That BES Survey re-visited

I may have been a little unfair in my first reaction to this earlier this week, so if I seem to lean in the other direction now,having read it properly, please understand.

The title gives the game away: this is a survey, not a study, nor an analysis. As such, its flimsiness is less inappropriate. Indeed, as a survey, "flimsy" is probably not a fair description at all. The survey is actually fairly comprehensive, and I ended up quite impressed, and even a little persuaded.

Nevertheless, it is, as surveys inevitably are, lacking in analysis. It is also devoid of dissenting views, and I suspect that none were sought. We are not told what brief was given to the non-specialist civil servants who conducted the survey. It may well have been such that seeking dissenters was not appropriate.

There probably is a place for such surveys, but it does not appear to me that this one serves the purpose of justifying increased investment in the BES. What it does do is to set out in impressive and persuasive detail the benefits that the scheme is delivering. That may be enough for Brussels, not least because the amounts involved - even after the limits are increased - are going to be trivial even in Irish terms, are not a complete waste of resources, and are not really very anti-competitive, if at all, in EU terms.

For Irish policy purposes, the survey answers no important questions. In essence, it simply assembles and very effectively presents the positive spins articulated by every possible vested interest. It would be no surprise if the brief given to its authors, parsed and analysed, amounted to a request to do just that. For the politicians in charge of this government, this was quite useful, just a year ahead of the general election. However, in a manner reminiscent of the way the decentralisation policy was brought forward for political reasons but flew in the face of a more considered Spatial Strategy previously given political endorsement, it looks ridiculous when it is remembered that Minister Cowen promised a thorough review of tax incentives in terms of their continued economic effectiveness.

This survey is not such a review; it is, rather, a confirmation from those who benefit from the scheme that, if they are unhappy with it, it is because it could give them even more !