18/2/2014: Wither Irish manufacturing? Not so fast! Sunday Times, February 2

This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times  column from February 2, 2014


The news flow was mixed in recent days when it comes to covering Irish economy.

After a massive boost of consumer confidence and a maelstrom of media spin extolling the expected rebound in Christmas season sales, December retail sector statistics came in as a disappointment. Over the entire Q4 2013, core retail sales (excluding motors) were up just 1.1 percent year on year in terms of volume and down 0.5 percent in value. Profit margins in services sectors have shrunk once again in the third quarter and with them, non-financial services sectors activity also slumped in the five months through November 2013.

One bright spot, however, was the return to growth in industrial production. Based on 5 months data through November, in the second half of 2013 industrial output was up 1.2 percent year on year in Traditional sectors and up 3.3 percent in Modern sectors.


This latter bit of news highlights the potential for the sector to play a more active role in delivering long-term source of growth in Irish economy.

Over the second half of 2013, using data through November, Irish manufacturing activity rose 3 percent in volume and 0.1 percent in turnover terms. The improvement in output was largely driven by the MNCs-dominated modern sectors. However, it was also supported by positive performance in domestic sectors, such as food, basic and fabricated metals, and capital and core consumer goods. All in, H2 2013 marked a positive break in the previously negative trend across a number of manufacturing sectors. And this change was even more substantial when one takes out downward pressures exerted on the 2011-2013 figures by the pharmaceuticals, where patents cliff continues to cut into output and revenues of major MNCs operating from Ireland.

Adding to good news, capital goods sectors growth signaled the restart in domestic and international investment cycle. And this confirmed the earlier data on capital acquisitions in the industry.

The latest data is now starting to feed through to official forecasts. This week, the Central Bank upgraded 2014 and 2015 outlook for Irish economy. Specifically, the Central Bank is now projecting investment growth of 8.9 percent in 2014 against 0.1% estimated growth in 2013. Crucially, investment in machinery and equipment, having declined 10 percent in 2013 is now forecast to rise 7 percent in 2014.


The news of the quiet out-of-media-sight stabilisation in the Irish manufacturing is welcome because our exports and economy at large are still heavily dependent on industrial and manufacturing sectors activity.  This news is also positive because manufacturing sectors are responsible for high quality jobs creation and hold a significant potential for Ireland in developing a long-term sustainable economic growth model in the future.  In 2013, weekly earnings in industry were the third highest of all private sectors in Ireland and carried a premium of 33 percent on average private sector earnings.

Beyond the above reasons, there are two basic arguments as to why the latest manufacturing trends are encouraging in the context of sustainable economic development.

The first one is a push-factor, driving Ireland in the direction of the new manufacturing.

Worldwide, we are witnessing a new trend in manufacturing. In the commoditised manufacturing geared toward mass-market supply, global supply chains continue to drive down margins and costs, necessitating ever-increasing degree of automation and labour cost reductions. This trend covers a wide range of goods, such as generic consumer goods and intermediate goods production, ranging from textiles and clothing, to consumer electronics, and basic materials industries. Here, robots are increasingly displacing workers. For example, the McKinsey Global Institute study published this month projects that by 2025 up to 25 percent of the tasks performed by industrial workers in developed countries and up to 15 percent in developing countries will be at a risk of replacement by automated systems.

Meanwhile, highly specialist, customised manufacturing, where the businesses processes are dominated by user-unique design and/or proximity to customers, are seeing development costs and time-to-build lags becoming the main points of competition between producers. Actual production in these sectors is based on high precision and skills flexibility and these drivers are pushing for on-shoring of these sectors to the economies with requisite skills and talent infrastructure. The examples of such manufacturing sub-sectors are also numerous, spanning customised precision equipment manufacturing, professional equipment design and production, medical devices, customised medical equipment, individualised or specialist medicines, technology-intensive and complex machinery, but also high value-added consumer goods. Ireland has some limited experience in this area, with companies such as Mincon and Mainstay Medical, Outsource Technical Concepts and others. And we are witnessing growth in design-rich consumer goods areas, such as homewares, personal accessories and higher value-added foods.

I covered these trends in my recent presentation at the TEDxDublin in September 2013 and over the last three months, major consultancies, such as McKinsey and the Institute for Business Value, IBM have written on the topic.


The second factor is the pull-factor of the opportunities presented by new manufacturing.

The crucial point for Ireland is that this trend offers smaller economies a comparative advantage over larger manufacturing centres, as long as the smaller economies can create, attract, retain and enable core human capital.

The competitive advantage of skills-intensive manufacturing is anchored to traditions of high quality specialist production in the country, and to the innovative and entrepreneurial capacity of the economies. Here, examples of Switzerland, Northern Italy, Germany, Holland, Sweden, Denmark and Finland offer a significant promise for countries like Ireland.

In fact, our immediate neighbours industrial policy platform is now firmly focused on enhancing the connection between industrial design, consumer innovation and manufacturing. This is well-anchored in the UK’s Design Council initiatives and in the Government programmes aiming to systemically increase the role of industrial design in the UK manufacturing. Most recently, Government report “Future of manufacturing: a new era of opportunity and challenge for the UK”, published in October 2013 stresses the importance of merging skills, design and technological innovation in driving the future industrial policy in the UK.


To deliver on this potential, our industrial policy needs to be enhanced further to stimulate growth in entrepreneurship in manufacturing. We also need policies that more closely align product, process and design innovation and R&D, especially within indigenous and traditional sectors.

Skills training in manufacturing should be boosted via a targeted apprenticeship programme that develops key expertise and provides support for training both in Ireland and abroad. Our supports for development of manufacturing clusters in traditional industries need to become more pro-active, providing shared sales and marketing platforms for smaller producers.

We can start by consolidating various promotional agencies under the cover of Enterprise Ireland in order to reduce trade and investment facilitation bureaucracy, while increasing resources available on the ground in the foreign markets. Aligning Enterprise Ireland’s pay and promotion systems with tangible longer-term outcomes for indigenous entrepreneurs and exporters should be considered. The overall thrust of reforms should be on reducing duplication and complexity of the system.

Recent report by the Entrepreneurship Forum, published earlier this month outlined a number of measures aimed at helping the unemployed and underemployed to transition into entrepreneurship. These include reducing the eligibility period for the Back to Work Enterprise allowances and creating an entrepreneurship internship programmes. Beyond this, focused incubation and co-working centres targeting manufacturing entrepreneurs can help develop new capabilities and generate new startups. Aligning these programmes with vertical market access accelerators set up in key cities can help enhancing growth potential of indigenous high value-added entrepreneurship. The above programmes can also stimulate inflow of key talent into the country from abroad, including entrepreneurial talent. One of the core benefits of high value-added manufacturing is that the jobs created and capital investment made in this sector are much better anchored in the economy than comparable outlays undertaken in services sectors.

To simultaneously enhance incentives to undertake entrepreneurial activities and to invest time, effort, talent and funding in such activities, employee stock ownership should be encouraged. Over the recent years, this column has repeatedly argued for a reform of tax codes applying to employee share ownership in startups and SMEs. The Entrepreneurship Forum report echoed these ideas.

Driving growth across the design-rich and R&D-intensive manufacturing will also require managerial talent. Looking across the sectors, Irish management skills are the strongest in the externally trading traditional industries, such as food, beverages, and building and construction services. Here, the pressures of global competition, coupled with the acute need to build exports bases have driven management to adopt lean and effective M&A and organic growth models. Management track record of companies such as CRH, Glanbia, Kerry Group and Ryanair presents the best practices in their sectors that can and should be brought to enterprises in much earlier stages of development.


The encouraging signals from Irish manufacturing suggest that we can put our indigenous economy on an evolutionary path toward ever-increasing reliance on radical technological innovation, design and creativity. This path is closely aligned with the need to develop new models of entrepreneurship that combine disruptive technologies with cultural, managerial and skills-rich talent. The key to success here will be in developing greater agility and flexibility of all systems: from crowdsourcing networks for new product development, to training and education, to data analytics for gauging new demand and to new market access platforms.

Box-out:

This Monday, in its monthly report, Germany's Bundesbank stated that in future crises, countries requiring international assistance should first impose a one-off capital tax on net assets of its own citizens, before any international assistance can be extended to them. In the view of the Bundesbank, a capital tax reflects the principle that "tax payers are responsible for their government's obligations before solidarity of other states is required". These latest musings about the need for a capital or wealth tax come on foot of October 2013 IMF report that estimated that reducing euro area's debt levels to 2007 levels will require a 10 percent tax on net wealth of the euro area residents. Neither the IMF, nor Bundesbank identify explicitly specific assets to which the tax should apply. Alas, past experience with Cyprus suggests that such a tax will most likely take the form of a levy on household deposits. Logically, all other assets held by the households are already either heavily taxed, or illiquid. Property taxes are in place in majority of countries and it is hard to imagine every household being able to come up with cash to cover 10 percent levy on their assets values without being forced to sell their homes. Equity and investment funds are de facto illiquid, as a large scale sell-off of these assets in a distressed economy will trigger a crisis hardly any better than the one the levy will be trying to cure. Business equity is notoriously illiquid. Which leaves deposits as the only readily available cash sitting on captive banks balancesheets. In short, Bundesbank and the IMF might be talking about 'capital levies' and solidarity, but all they really mean are deposits bail-ins and loading pain onto taxpayers. That's one way to underwrite inherently faulty and unstable common currency zone.

26/12/2013: Don't Bank on the Banking Union: Sunday Times, December 15

This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times column from December 15, 2013.


Over the last week, domestic news horizon was flooded by the warm sunshine of Ireland's exit from the Bailout. And, given the rest of the Euro area periphery performance to-date, the kindness of strangers was deserved.
Spain is also exiting a bailout, and the country is out of the recession, officially, like us. But it took a much smaller, banks-only, assistance package. And, being a ‘bad boy’ in the proverbial classroom, it talked back at the Troika and played some populist tunes of defiance. Portugal is out of the official recession, but the country is scheduled to exit its bailout only in mid-2014, having gone into it after Ireland. No glory for those coming second. Greece and Cyprus are at the bottom of the Depression canyon, with little change to their misery.

In short, Ireland deserves a pat on the back for not being the worst basket case of the already rotten lot. And for not rocking the boat. Irish Government talks tough at home, but it is largely clawless vis-à-vis the Troika. Our only moments of defiance in dealing with the bailout came whenever we were asked to implement reforms threatening powerful domestic interests, such as protected sectors and professions.

However, with all the celebratory speeches and toasts around, two matters are worth considering within the broader context of this week's events. The first one is the road travelled. The second is the road that awaits us ahead. Both will shape the risks we are likely to face in the medium-term future.


The road that led us to this week's events was an arduous one. Pressured by the twin and interconnected crises - the implosion of our banking sector and the collapse of our domestic economy - we fell into the bailout having burnt through tens of billions of State reserves and having exhausted our borrowing capacity. The crater left behind by the collapsing economy was deep: from 2008 through today, Irish GDP per capita shrunk 16.7 percent, making our recession second deepest in the euro area after Greece. This collapse would have been more benign were it not for the banking crisis. In the context of us exiting the bailout, the lesson to be learned is that the twin banking and growth crises require more resources than even a fiscally healthy state can afford. Today, unlike in 2008, we have no spare resources left to deal with the risk of the adverse twin growth and banking shocks.

Yet, forward outlook for Ireland suggests that such shocks are receding, but remain material.

Our economic recovery is still fragile and subject to adverse risks present domestically and abroad. On domestic side, growth in consumer demand and private investment is lacking. Deleveraging of households and businesses is still ongoing. Constrained credit supply is yet to be addressed. This process can take years, as the banks face shallower demand for loans from lower risk borrowers and sharply higher demand for loans from risky businesses. On top of this, banks are deleveraging their own balance sheets. In general, Irish companies are more dependent on banks credit than their euro area competitors. Absent credit growth, there will be no sustained growth in this economy. Meanwhile, structural reforms are years away from yielding tangible benefits. This is primarily due to the fact that we are yet to adopt such reforms, having spent the last five years in continued avoidance of the problems in the state-controlled and protected domestic sectors.

On the Government side, Budgets 2015 and 2016 will likely require additional, new revenue and cost containment measures. Post 2016, we will face the dilemma of compensating for the unwinding of the Haddington Road Agreement on wages inflation moderation in the public sector and hiring freezes.
To-date, Irish economy was kept afloat by the externally trading services exporters, or put in more simple terms - web-based multinationals. Manufacturing exports are now shrinking, although much of this shrinkage is driven by one sector: pharmaceuticals.

Meanwhile, the banking sector is still carrying big risks. Heavy problems of non-performing loans on legacy mortgages side, unsecured household credit and non-financial corporates are not about to disappear overnight. Even if banks comply with the Central Bank targets on mortgages arrears resolution, it will take at least 18-24 months for the full extent of losses to become visible. Working these losses off the balance sheets will take even longer.
Overall, even modest growth rates, set out in the budget and Troika projections for 2014-2018, cannot be taken for granted.


This week, the ongoing saga of the emerging European Banking Union made the twin risks to banks and growth ever-more important. The ECOFIN meetings are tasked with shaping the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive, or BRRD. These made it clear that Europe is heading for a banking crisis resolution system based on a well-defined sequencing of measures. First, national resources will be used in the case of any banks' failures, including in systemic crises. These resources include: wiping out equity holders, and imposing partial losses on lenders and depositors. Thereafter, national funds can be used to cover the capital shortfalls and liquidity shortages. Only after these resources are exhausted will the EU funds kick in to cover the residual capital shortfalls. This insurance cover will not be in the form of debt-free cash. Instead, the funding is likely to involve lending to the Government and to the banks under a State guarantee.

When you run through the benchmark levels of capital shocks that could qualify a banking system for the euro-wide resolution funding under the BRRD, it becomes pretty clear that the mechanism is toothless. For example, in the case of our own crisis, haircuts on bondholders under the proposed rules could have saved us around EUR15-17 billion. In exchange, these savings would have required bailing in depositors with funds in excess of the state guarantee. It is unlikely that we could have secured any joint EU funding outside the Troika deal. Our debt levels would have been lower, but not because of the help from Europe.

This last point was made very clear to us by this week’s events. After all, our historically unprecedented crisis has now been 'successfully resolved' according to the EFSF statement, and as confirmed by the European and Irish officials. The 2008-2010 meltdown of the Irish financial system was dealt with without the need for the Banking Union or its Single Resolution Mechanism.

With a Banking Union or without, given the current state of the Exchequer balance sheet, the buck in the next crisis or in the next iteration of the current crisis will have to stop at the depositors bail-ins. In other words, banking union rhetoric aside, the only hope any banking system in Europe has at avoiding the fate of Cyprus is that the next crisis will not happen.


Second issue relates to the continued reliance across the euro area banks on government bonds as core asset underpinning the financial system. In brief, during the crisis, euro area banks have accumulated huge exposures to sovereign bonds. This allowed the Governments to dramatically reduce the cost of borrowing: the ECB pushed up bonds prices with lower interest rates and unlimited lending against these bonds as risk-free collateral.

The problem is that, unless the ECB is willing to run these liquidity supply schemes permanently, the free lunch is going to end one day. When this happens, the interest rates will rise. Two things will happen in response: value of the bonds will fall and yields on Government debt will rise. The banks will face declines in their assets values, while simultaneously struggling to replace cheap ECB funding with more expensive market funds.

Given that European Governments must roll over significant amounts of bonds over the next 10 years, these risks can pressure Government interest costs. Simple arithmetic says that a country with 122 percent debt/GDP ratio (call it Ireland) and debt financing cost of 4.1 percent per annum spends around 5 percent of its GDP every year on interest bills, inclusive of rolling over costs. If yield rises by a third, the cost of interest rises to closer to 6.6 percent of GDP. Now, suppose that the Government in this economy collects taxes and other receipts amounting to around 40 percent of GDP. This means that just to cover the increase in its interest bill without raising taxes or cutting spending, the Government will need nominal GDP growth of 3.9 percent per annum. That is the exact rate projected by the IMF for Ireland for 2014-2018. Should we fail to deliver on it, our debts will rise. Should interest rates rise by more than one-third from the current crisis-period lows, our debts will rise.


The point is that the dilemmas of our dysfunctional monetary policy and insufficient banking crisis resolution systems are not academic. Instead they are real. And so are the risks we face at the economy level and in the banking sector. Currently, European financial systems have been redrawn to contain financial exposures within national borders. The key signs of this are diverged bond yields across Europe, and wide interest rates differentials for loans to the real economy. In more simple terms, courtesy of dysfunctional policymaking during the crisis, Irish SMEs today pay higher interest rates on loans compared to, say, German SMEs of similar quality.

Banking Union should be a solution to this problem – re-launching credit flowing across the borders once again. It will not deliver on this as long as there are no fully-funded, secure and transparent plans for debt mutualisation across the European banking sector.

Box-out:

Recent data from the EU Commission shows that in 2011-2012, European institutions enacted 3,861 new business-related laws. Meanwhile, according to the World Bank, average cost of starting a business in Europe runs at EUR 2,285, against EUR 158 in Canada and EUR 664 in the US. Not surprisingly, under the burden of growing regulations and high costs, European rates of entrepreneurship, as measured by the proportion of start up firms in total number of registered companies, is falling year on year. This trend is present in the crisis-hit economies of the periphery and in the likes of Austria, Germany and Finland, who weathered the economic recession relatively well. The density of start-ups is rising in Australia, Canada, the US and across Asia-Pacific and Latin America. In 2014 rankings by the World Bank, the highest ranked euro area country, Finland, occupies 12th place in the world in terms of ease of doing business. Second highest ranked euro area economy is Ireland (15th). This completes the list of advanced euro area economies ranked in top 20 worldwide. Start ups and smaller enterprises play a pivotal role in creating jobs and developing skills base within a modern economy. The EU can do more good in combatting unemployment by addressing the problem of regulatory and cost burdens we impose on entrepreneurs and businesses than by pumping out more subsidies for jobs creation and training schemes.

3/12/2013: GoldCore research note on deposits bail-ins

GoldCore have published an insightful guide to banks bail-ins of depositors that the EU is rapidly falling toward as a default policy for resolving future banks crises.

Here's an inforgraphic from the report:
http://dzswc0o8s13dx.cloudfront.net/goldcore_bloomberg_chart1_03-12-13.png

And the link to the report itself:
http://info.goldcore.com/what-savers-and-depositors-need-to-do-to-protect-their-savings-and-deposits-from-bank-bail-ins

20/11/2013: Irish pensions: a crisis of policy, institutions and savings - Sunday Times November 17

This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times article from November 17, 2013.


Back in the early 2011, with the new Government coming into the office, fresh ideas were filling the airy halls of the Department of Finance. Armed with the knowledge that Irish pensions industry was the last vault in the country that still had money in it, Minister Noonan focused his sights. Hitting private pensions was a preferred alternative to raiding banks deposits or imposing cuts to public sector pensions. It suited the pseudo-fairness agenda of the Labor. Better yet, setting a levy on private pensions funds would, in PR-speak, allowed Fine Gael to avoid 'increasing taxes'. The fat cats (private pensions investors) were to share the burden of the fiscal adjustment while the Government was riding a high horse of delivering a rhetorical victory for the little man. The real logic of the move was exactly in line with the reasoning used in continuously raiding health insurance policies: go after the money.

Economics of the measure swept aside, the Government got busy expropriating private property and weakening the system of future pensions provisions. A temporary pensions levy was born out of this. With it, the country was firmly put on the road to a comprehensive dismantling of the already dysfunctional system.

Set at 0.6 percent per annum for 2011-2014 the original levy was dressed up in 2011 as a measure to free unproductive savings to fund jobs creation in the economy. Budgets 2012 and 2013 followed up with a raft of other measures, all designed to take more cash out of savings. Budget 2014 not only failed to curtail this onslaught but created a new levy of 0.15 percent that will run over 2014-2015 period and, according to a large number of analysts, is expected to continue beyond the 2015.

Yet, as the documents recently released by the Department of Finance show, back in 2011, the Department briefed the Minister as to the fallacy of his thinking. At the time, the pensions deficits accumulated in the Irish system totaled EUR10-15 billion. These deficits, according to the briefing, were in excess of what the nation's employers and employees could shoulder even before the Government moved on the funds. Between 75 and 80 percent of all Defined Benefit funds in the country were technically insolvent, accounting for two thirds of all pensions.

The Minister also had to be aware that a tax on capitalised value of the funds amounted to expropriation of private property. And that it cuts across the serious warnings concerning our pensions sustainability coming from the Troika and the OECD.

The problems with this approach to pensions systems are manifold and are setting us up for a long-term crisis. They include: exacerbating catastrophic pensions shortfalls, reducing future credibility of the system and undermining public confidence in the security of our financial system. Increasing future pressures on the Exchequer finances stemming from demographic changes and the legacy of the current crisis is the direct corollary of the short-termist position adopted by the Government.


Irish pensions system is fundamentally insolvent today and this insolvency is only made worse by our policies.

Top figures speak for themselves: at the end of 2012, there were 232,939 Defined Contribution schemes members, 527,681 Defined Benefit schemes signees and 206,936 PRSAs. Inclusive of PRSAs, total capitalisation of the system was around EUR78-79 billion. Defined Benefit schemes made virtually no contributions to the capital pool backing pensions system in the country. Excluding PRSAs, almost 7 out of 10 Irish pensions were funded by the IOUs on future taxpayers and company employees. The cumulated potential obligations in the pensions provisions of the Defined Benefits schemes amounted to some EUR 165 billion or around 100 percent of Ireland's GDP. These are growing, fuelled by early retirement schemes in the public sector and exits of private sector Defined Contributions savers.

Private pensions in Ireland remain not only underfunded, but also insufficient in cover. Currently, Ireland ranks the lowest in the OECD in terms of net pensions wealth held for those earning at or above average wages. Things are somewhat better for those on lower incomes. Still, we rank below OECD mean in terms of pensions cover for workers earning less than the average wage. An Irish family with two earners and combined annual earnings of around EUR90,000 can expect a pension cover of 40% of the pre-retirement earnings for 10.5 years. Budget 2014 has reduced this number by at least 0.5 years. OECD average for such coverage is closer to 28 years. OECD estimates show that at the end of 2009 only 41.3 percent of our public and private sectors’ workers were enrolled in a funded pension plan.

Since the beginning of the century, the systematic policy approach adopted by the Irish Governments to dealing with the pensions crisis has been to rely on Defined Contribution schemes to plug the vast deficit in the Defined Benefit schemes. The former are dominant in the private sector, the latter are the cornerstone of the public sector. Since the onset of the crisis, Irish state has acted to level huge burden of fiscal adjustment on future retirees, with levies and tax adjustments reaching into billions of euros and rising rapidly. The measures hit hard not only the savers at the top of the income distribution, but ordinary middle class investors. For example, according to a recent report on Budget 2014 measures, a young worker setting aside annually some EUR2,500 as a starting pension in 2011 will see a life-time cost of the pensions levies reach EUR32,500. He or she will face a reduction of EUR1,625 per annum in annual retirement benefits thanks solely to levies alone.

All of this is gradually eroding the public credibility in the system and acts to lower future solvency of the private and public schemes. According to the Pensions Board and OECD data, Ireland pensions coverage is declining over time. The numbers of workers covered by both, Defined Benefit and Defined Contribution schemes have fallen steadily since 2006 for the former and 2008 for the latter.

This trend is compounded by the nature of the crisis that hit Ireland since the end of the Celtic Tiger era. Unprecedented collapse in property markets triggered massive destruction of household wealth and catastrophic inflation of the debt crisis for households that are nearing the age when they normally accelerate their pensions savings.

Despite this, the Government continues to reduce tax deferrals available for those retirement savings. Examples of such policies include changes to lump sum payments tax treatments, changes to the Standard Fund Threshold, elimination of the PRSI and health levy/USC relief and so on. In effect, pensions funds became a ground zero of the Irish Government-waged war of financial repression – a brutal and cynical policy aimed at protecting own interests at the expense of the future retirees.


The OECD report on Irish pensions system, presented to the Government earlier this year, before Budget 2014 contained the usual litany of complaints about the system.

These include the fact that Ireland does not have a mandatory earnings-related pensions system to complement the State pension at basic level. According to the OECD, as a result, Ireland "faces the challenge of filling the retirement savings gap to reach adequate levels of pension replacement rates to ward off pensioner poverty." Furthermore, private pension coverage, both in occupational and personal pensions, is uneven and needs to be increased urgently. The latest changes introduced in Budget 2014 clearly exacerbate this, and the Government cannot claim that it was not aware of this problem. The existing tax deferral structure in Ireland, based on marginal tax rates, provides higher incentives to invest in pensions for higher earners, resulting in severe pensions under provision for middle classes. The OECD identified "unequal treatment of public and private sector workers due to the prevalence of defined benefit plans in the public sector and defined contribution plans in the private sector."  The reforms aiming to address this gap by introducing new pensions scheme for public servants are "being phased in only very slowly and [are] unlikely to affect a majority of public sector workers for a long time".

The OECD produced a long list of recommendations for the Government aimed at improving the system design and addressing some of the above bottlenecks. Virtually none of these saw any significant action.

The two options for a structural reform of the State pension scheme recommended by the OECD: a universal basic pension or a means-tested basic pension remain off the drawing board. Explicitly, OECD stated that “to increase adequacy of pensions in Ireland, there is a need to increase coverage in funded pensions. Increasing coverage can be achieved through 1) compulsion, 2) soft-compulsion, automatic enrolment, and/or 3) improving the existing financial incentives.” Instead, the Government continues to treat private pensions savings as funds it can raid to raise quick revenues. This makes it impossible for broad and structural reforms to gain support of the public, undermining in advance any future effort to address the crisis we face.

Note: this information was just released today: http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/pensions/thousands-of-oaps-facing-the-shock-of-cuts-in-their-pensions-29768766.html

Box-out:

In economics terms, it is often impossible to put a hard number on the value of less tangible institutional capital of the nation. Yet, systems and institutions of governance and democratic participation do matter in determining nation’s economic capacity and competitiveness. Sadly, it appears that the Irish Government is giving the idea that open and transparent state systems are a necessary condition for building a sustainable and prosperous economy and society little credit. Instead, the Irish authorities are about to significantly restrict effective access to state information. To do so, the Government is planning to introduce a new, more complex and expensive system of fees that apply to the requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act. Some observers have been arguing that the true objective is to reduce the public disclosure of information. Others have suggested more benign reasons for the proposals. Irrespective of the motives, over time, these changes are likely to lead to greater opacity and lower accountability across the State and private sectors. Such trends usually go hand-in-hand with increases in corruption, mismanagement, poor design of public policies, and increased political and civic apathy. In the long run, the proposed reforms can, among other things, spill over into generating greater economic inefficiencies, less meritocratic distribution of resources, and distort returns to investment. They can also reduce our attractiveness as a destination for domestic and foreign investors, entrepreneurs and workers. The victims of poor governance that can arise on foot of any effort to reduce effective access to information will be both the Irish society and our economy.