inputs in the sector (wind, wave etc). We are also, supposedly, engaging in massive research in the area and have aggressive programmes to drive the alternatives energy sector into exporting electricity to the UK and selling know-how all around the world. However, even with the 'white elephant' project like e-cars from the ESB, sector employment of R&D personnel is simply inconsistent with the grotesque claims made about our alternative energy industry competitiveness or position.

Another worrisome fact is that for all the successes of the IFSC and international financial services in general in Ireland, the sector - a major source of innovation (good and bad) worldwide - is yet to put forward appreciable levels of R&D-related employment in Ireland. What is worse, while employment in the IFSC held up relatively well during the recent years, employment of R&D staff in financial services shrunk, relative to the levels of employment if research staff across the economy.

I will post on the breakdown of R&D activity by the company ownership (Irish v Non-Irish owned enterprises) later, so stay tuned.

20/2/2013: Irish R&D Spend 2011/2012 - Concerns >> Fanfares

CSO has recently published data on R&D spending in Ireland for 2011/2012. That's right: in the days of Big Data, Open Data, etc our 'Knowledge Economy' is operating in the environment where evidence is more than 13 months old. In fact, the reality is even more bleak: CSO data for 2012 covers only actual data on current spending, with capital spending covered by estimates. In brief, Ireland's pro-Knowledge Economy policy formation is backed by old and hardly impressive in scope data.

However, given we have nothing better to go, let's take a look at what the latest stats tell us about the Irish economy's R&D intensities. In what follows, I reference combined time series with both actual and estimated data points.

Overall, Total R&D Expenditure by all enterprises rose 5.49% y/y in 2012 to EUR1.96 billion. That's right, Irish economy is investing just 1.53% of its GNP on R&D activities. In 2009 that number stood at EUR1.87bn amounting to 1.41% of GNP. The miracle of the 'knowledge economy' or 'Innovation Ireland' is really quite feeble. In 2009-2012, therefore, the R&D spending rose 4.99% cumulatively.

However, the above growth is distributed unequally across a number of items of expenditure and types of enterprises:

1. 2009-2012 Labour Costs associated with R&D activities went up 15.18% (+8.45% in 2012 y/y alone), while total Current Costs rose 12.28% (+7.81% y/y in 2012).
2. 2009-2012 costs associated with Payments for Licenses on IP rose 356.84% (+0.51% y/y in 2012), while software purchases costs shrunk 47.3% (up 18.22% y/y in 2012). Meanwhile own Software Development costs incurred by all enterprises rose 148.01% in 2009-2012 period (up 0.03% y/y in 2012).
3. Total Capital Spending on R&D activities has declined in 2009-2012 period by 29.55% and was down 9.24% in 2012 in y/y terms.

In other words, there is some evidence of potential cost shifting via R&D credits onto workforce, away from physical investment, as well as evidence of re-orientation of our exports away from manufacturing toward services.

In terms of enterprises types (Small enterprises, SEs at <50 at="" employees="" enterprises="" large="" medium="" mles="" to="">50 employees):

1. SEs saw rapid growth in 2009-2012 in Licenses for IP costs (+3,997% and only up 0.87% y/y in 2012), followed by Software purchases (+112% on 2009 and up 29% y/y in 2012) and Software development by the company (+87% on 2009, but down 5.1% y/y in 2012).
2. SEs overall current spending rose 44.75% on 2009 in 2012 and 9.9% y/y, while their total capital spending rose 328.4% on 2009 in 2012 and was down 8% y/y.
3. Total R&D spending by the SEs rose 73.0% on 2009 and was up 4.9% y/y in 2012.
4. In contrast, for MLEs, the largest growth was recorded in Software development by the company (+174% on 2009 and up 1.65% y/y in 2012). There were significant declines recorded in all other categories, with a 86.5% drop on 2009 in payments made for licenses to use IP (also down 11.2% y/y in 2012), 64.9% decline on 2009 and 4.3% decline y/y in 2012 for Instruments & Equipment spending, and a 57% drop (on 2009) in Software purchases, although here there was a rise of 15.3% y/y in 2012. Total Capital spending on R&D by firms with more than 50 employees declined 65.8% on 2009 in 2012 and there was a drop of 10.8% y/y.

The above is consistent with the view that in 2011/2012 there was re-orientation in expenditure to either reduce labour costs and / or support services-focused sectors, away from traditional R&D spend on equipment, software and IP.

Table below summarises relative allocations to specific lines of expenditure by the types of companies:

For SEs I highlighted in color the areas of strength in the new data (green) and weaknesses (red). As can be clearly seen, Irish smaller enterprises are not at the races when it comes to overall investment and spending relating to R&D activities, with 26.5% of the total nationwide expenditure captured by SEa, although the good news is that this number has risen compared to 2007-2008 period. In particular, weak dynamics are present on the labour costs side. At the same time, Irish small enterprises tend to purchase more IP from outside (97.2% of total expenditure nationwide on IP purchases is by SEs) and  tend to develop less software in-house.

The above results show just how much more needs to be done at the SEs levels to drive forward knowledge intensification of the economy. At the same time, overall headline figure of 1.53% of GNP being spent on R&D related investment and expenditures is also a major, system-wide problem. It is even more egregious when one considers the fact that Ireland is the base for European operations of many major multinationals.

I will be blogging more on the analysis of the 2011/2012 figures in coming days, so stay tuned.

8/11/2012: OECD Internet economy outlook 2012: Part 5 Conclusions

By now, I have posted 4 different posts on the OECD Internet Economy Report 2012 and the implications arising from the OECD data for Ireland. The core points of these posts are:

1. Overall ICT-linked employment in Ireland is declining, not rising, as the share of total employment in 1995-2009, despite the fact that we have experienced a virtual collapse in the traditional sectors activity over the same period of time (Part 1 post);
2. Growth in ICT sector revenues has been below OECD average in Ireland during 2000-2011 period, in contrast to the claimed successes in attracting ICT sector FDI into the country and contradicting the Government claims that Ireland-based ICT suppliers are consistently enhancing the value-added activity here (Part 1 post);
3. In addition, growth rate in the sector revenues in Ireland at roughly half the OECD average rate of growth is coincident with unprecedented growth in expatriated profits by the MNCs and massive in scale tax optimization ongoing within the MNCs component of the ICT economy here. This suggests that actual real activity might be declining, not growing, in Ireland (Part 1 post);
4. ICT investment by asset-type and overall in 2010 in Ireland was exceptionally poor, ranking the country as the 5th from the bottom despite the Government claims that Ireland was the leading destination for attracting FDI in Europe (with FDI into Ireland dominated by ICT services)  (Part 1 post);
5. Business R&D investment in ICT-related areas in Ireland ranked the country in 10th place in the OECD in 2010, once again contrasting the claims by the Government that Ireland is an ICT investment hub  (Part 1 post);
6. Business use of the internet in 2011 sees Ireland ranked 5th from the bottom (Part 4 post) despite having access to a broadband connection above OECD average (Part 4 post);
7. We score rather poorly in terms of our broadband infrastructure quality, penetration (Part 2 post) and poorly (well below average) for broadband access in the most economically developed region of the country (Part 4 post);
8. More significantly, we score poorly in terms of the quality of our human capital when it coms to ICT-enabled economy: less than OECD average is the share of Irish residents who used internet for communicating in 2010; we have the third lowest percentage of internet users who created a web page in 2011; we score at the average in terms of individuals engaging in ordering or purchasing goods or services online in 2011; below OECD average in terms of use of banking services online and close to average use of internet for learning in 2010 (Part 2 post);
9. For the 'smart workforce' claimed, irish share of employed persons at work using an internet-connected computer ranks below EU15 average and Ireland sports average rates of growth in this metric for 2005-2011 period (Part 4 post);
10. Despite having above average proportion of schools with internet connection in 2009, we had well below average usage of these connections, suggesting that our education system is incapable of using modern tools of learning (Part 3 post);
11. Consequently to (9), we have below average percentage of individuals using the internet to obtain information from the public authorities websites in 2011 - the outcome that can be expected in a country where education system is incapable of using web-based platforms (Part 3 post);
12. Ireland scores fifth from the bottom in terms of internet users using P2P file sharing to exchange content in 2011 (Part 3 post);
13. Ireland scores average in internet use by the highest educated segment of its population, below average in internet use by medium-educated households and average in internet use by the low-education households (Part 3 post);
14. Irish businesses have close to average (OECD) percentage of businesses with a website (Part 4 post);
15. Less than EU15, EU27 and OECD average proportion of Irish companies share information electronically externally, and the same holds for companies using automatic data exchange to receive or send e-invoices in 2010-2011 (Part 4 post);
16. We rank 9th in the OECD in the total turnover of companies from e-commerce in 2011 (as % of total turnover) despite the fact that we are clearing huge volumes of transactions for ICT services MNC giants like google, linkedin, etc (Part 4 post);
17. We rank 10th in the OECD in terms of companies selling over the internet in 2011 (Part 4 post)

In brief, Ireland is not an ICT services and culture hub, but at best an average performer in the group of advanced economies.

Furthermore, per OECD data:

So Ireland scores 6th from the bottom in terms of share of ICT specialist users in the total economy back in 2010, with that share growing by lowest percentage of all countries save Greece and Portugal. The outcome is made more egregious to the Government claims of Ireland being a global ICT hub by the fact that between 1995 and 2010 Irish economy has been attracting massive inflows of FDI in the sector.

The OECD report is extremely disturbing in terms of the picture it paints of Irish internet-based economy and flies in the face of a number of traditional assertions about Ireland as the global ICT hub made by the Government, IDA and Enterprise Ireland, as well as our business lobby and quangoes.

5/11/2012: OECD Internet economy outlook 2012: part 4

This is the fourth note on the OECD Internet economy report 2012 (part 1, part 2 and part 3 are linked here).

We hear much about the vast gap between Dublin and the rest of the country in digital economy. Usually this refers to the disparity of access. Yet, as the following illustrates, even the 'advantaged' Dublin scores poorly compared to its peers (other capital regionas) in the OECD:

For example, Dublin and Southern and Eastern region are worse than Scotland - the lowest scoring region in the UK. Too bad the folks at the WebSummit and other prime events in digital economy world converging onto Dublin have no clue just how poor we really are in terms of enabling and deploying ICT services-based economy. May be some of them will read these posts or the OECD document before they start extolling the virtues of Irish 'digital' economy.

But enough about the households. What about pioneering, innovative, R&D intensive, knowledge economy business environment here? After all, as I said earlier, ireland is home to so many MNCs in the sector and so one should expect business use of the web to be high...

Oops.. I thought we have hugely innovative start ups and MNCs popping up on every corner... After all, IDA and EI brochures are full of their smiling faces and sunny stories.

And usage is, as with schools, vastly lower than access:

Now, unimpressive record on the share of employees connected to the web and using it...

Equally interesting fact revealed by the above chart is that there is no impressive growth in this metric in 2005-2011 period, despite the fact that overall share should have risen dramatically due to obliteration of jobs in less computer- and web-enabled sectors such as basic consumer services and construction. In other words, the above chart shows conclusively that Irish economy is not becoming more knowledge-intensive even after jobs destruction wave sweeping traditional sectors.

The same ic confirmed by a different metric:

Remember the malarky about MNCs operations in Ireland being of great benefit to 'clustering' and 'spill-over of skills and know-how' to the broader economy? Why, it seems to be pretty much a lie too:

Per chart above, Ireland scores relatively well on internally shared systems and rather poorly on externally shared ones. In other words, if MNCs are creating knowledge and transfers here, they are more likely to keep them to themselves than to allow them to 'spill-over' to outside their own offices.

Ireland-based businesses are not even any good at invoicing via the web:

Of course, the headline figures on earnings generated via e-commerce are high, but these are grossly skewed by MNCs (e.g. google et al):

How I know that? Because the actual usage of e-based sales is poor in Ireland:

So revenue generation ranking above is skewed heavily by few businesses carrying out huge transactions volumes, not by broad reach of e-commerce.

And the same applies to ICT business spending on R&D:

Once again, more on the topic in the next post.

5/11/2012: OECD Internet economy outlook 2012: part 3

In part 1 and part 2 earlier I took a look at some stats coming from the OECD report published today and positioning Irish internet economy overall at the very best at-or-below the OECD average across e-business, connectivity and social use.

Let's continue wading through the massive report (linked in the first post above).

An interesting chart below:

This shows that Ireland overall scores relatively well in terms of schools access to the web - at least we are above the OECD average. But usage of this access is... well - well below the OECD average ranks Ireland closer to 7th from the bottom. So having access (public spending) is not equivalent to quality of use. In fact, ireland has the 5th largest gap in usage relative to access in the OECD.

Irish Government is equally poor at providing useful and user-friendly access to information on the web, on par with our sub-average performance in other ICT-enabled services:

Which is in line with general lack of transparency and engagement with services users on behalf of our State, where fixing potholes still requires a phone call to a local TDs, rather than a more modern and less corrupting approach of simply requesting a service from responsible authorities.

Back to utilization of basic ICT services:

No comment necessary.

And usability by our remarkably highly educated workforce? Why, average, again:

Remember, it's the workforce marvel that attracts MNCs into Ireland - the workforce where even highly educated don't really use the web, and where education system doesn't encourage use of the web in schools, and where stats for P2P file sharing, use in continued education, basic webpage publishing etc are all abysmally poor.

Never mind... just read an IDA brochure and believe!..

5/11/2012: OECD Internet economy outlook 2012: part 2

Here comes the second post on OECD Internet Economy Outlook 2012 report (first in the series was here), focusing on Ireland and the mythology of our 'global ICT services hub'.

So wading deeper into the OECD report, take a look at this chart:

Ireland hardly can boast of an advanced fibre infrastructure that would be consistent with real ICT economy, especially ICT services economy. Per OECD: "Fibre-based broadband connections offer the fastest data transfers..." Now, in many countries, deployment of fibre broadband is lower due to home ownership rates being lower (people tend to invest less in a fixed connection quality when they rent, other things held constant). In Ireland, abysmally low fibre coverage is coincident with very high home ownership rates.

Next up, given lack of fibre coverage, you'd think we should lead the world in overall penetration of the substitutes (e.g. wireless), although, of course, fixed fibre and wireless can be complementary to each other (e.g. fixed line at home, mobile on the go). Alas, not really:

And subsequently, the gap between broadband connections and overall internet connections in Ireland is high by comparative standards:

In fact, we are below both EU27 and OECD average on broadband coverage per above chart.

Next up: the world of data is becoming portable. And in particular it is becoming portably mobile - in other words, more and more access to data is now taking place via mobile devices, rather than portable computers... And in Ireland?

Despite all the talk about the new generation of mobile users, etc, Irish 'younger and more educated workforce' seems to be not using mobile devices.

Having netted into Ireland all flagships of ICT web communications services providers and having established ourselves as social networking capital of Europe, we show neither a dramatic rate of coverage for internet communications, nor a dramatic rate of growth from 2007 through 2011 in this category:

In fact, per OECD data, we have fewer internet users engaging in social networking than Greece, Portugal, Poland, Slovakia and Hungary (overall, we rank 12th in the group of 24 countries in terms of this parameter).

And we are not exactly content-creative either:

E-commerce is absolutely average in its reach in Ireland too and is growing relatively slowly:

As is internet-based learning:

Do note that e-learning is associated strongly with continued or life-long education, so the above suggests we tend not to upskill much via continued education once we get our degrees. Not exactly a badge of honour.

More on this in the third post.

5/11/2012: OECD Internet economy outlook 2012: part 1

Quite an interesting chart from OECD on Ireland and its peers in terms of the spread / reach of the ICT economy. Now, keeping in mind that Ireland is, allegedly, a 'knowledge-based economy' with prime talent in ICT services, attracting huge share of global ICT services firms, etc... why is, then

Or put in words, why is Ireland is one of only 3 countries with shrinking, not growing proportion of workforce engaged in ICT sector?

Per OECD report (link here), Ireland had 3 firms represented in top 250 ICT firms globally, same as, for example South Africa (which is not calling itself a 'global ICT hub' last time I checked). Nonetheless, Ireland's count is large for our relative size. Alas, in 2000 total revenue of ICT firms in Ireland was estimated at USD29.04bn and that rose to USD42.8bn in 2011 - a rise of 47.4% or a growth rate of 3.6% annually. Not spectacular, considering worldwide sector revenue grew 108% over the same period of time expanding at an average annual rate of 6.9% per annum. In other words, Ireland's ICT 'global hub' managed to grow at slightly above 1/2 the global rate of growth.

Just when you thought things couldn't get much worse. Net revenues of the ICT sector in Ireland amounted to USD3.871 billion in 2000. You would expect this to rise dramatically by 2011, especially since globally net revenues grew 127% over 2000-2011 period. But no: Irish ICT sector net revenues have actually fallen USD3.444 billion in 2011.

Now, wait: gross revenues of ICT sector in Ireland underperformed global growth rates by a factor of almost two, while net revenues have shrunk. This hardly constitutes some huge success in attracting ICT FDI and creating a global ICT services hub.

Now, chart below shows just how much of a 'leading' light our FDI magnet in ICT sector really is:

Good news is that "On average, 20% of total BERD investment is focused on the ICT sector. But the data show very large differences across countries. In 2010, ICT BERD accounted for more than a half of total business R&D expenditure in Chinese Taipei, Greece, Finland and Korea. It accounted for more than 30% in Estonia (30%), Ireland (32%), Singapore (36%) and the United States (33%)." The problem, however, is that Ireland has one of the lowest BERD investment overall in the OECD economies, so 32% of a small number can be less than 16% of a larger one...

So here's the outcome:

I will continue blogging on the OECD report tonight, so stay tuned.

28/12/2011: Brain-drain & IRL's knowledge economy

When Government policy-supported brain-drain is compounded by heavily subsidised 3rd level education system, Ireland risks turning into a third world-styled resources supplier to our more dynamic trading partners:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1228/1224309553505.html

HT to @dalkeyhead

That's the 'Knowledge Economy' in the absence of real jobs creation: taxpayers pay for knowledge, private holders of knowledge emigrate to earn private returns, taxpayers pay for more 'Knowledge Economy' boffins and pamphlets... but do not worry - 20 years from now, the IDA will have plenty of new ex-Irish execs in UK, US, Australia, Canada, etc to beg for FDI.

11/08/2011: Another 'black eye' for services supporting our 'knowledge economy'

Here's a disturbing story (hat tip to @BriMcS via Twitter) about the trials and tribulations of the Irish 'knowledge economy' arising from the traditional sectors market structure.

I wrote before about the abysmal quality of water supply - a key infrastructure input into 'knowledge economy' both in terms of pharma and biotech sectors, but also in terms of quality of life considerations that impact decisions by highly mobile and highly skilled 'knowledge'-intensive sectors workers to locate in the country.

I also wrote before about the poverty of Irish electricity supply (in terms of low quality and high cost) with ESB (state-owned dominant electricity market player) and Irish Regulator presiding over the generation and supply systems that routinely lead to electricity supply warnings in Trinity College, Dublin (Dublin city centre).

Here is another episode, this time directly impacting our Ireland-based 'knowledge economy' giants - Amazon and Microsoft:

• The report of a 5-hour long (!) interruption of energy supply to Amazon and Microsoft’s cloud computing services based at Citywest (full report here). let me make 2 comments on this. Firstly, cloud computing services are targeted by the Irish Government for flagship development in Ireland, with hopes that cloud computing clusters can be created here by attracting foreign MNCs and building on their platforms domestic expertise and entrepreneurship. Secondly, the uo to 5 hours disruption was reported originally by the ESB Networks as a 1 hour disruption, which begs a question - does the industrial behemoth have a capacity to even accurately time in real time the extent of disruption to its services. Even a taxi company would be able to tell if their customers couldn't get their services for 1 hour or 5 hours.
• Additional report (see here) cites another incident whereby on the same day another "knowledge economy" centre experienced "a voltage dip which lasted for less than one second".
  

The report above also cites Marguerite Sayers, Head of Asset Management at ESB Networks saying (emphasis is mine): “I can certainly confirm that this was an unexpected fault situation, with absolutely no advance warning, which did result in a voltage dip for many customers, in addition to supply loss for approximately 100 customers.” Which makes me wonder - does Irish ESB categorize fault situations into

1. "Unexpected" as in the ones they cannot do anything about even in theory, and
2. "Expected" as in the ones that can be prevented?

If so, how can a faul that is expected take place? By failure to prevent that which is preventable?

All of this is academic, of course. The hard fact is that while incidents do occur, there is something inherently incongruous in having an economic development policy that focuses on building 'knowledge economy' while retaining the market structure that cannot even assure basic quality of supply of energy and water to both residential and industrial users.

4/02/2011: Another glitch in our 'knowledge' economy?

Anyone reading this blog more than once or twice would know by now - I've got plenty of deficit cutting credentials. But sometimes, the absurdity of cuts and associated policies can get even to a hawk like myself. So here we go, again.

Here's an extract from the HEA to administrators and heads of schools in Irish Universities, dated, per my source, from January 19th last:

"As you are aware the Employment Control Framework for the higher education sector expired on the 31st December 2010. A revised framework for the sector, which will operate until 31 December 2014, is currently being drafted. Some further reductions in the number of posts that may be filled will be required under the new Framework. We will inform you as soon as possible of the revised reduced targets for your institution.

Pending finalisation of the revised Framework I wish to advise that all proposals for recruitment of staff, both contract and permanent and regardless of source of funding (core grant, research grant or non-exchequer), must be submitted in advance to the HEA."

Ok, so HEA are requiring explicit approval for all hires. sounds reasonable? Sure, if we are talking about the normal course of business. But imagine the following situation:

A researcher gains a very large EU research grant that requires hiring research assistants and post-doctoral researchers. The funds have nothing to do with the Irish Exchequer deficit. The job is specified and milestones are set in... err... kind of set in stone. But HEA approval requires time - as I've heard, up to 3-6 months. Now, imagine the researcher blowing through the milestones and losing a grant. Some savings to the Exchequer? Nope - actually - a loss. Exchequer loses income tax from the hires who never materialized, from the purchasing done for the purpose of research and so on.

And there's an added danger - if such uncertainty is present in the market for new researchers and promotion, the brighter academics might discount Ireland as a good research location. After all, academic market is truly global, folks.

Is that a serious problem? Yes, a number of researchers I have heard of are currently in this predicament with one being just a few days from giving an offer to a junior research staff.

Now imagine another scenario - also, per my sources close to playing out. A major corporation decides to provide a grant to an Irish University for research. The grant stipulates hiring certain number of researchers and other staff. Oops... the letter goes out to the corporate headquarters, saying that HEA approval is needed. What's the likelihood that the grant is going to travel to the UK? Or another jurisdiction, where fiscal cuts might be in place, but policymakers have some finesse to understand that when the money comes from outside the state coffers, hiring decisions should be made by those managing these funds...

What beats me is why can't the Exchequer simply allocate funds to universities and let the academic and administrative staff manage these funds in line with each university/school/department own objectives? Why is there such a need to micromanage fiscal adjustments.

Oh, and while we are at it, here's another question. If we stop renewing and issuing new contracts for post-docs, how fast will the reality of unemployed phds arrive to our shores? And what will happen to our knowledge economy's grand plan for doubling phds output?..

Economics 5/8/10: Good news - we might be 'one-off' broke?

Good morning, folks. As a day starter, please take a note: We are bust! Yesterday’s Exchequer returns are a worthy reading on the theme of the day and hence I am writing a third post on the subject. Let me recap where we are at:

Tax receipts are now under €17.2bn cumulative for the first seven months of the year. As far as our ‘ever optimistic’ official analysts go, things are going on swimmingly. But in reality, we are on track to meet my December 2009 forecast for a shortfall of €500-700mln on the year. And that despite the fact that Ireland has ‘turned the corner’ on growth – highlighting the fact that the read through from GDP to tax revenue is not a straight forward thing. Of course, most of the shortfall is due to our real economic activity – as measured by GNP – is still tanking.

So relative to profile, here’s the picture:Good news on expenditure – overall voted expenditure was 2.6% below anticipated for the period to July. But this ‘achievement’ was driven solely by the cuts to capital spending. Thus, net voted capital expenditure for the first seven months of the year now stands at €2.2bn – full €660mln (-23%) below target. Net voted current expenditure is so far on target, while national debt is costing us slightly less (-€213mln) than DofF anticipated.

So overall, we are on track to deliver the Exchequer deficit of ca €19bn in 2010, close to the target €18.78bn, as capital spending accelerates in H2 2010. But we won’t reach the overall target to GDP. Most likely, we are going to see a 12% deficit to GDP ratio.

And this does not include the full extent of funding for Anglo and INBS. Brian Lenihan has already committed the state to supply €22bn to Anglo alone, of which €14.2bn was already allocated, but only ca €4bn went on the Exchequer accounts. Of the still outstanding €7.8bn, the question is how much of this amount is going to be directly shouldered by official deficit figures. The second question is – will €22bn cover Anglo demand for capital post Nama Tranches II and III transfers – recall that Anglo is yet to move loans for Tranche II. The third question now relates to AIB – given its interim result announced yesterday, one has to wonder if the bank will need more capital. What is beyond question now is that the State will be standing buy with a cheque book ready, should AIB ask for cash.

All in, Ireland Inc’s sovereign accounts this year are likely to come out with a 20% plus deficit relative to GDP. That’s a massive number implying that over a quarter of domestic economy will be accounted for by the shortfall in public finances. Our debt can easily reach over 87% of GDP and close to 110% of GNP (and that’s just including the full Anglo amount of €22bn and excluding Nama and the rest of recapitalizations liabilities).

Scary thought. But don’t worry – the Government will come out to say that it was all due to one-off measures. One-off in 2008, 2009, 2010, and one can rationally expect 2011 and even possibly 2012. By which time Nama liabilities will begin to unwind… serializing the one-offs into the future.

Economics 4/8/10:Exchequer July receipts

Note: Corrected version - hat tip to Seamus Coffey!

As promised in the previous post (which focused on the Exchequer balance, here), the present post will be focusing on actual tax receipts.

I have resisted for some time the idea that Budget 2010 targets are somehow analytically important. Hence, you will not find targets-linked analysis here. But the main tax heads - their comparative dynamics over 2008-2010 to date are below.

First, take a look at the actual cumulative to date levels.Overall tax receipts are now running below 2009 numbers, and are still way off 2008 numbers (off €1,536mln on 2009 and €5,520mln on 2008). This means we are now 8.22% below 2009 and 24.35% on 2008.

Two largest contributors to the receipts are Vat and Income Tax:Vat is now €483mln below 2009, and still €2,453mln behind 2008, which means we are now 6.9% down on 2009 and 27.5% behind 2008. One wonders how much of this Vat intake in 2010 is due to automotive sales increases driven (as I explained in earlier posts) predominantly by the 'vanity plates' with '10' on them. Income tax shows a similar pattern: down €537mln on 2009 (-8.45%) and €1,060 on 2009 (-15.4%).

Corporate tax and Excise are the next largest categories.Cumulative year to date, corporate tax receipts are performing weaker than in 2009 (-€260mln and -13.8%) and ahead of 2008 (+€192mln and 13.4%), but this is due to timing issues and financial markets recoveries in H1 2010. Excise taxes are still under-performing: down €87mln on 2009 (-3.37%) and €773mln (-23.7%) on 2008.

Stamps
Transactions taxes are not faring well. Stamps are down €75mln on 2009 (-18.3%) and down €808mln on 2008 (-70.7%).

Surprise surprise, Capital Gains Tax is singing similar song:
So CGT is down €89mln (-44.3%) on 2009 - despite being beefed up by bull markets in financial assets, and is down €544mln (-83%) on 2008.

Year on year changes show stabilisation around 2009 levels.
Usually, the Exchequer returns publications now days provoke a roaring applause from our banks and other 'independent' analysts and the remarks about 'turning a corner'. This time - no difference. Nope, folks - let me stress - there is not even a stabilization around horrific results for 2009. Exchequer revenues are heading south. We haven't gotten anywhere close to resolving the crisis.

But let me show you what this bottom will look like, once we are there.
It is a horrific place in which personal income and consumption-related taxes bear roughly 75.2% of all tax burden (up from 62.5% in 2008 and 68.6% in 2009). Meanwhile, physical capital taxes contribution to the budget have shrunk from 14.7% in 2008 to 9% in 2009 and 4.2% in 2010. Corporate tax, despite the robust performance now contributes only 9.5% of total tax receipts down from 2009 level of 12.4% and 2008 level of 13.5%.

In other words, those who benefit less of all demographic and economic groups, from public services - the upper middle classes - are now paying more than 50% of the total tax receipts bill. This, in the words of some of our illustrious guardians of social justice is called 'protecting the poor'. In other times, in other lands, it was also called 'taxation without representation'.

I would rather call it a tax on human capital - the very core input into 'knowledge economy' that we need to get us out of the long term economic depression.

Economics 19/7/10: Urban growth, education & knowledge intensive services - part 2

In the previous post (here) on the issues of growth, education and knowledge intensive sectors, I showed that

• There is a strong positive resilience in income per capita levels across urban economies, with almost 94% of variation in income per capita in 2007 being associated with the variation in income per capita found in 1999. This strong persistency in GDP levels over time implies there is only a weak (but positive) relationship between the past and the future growth rates.
• Data also shows that there is a weak positive relationship between long term growth in education and long term growth in income per capita. Growth in education between 1999 and 2007 was able to explain just 0.54% of the overall variation in growth in income per capita across various regions.
• However, over time, the relationship between the levels of education of the workforce and the levels income per capita is becoming stronger both in terms of education impact and the overall explanatory power as to the direct positive correlation between education and income. By 2007 over 14.5% of variation in income per capita across major urban regions was explained by variations in education, up from 7.3% in 1999. If in 1999 1% increase in the proportion of population with 3rd level education was associated with a USD336.53 increase in income per capita (PPP-adjusted), by 2007 this effect rose to USD730.92.
• Lagged period education levels were shown to be a better determinant of income per capita than contemporaneous levels of education, which suggests that causality flows from education to growth, rather than the other way around.
  

Chart 7 below explores the relationship between the levels of education in the labour force and two core higher value added sectors of economy: high tech manufacturing (HTM) and knowledge intensive services (KIS).

Chart 7
Consider the blue and the red lines. More educated workforce, it seems, is negatively correlated with high tech manufacturing role in the economy. And this correlation is becoming more negative over time (with lags). In other words, an urban centre that started with highly educated workforce in 1999 is more likely to see declining share of its economic activity accruing to HTM in 2007.

This can be related to the changes in manufacturing that took place over the last two decades, with manufacturing in general becoming increasingly more capital intensive. It is also likely to be due to the fact that with greater outsourcing of core activities and greater offshoring of manufacturing, much of higher value added activities related to high tech manufacturing, such as design and development, and marketing of new products, is now classed separately as services, and geographically removed from manufacturing activities, despite being physically embodied in the value of manufactured goods.

The opposite is true of the relationship between education levels of the workforce and knowledge intensive services role in the economy, although the positive correlation here is not becoming stronger over time (orange and green lines).

Knowledge economics – at least as proxied by education levels – is about the positive role of education in services, but it is not about the links between high-tech manufacturing and education. The dumber is your workforce (in extremely simplistic terms), the higher will be the importance of HTM to your economy… or so it appears…

Chart 8
A look at contemporaneous data reported in the chart above also confirms the previous chart 7 conclusions.

What is even more interesting here are the slopes of the two relationships.

First, the negative correlation between the degree of workforce education and high-tech manufacturing (HTM) had become more negative, from -0.1032 in 1999 to -0.1633 in 2007, while the overall relationship has strengthened (R2 = 0.0836 back in 1999 to R2=0.2341 in 2007).

This relationship is very robust and shows relatively less dispersion in the data than the relationship between education and knowledge intensive sectors.

Second, the slope of the positive relationship between the degree of workforce education and knowledge intensive sectors (KIS) has become weaker over time (from 0.5961, R2 = 0.3104 to 0.3877, R2 = 0.1396).

This result is surprising. Are we hitting diminishing returns to education in terms of increasing importance of KIS in the economy? Or are we simply at the flatter end of asymptotic KIS growth curve with much of knowledge economy already in place so that new education yields lower marginal returns? Alternatively, this might suggest that education is an imperfect instrument for skills and talent and that today, skills and talent gained outside formal classrooms matter more than before.

Finally, it is also worth noting that KIS results are significantly impacted by three observations which tend to drag the slope of the relationship down somewhat. The three, however, do not appear to represent statistically significant outliers.

Another striking relationship is shown in chart 9 below. Greater importance of high-tech manufacturing in the economy is associated with lower GDP per capita, and this negative relationship is strengthening over time, both in the explanatory power and in the size of overall negative effect. This again illustrates, most likely, the growth in capital-intensity of high tech manufacturing and disembodiment of the services-related components of high-tech manufacturing (such as R&D etc).

Chart 9
Lags in data confirm the above conclusion.

Chart 10
Chart 10 shows that identical conclusions to those presented in Chart 9 are warranted when we look at the lagged structure of economy with respect to high-tech manufacturing role in overall economic activity, so that regions that started (back in 1999) with greater share of HTM in overall economy tended to have lower GDP per capita 9 years later.

Lastly, unlike High-Tech Manufacturing, Knowledge Intensive Services are strongly positively correlated with GDP per capita, as shown in chart 11 below. This relationship is true for contemporaneous correlations and for the lagged one. And it is increasing in strength (slopes) over time, as well as in statistical significance. Furthermore, between 1999 and 2007 there has been an acceleration in the strengthening of the relationship. Finally, it is worth noting that lagged role of KIS in economy is almost as strong as 2007 contemporaneous relationship, suggesting that there is significant persistence in the positive effect that KIS have on overall income per capita.

Chart 11.


So let me summarize the main results:

1. There is a weak positive relationship between long term growth in education and long term growth in income per capita between 1999 and 2007 across various regions.
2. Over time, the relationship between the levels of education of the workforce and the levels income per capita is becoming stronger both in terms of education impact and the overall explanatory power as to the direct positive correlation between education and income
3. Lagged levels of education are a better determinant of income per capita than contemporaneous levels of education, which suggests that causality flows from education to growth, rather than the other way around.
4. More educated workforce is negatively correlated with the importance of high tech manufacturing in the economy. This correlation is becoming more negative over time (with lags).
5. The relationship between education levels of the workforce and the importance of the knowledge intensive services role in the economy is positive. This positive correlation is not increasing over time.
6. Overall, knowledge economy – as far as it is captured by third level education – is positively linked to services, and negatively linked to high-tech manufacturing.
7. The negative correlation between the degree of workforce education and the extent of the high-tech manufacturing (HTM) in overall economy had become even more negative between 1999 and 2007.
8. The positive relationship between the degree of workforce education and knowledge intensive sectors (KIS) has become weaker over 1999-2007 period.
9. Greater importance of high-tech manufacturing in the economy is associated with lower GDP per capita, and this negative relationship is strengthening over time, both in the explanatory power and in the size of overall negative effect.
10. Regions that started (back in 1999) with greater share of HTM in overall economy tended to have lower GDP per capita 9 years later.
11. Knowledge Intensive Services are strongly positively correlated with GDP per capita. This relationship is true for contemporaneous correlations and for the lagged one.
12. The positive correlation between income and KIS is increasing in strength (slopes) over time, as well as in statistical significance.

Note: you won’t be able to read this anywhere else – the two blog posts on urban economies, knowledge, education and the roles of high tech manufacturing and knowledge intensive services is an exclusive, just for the readers of this blog…