Sharing the island: Economic and social challenges and opportunities: Evidence from an ESRI research programme

McGinnity, Frances; Bergin, Adele; McGuinness, Séamus; Smyth, Emer Research Report Sharing the island: Economic and social challenges and opportunities: Evidence from an ESRI research programme Research Series, No. 202 Provided in Cooperation with: The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Dublin Suggested Citation: McGinnity, Frances; Bergin, Adele; McGuinness, Séamus; Smyth, Emer (2025) : Sharing the island: Economic and social challenges and opportunities: Evidence from an ESRI research programme, Research Series, No. 202, The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Dublin, https://doi.org/10.26504/rs202 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/322432 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Sharing the Island: Economic and Social Challenges and Opportunities: Evidence from an ESRI Research Programme FRANCES MCGINNITY, ADELE BERGIN, SEAMUS MCGUINNESS AND EMER SMYTH ESRI RESEARCH SERIES Number 202, April 2025 SHARING THE ISLAND: ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES: EVIDENCE FROM AN ESRI RESEARCH PROGRAMME Frances McGinnity Adele Bergin Seamus McGuinness Emer Smyth April 2025 RESEARCH SERIES NUMBER 202 Available to download from www.esri.ie https://doi.org/10.26504/rs202 © 2025 The Economic and Social Research Institute Whitaker Square, Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, Dublin 2 This Open Access work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. ABOUT THE ESRI The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) advances evidence-based policy-making that supports economic sustainability and social progress in Ireland. ESRI researchers apply the highest standards of academic excellence to challenges facing policymakers, focusing on ten areas of critical importance to 21st Century Ireland. The Institute was founded in 1960 by a group of senior civil servants led by Dr T.K. Whitaker, who identified the need for independent and in-depth research analysis. Since then, the Institute has remained committed to independent research and its work is free of any expressed ideology or political position. The Institute publishes all research reaching the appropriate academic standard, irrespective of its findings or who funds the research. The ESRI is a company limited by guarantee, answerable to its members and governed by a Council, comprising up to 14 representatives drawn from a crosssection of ESRI members from academia, civil services, state agencies, businesses and civil society. Funding for the ESRI comes from research programmes supported by government departments and agencies, public bodies, competitive research programmes, membership fees, and an annual grant-in-aid from the Department of Public Expenditure NDP Delivery and Reform. Further information is available at www.esri.ie. THE AUTHORS Frances McGinnity is an Associate Research Professor at the ESRI, Adjunct Professor at Trinity College Dublin (TCD) and Visiting Senior Fellow at the Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion at the London School of Economics (LSE). Adele Bergin is an Associate Research Professor at the ESRI and Adjunct Professor of Economics at TCD. Emer Smyth and Seamus McGuinness are Research Professors at the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) and Adjunct Professors at TCD. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research forms part of a research partnership between the ESRI and the Shared Island Unit of the Department of the Taoiseach on ‘The Economic and Social Opportunities from Increased Cooperation on the Shared Island’. The purpose of the programme is to produce research outputs which will add to understanding of current and potential linkages across the island of Ireland in a range of economic, social and environmental domains. The authors would like to thank the Shared Island Unit of the Department of the Taoiseach and the members of the research programme steering committee for their input. Particular thanks to Katy Hayward for her comments and advice as external advisor, to ESRI reviewers for their comments and to Helen Russell who acted as editor. Special thanks to our ESRI colleagues past and present both for compiling these programme reports initially, and for checking this one. This report has been accepted for publication by the Institute, which does not itself take institutional policy positions. All ESRI Research Series reports are peer reviewed prior to publication. The authors are solely responsible for the content and the views expressed. FOREWORD In 2020, the Shared Island Unit in the Department of the Taoiseach approached the ESRI about the possibility of creating a joint research programme to support the overall aims of the Shared Island initiative. Following discussions, it was agreed that a programme should be established with two broad goals. First, recognising that the island of Ireland has two sets of public policy on economic, social and environmental issues, there was clearly scope to learn about the impact of different policies by comparing the outcomes across various domains in the two jurisdictions. In this way, the research programme would follow the types of comparative analyses that are typically conducted across the regions of the UK, the countries of Europe and the states of the US. Indeed, it was somewhat surprising that this research method had not been exploited more extensively on the island of Ireland previously. The second broad goal of the programme was to explore the possibility of increased collaboration and linkage on the island of Ireland, including on public service delivery. By international standards, the populations of Ireland and Northern Ireland are small and so the scope to exploit economies of scale is limited. It seemed sensible to explore how this scope might be maximised by considering elements of public service delivery on an all-island basis where this could benefit citizens across the island. Other areas of increased linkage could also be explored such as trade in goods and services. The ESRI was very pleased to work on the programme. Our mission is ‘to provide evidence to inform policymaking and public debate’. Since our founding in 1960, the mission has been pursued primarily with regard to Ireland but, on occasions, our work programme included Northern Ireland. One example was the 1999 publication Ireland North and South: Perspectives from Social Science.1 The ambition to undertake more research on all-island issues and on Northern Ireland was always present and was promoted within the ESRI by Board members such as Dr T.K. Whitaker and Sir George Quigley, both of whom were well-known for their support of all-island collaboration. Hence, the opportunity provided to us by the Shared Island initiative was heartily welcomed by the ESRI. In the five years since 2020, my colleagues have produced a series of reports on a range of topics where the objectives of the programme – mutual learning and potential collaboration – have been pursued. We have held a large number of 1 Heath, A., Breen, R. and Whelan, C. (1999). Ireland North and South: perspectives from social science. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy. iv | Economic and social challenges and opportunitiesevidence from an ESRI research programme conferences and webinars to disseminate the work, including conferences in Belfast, jointly with Queen’s University Belfast and Ulster University. As the findings of this body of work and implications for policy are presented in this report, I will not try to summarise those findings but instead will offer some broad observations. Within the programme, the reports which have looked at economic outcomes across the island point to the relative success of Ireland in achieving higher levels of disposable income and living standards. This in turn has been linked in the research to factors such as the differing nature of foreign direct investment in Ireland and Northern Ireland and lower levels of human capital in Northern Ireland. These findings could create a sense of disappointment about the rate of economic progress seen in Northern Ireland since 1998, but an alternative perspective is to focus on the economic potential which exists. For many years, Ireland’s peripherality and lack of natural resources led to a belief that the economic performance would always lag behind Great Britain and the countries at the European core. However, Ireland has shown that with the right economic policies, it is possible for a small, peripheral state to achieve standards of living that are comparable to those of high productivity, high-income European states. There is no reason to believe that similar levels of income cannot be achieved in Northern Ireland and the results of the research conducted in this programme point to the needed investments. While Ireland has achieved higher levels of income, it should also be noted that national output has shown greater volatility in Ireland compared to Northern Ireland over the last twenty years and poor policy in Ireland has contributed. It should also be noted that income inequality is similar across the two jurisdictions, although with different factors both increasing and reducing income inequality. As discussed in the report, this provides lessons for policy aimed at reducing income inequality. On increased linkage and collaboration, healthcare is an area where the possible benefits seem potentially significant. The healthcare systems in both Ireland and Northern Ireland face challenges and reform proposals exist for both. Specialisation and collaboration in centres of excellence could lead to improvements in care for all on the island. Even if this is true, the pressures on those working in both systems probably makes it difficult to engage on strategic issues across the border. Hence, additional processes and institutions to foster and facilitate this type of crossborder cooperation may be needed. Before closing, I want to thank Taoiseach Micheál Martin TD and the range of Government Ministers over the last number of years who have all shown significant interest in and support for the research programme and engaged with findings across a number of areas. I would also thank officials in the Department of an Taoiseach – in particular Aingeal O'Donoghue, Émer Deane and Eoghan Duffy - for the Departmental support for this joint research initiative and for engaging with the research outputs in such a constructive manner. I also want to thank Anne Barrington for chairing the programme’s Steering Committee, and Karen Bonner of Ulster University for her membership of that Committee. Adele Bergin and Fran McGinnity represented the ESRI on the Steering Committee and I want to say a word of thanks to them also. Finally, I want to thank my colleagues for their work under the programme. An impressive body of knowledge has been generated through which we now know a lot more about Ireland, Northern Ireland and all-island linkages. Alan Barrett, ESRI Director February 2025 viii | Economic and social challenges and opportunities: Evidence from an ESRI research programme in how these skills are reflected in qualifications. Much higher rates of early school leaving in Northern Ireland have consequences for access to, and the quality of, employment as well as productivity levels. There are differences too in take-up of post-secondary qualifications, showing the potential to develop further education and training in Northern Ireland as a route to employment. • Educational inequality throughout the education system is apparent in both jurisdictions but is most evident in qualification levels in Northern Ireland and upper secondary grades in Ireland. This is an important policy issue given the consequences of poor educational attainment for adult life chances, including employment and health. There is potential for mutual policy learning around the targeting of local areas or schools as a basis for addressing educational disadvantage. • Both systems face challenges around waiting lists for healthcare and adequacy of housing supply, highlighting the need for workforce development in both sectors. • Challenges are similar too in the gendered nature of care and its impact on access to employment, with a need for (continued) expansion of affordable early years and after-school care in both jurisdictions. Lone mothers face particular challenges in accessing high-quality employment in both Ireland and Northern Ireland, suggesting the need for appropriate education and training supports as well as childcare. CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION The 1998 Good Friday Agreement (GFA) established an important framework for the formal operationalisation of cross-border cooperation on the island of Ireland with the establishment of six North-South bodies that operate under the policy direction of the North South Ministerial Council (NSMC). A further six broad policy areas were earmarked for cross-border cooperation under the agreement, with common policy approaches to be agreed in the NSMC and implemented separately in each jurisdiction. Despite some well recognised success in the area of crossborder tourism, it is reasonable to conclude that progress on cross-border cooperation has so far failed to meet its full potential since the signing of the GFA. There is a consensus among stakeholders that levels of cross-border cooperation have failed to meet expectations in many of the policy areas designated as being strategically important such as education, health, agriculture and the environment. There are clear advantages to substantially upscaling North-South cooperation in existing strategic areas such as education, health and environmental policy and in extending the remit of cooperation to include new strategic areas for cooperation such as, for example, skills provision, foreign direct investment, labour market access and energy security. The areas identified as being strategically important for Executive summary | ix cross-border cooperation should, ideally, be reviewed periodically to allow for changing priorities and, preferably, have dedicated budgets and oversight systems. CONCLUSIONS The research programme findings point to important commonalities and differences between Ireland and Northern Ireland, not only at one point in time but in trends over time. Thus, while income inequality levels are similar, other economic indicators relating to living standards and productivity generally favour Ireland, and the findings also show growing divergence in these key indicators in recent years. A key element of the research programme has been to acknowledge the limitations of the comparable evidence used, and note what additional evidence or actions would be required to advance research in a particular policy area. Some of these include: cooperation between the CSO and NISRA, and larger samples in Northern Irish data. Linking survey data with administrative data could also harness the potential of existing evidence for comparison. Programme research to date has documented important commonalities and differences in outcomes between Northern Ireland and Ireland as a basis for public understanding, policy learning and cooperation, but has also highlighted persisting barriers to this endeavour. The challenge for the future, both for research and for practical cooperation, will be to go beyond largely descriptive accounts to uncover and identify ways to address the processes underlying these different outcomes and the impacts they have on economic and social development and societal wellbeing. Introduction | 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction Ireland and Northern Ireland share many social, historical and geographical characteristics but their political institutions and the configuration of policy are very different. These similarities and differences make a compelling case for comparing the two jurisdictions, and the interaction between the two. Recent years have seen increasing research interest in the topic, though the last comprehensive comparison was in the 1990s (Heath et al., 1999). This gap in research is beginning to be addressed including through the extensive and ambitious research programme between the ESRI and the Shared Island Unit (SIU) of the Department of the Taoiseach over the past four years, with 15 research reports published in total. The research is set against a backdrop of recent substantial challenges: the exit of the UK from the EU and implications for Northern Ireland and North-South relations and cooperation; the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdown; rapid inflation and cost-of living challenges; capacity pressures on healthcare systems and housing markets in both Ireland and Northern Ireland. All of these factors influence the economic, social and political context in which these reports were written. The analysis in the programme is all based on the period after the Good Friday Agreement (1998). Yet the legacy of 25 years of violent conflict on the economy and society in Northern Ireland, a conflict from which Ireland was largely spared, is important to bear in mind (Coulter et al., 2021; NESC, 2022). The focus of the joint research programme to date has been broadly to investigate the economic and social challenges and opportunities that sharing the island presents. Some of the reports compare themes across the island, others the interlinkages between jurisdictions. The research and policy scope is broad, with some topics focusing more on the economy – such as cross-border trade, foreign direct investment and productivity – and others on the provision of core services such as housing, primary healthcare and energy generation. Other reports focus on micro-level issues: one set of papers focuses on skills acquisition across the life course including education and training, student mobility, early childhood care and learning, while a second set considers aspects of equality in the two jurisdictions – gender equality, income inequality, child poverty, migrant integration, and social and political attitudes. The purpose of this report is to synthesise some key findings from the programme reports and bring out interlinkages between them. It also seeks to highlight and 2 | Economic and social challenges and opportunities: Evidence from an ESRI research programme reflect on implications for policy learning for the island as a whole in the future. The report is by nature selective given the breadth of research conducted. As a research programme between the ESRI and the Shared Island Unit, the topics for enquiry were not pre-defined. Rather they were developed on an ongoing and iterative basis, responding to key interests and challenges for both jurisdictions and knowledge gaps arising, including knowledge gaps identified in previous reports and during stakeholder consultations. Topics developed were also based on the ESRI researchers’ expertise and the data available. Reports use the most appropriate methods in the relevant field of enquiry, drawing on international best practice, and these vary considerably across topics in the programme. For example, the report investigating income inequality in the two jurisdictions uses sophisticated microsimulation models, as is typical in research investigating the impact of tax and welfare systems – effectively a ‘policy swap’ (Doorley et al., 2024). The report comparing productivity across the island included simulation analysis to illustrate how productivity levels might vary for changes in the level of endowments of key productivity-related factors such as human capital (Bergin and McGuinness, 2022). In their analysis of enhancing the attractiveness of the island to high-value Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), Siedschlag et al. (2021) examined a range of counterfactual outcomes associated with policy choices and potential policy coordination for enhancing the attractiveness to FDI in high-value sectors. Many studies explored policy areas that had been well documented to date on a single jurisdiction basis but had never been comprehensively compared and analysed across both Ireland and Northern Ireland. Many research projects captured an often-rapidly changing policy landscape. For this reason, five reports in the programme undertook consultations. In most of these, preliminary findings were presented to policy stakeholders and feedback received on policy priorities and direction of travel (Smyth et al., 2022; Curristan et al., 2023; Smyth and Darmody, 2023; Hingre et al., 2024; Russell et al., 2025). In one report, the consultation specifically addressed an issue not amenable to statistical data analysis – cross-border travel for migrants (McGinnity et al., 2023). Interviews with stakeholders in both jurisdictions also provided an important evidence base for the studies on education (which covered all levels from early years through to further and higher education). Primarily these interviews complemented the findings of quantitative work, giving an on-the-ground perspective and insights into policy. The programme placed a premium on high-quality representative data with harmonised measures, to ensure that differences between jurisdictions are not due to either skewed, biased samples, or measurement differences, both of which could distort comparisons. A challenge throughout the programme has been availability of evidence for comparison. These evidence constraints influence both Introduction | 3 choice of topics (what can be researched) and the method of analysis. Even in wellestablished survey exercises which use consistent, international measures, Northern Ireland, as a region of the UK, is often not specified in UK-wide datasets or included in statistically sufficient numbers; this means it is often integrated within overall UK analyses, which makes comparison with Ireland and even with other parts of the UK difficult. As Lawless (2021) pointed out when analysing crossborder trade in services, data limitations and challenges mean less of a focus on services than trade in goods. Accordingly, an important by-product of the programme has been to identify evidence gaps and build up a knowledge base to enable rigorous comparison. A key element of the research programme has been to acknowledge the limitations of the comparable evidence used and note what additional evidence or actions would be required to advance research in a particular policy area. Only in identifying evidence gaps can they potentially be filled. We return to this point in Chapter 6. As well as what is feasible given the availability of data or potential to collect new data, topics were selected to reflect research gaps and not duplicate existing or ongoing research. For example, the evolution of political identities has been extensively researched already (Todd, 2021; Hayward and Rosher, 2023), so the consideration of social and political attitudes does not cover these, focusing instead on trust in institutions, social trust and belief in the effectiveness of politics (Laurence et al., 2023b). As a synthesis report, the primary focus here is on reports published as part of the research programme, but other complementary research is cited where it is particularly relevant or useful to the topics examined (National Economic and Social Council (NESC), 2022; Department of Finance, 2024; the Analysing and Research Ireland North and South (ARINS) research initiative;2 Hayward et al., 2022).3 The purpose of this overview report is to synthesise some key findings from the programme as a whole and its contribution to knowledge. In summarising the reports, it will draw overall conclusions on the economic and social configuration of the island of Ireland today and reflect on implications for policy learning in both jurisdictions. Chapter 2 considers the policy context in broad terms and presents key demographic statistics. It also reviews differences in income and living standards. Chapter 3 synthesises programme findings to assess inequality in outcomes across the life course in Ireland and Northern Ireland and how these are influenced by policy configurations. Beginning at the early years, through primary, post-primary and post-school/third-level education, it then considers differences among the 2 https://www.ria.ie/research-programmes/arins/read-arins-research/. 3 https://www.nesc.ie/publications/shared-island-shared-opportunity-nesc-comprehensive-report/. 4 | Economic and social challenges and opportunities: Evidence from an ESRI research programme working-age population in: productivity, gender and labour market inclusion; migrant integration; the cost of living; personal taxation and how the state redistributes income. Housing supply is also considered relevant for all age groups as is primary healthcare, even more relevant for older age groups. Differences in social and political attitudes across measures of people’s trust in institutions, in their peers and their government are considered, and how these can be influenced both by the broader policy and economic context and by people’s socio-economic positions. Chapter 4 reflects on overarching policy considerations for both jurisdictions as identified through the research programme including the importance of increasing education and skills in Northern Ireland, to facilitate greater employment participation, higher productivity and earnings, and to increase Northern Ireland’s attractiveness to investment to facilitate economic growth. It also highlights workforce development, including in construction, early care and education, and healthcare in both jurisdictions. Chapter 5 maps the existing cross-border connections and cooperation in the areas considered through the research programme. It also explores how more strategic cooperation, investment and planning could help to achieve shared economic and social goals and address common policy challenges for both jurisdictions. These include the operation and effectiveness of cross-border institutions; cross-border cooperation in health; facilitating student mobility and deeper cooperation on education and skills development; and potential for further cooperation on tourism, energy generation and renewable energy. Chapter 6 summarises the findings, and reflects on themes and issues not addressed by this programme to date, how any such gaps impact on the comparisons that can be drawn, and how future research could help address remaining gaps in our knowledge. It reflects on future prospects for the island as a whole for the years to come. Economic performance and living standards | 5 CHAPTER 2 Economic performance and living standards 2.1 POLICY CONTEXT Public policy in Ireland, North and South, spans numerous areas (e.g. health, housing, education) and shares the overarching goal of improving the welfare of the population. Both jurisdictions have political and administrative structures that respectively shape the direction and delivery of policy. Both jurisdictions also face constraints in developing and implementing policies. Some of these constraints are common to both, and to other countries, such as having the necessary resources and the data infrastructure to assess need and evaluate policy. However, Northern Ireland faces additional significant constraints, particularly in terms of the experience of instability of the devolved political institutions and the limited fiscal autonomy that can impact scope for policy development and effectiveness. In Northern Ireland, fiscal spending is primarily funded through the UK Government’s block grant, supplemented by local taxes and other revenues.4 Changes to the block grant are generally determined by the Barnett formula.5 This fiscal mechanism adjusts the financing in proportion to spending changes in the rest of the United Kingdom, accounting for Northern Ireland’s population share. Northern Ireland has benefited considerably from the grant over decades, though at the same time the Executive has limited power to borrow money. While the Northern Ireland Assembly has devolved powers for many economic and social areas,6 its limited revenue raising powers limits fiscal autonomy.7,8 The nature of the multi-party power-sharing government system and the requirement for cooperation in key areas of policy-making, while in principle is designed to ensure balance and inclusivity, can lead to political deadlock. Executive ministers are appointed by the D’Hondt process in proportion to the parties’ strength in the Assembly.9 This process whereby individual parties with often competing objectives have responsibility for at least one of eight10 devolved policy 4 Around 90 per cent of Northern Ireland Executive-led spending is financed by the block grant (Fiscal Commission Northern Ireland, 2022). 5 For a summary of the formula and debate around it, see: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/researchbriefings/cbp-7386/. 6 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/devolution-settlement-northern-ireland. 7 See Fiscal Commission Northern Ireland (2022) for more details. 8 The devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales also receive grants from the UK Government that fund most of their spending (see Keep, 2024 for more details). Each of the devolved administrations can also borrow certain amounts, that is mostly to fund capital investments. 9 https://www.niassembly.gov.uk/news-and-media/assembly-explained/understanding-the-dhondt-method-its-use-inthe-northern-ireland-assembly/. 10 In addition to the Executive Office, there are ministries in the areas of (1) Justice (2) Economy (3) Education (4) Finance (5) Health (6) Communities (7) Infrastructure, and (8) Agriculture, Environment and Rural affairs. 6 | Economic and social challenges and opportunities: Evidence from an ESRI research programme areas means that it can be relatively more difficult to agree on a well-integrated, coherent programme for government. More fundamentally, the fact that the Executive and Assembly have repeatedly collapsed since their formation is a challenge for policy-making. As Coulter et al. (2021) note: In August 2018, Northern Ireland attained the unenviable status of being the democratic polity that has gone the longest period in peace time without a serving government (ibid., p50). This was before subsequent suspensions. When the devolved government is not in place, Ministers can continue in office in caretaker roles for defined periods and the UK Parliament retains the power to legislate for Northern Ireland. However, for the vast majority of policy areas, not having ministers in place during Assembly suspensions meant policy decisions and legislation were not being made. This limited fiscal autonomy and political instability can result in delays in policy implementation and can also limit the scale and scope of what can be achieved. Furthermore, policy in many areas in Northern Ireland is substantially shaped by the UK Government. For example, the parity principle means that the social welfare system is broadly aligned with the wider UK. If Northern Ireland deviates from the rest of the UK in terms of welfare policies, it has to cover the extra cost from its devolved budget. For instance, the Northern Ireland Executive was able to introduce a scheme to mitigate the effects of the under-occupancy penalty (‘the bedroom tax’). In addition, the welfare reform mitigation package put in place by the Northern Ireland Executive currently offsets the UK benefit cap for most families (Russell et al., 2025). In overall terms, however, the Executive has limited fiscal space to diverge significantly from wider UK welfare policy. There are also instances where policies introduced in other parts of the UK have not been adopted in Northern Ireland. England introduced 30 hours free early childhood care and education in 2017, and Scotland and Wales followed soon after; in Northern Ireland children are entitled to 12.5 hours of early care and education per week (Stewart and Reader, 2020). Childcare policy stakeholders in Northern Ireland attributed the lack of policy development in the area over the previous decade to the uncertain and unstable political situation and expressed frustration at the slow pace of change (Curristan et al., 2022).11 However, more recently, additional funding has been allocated to pre-school provision by the new Executive12 with a commitment to standardise pre-school hours. Gender pay policy and pay reporting have also seen delays in Northern Ireland. Since 2017, pay gap 11 ‘Nothing has moved forward because we don’t have a functioning executive at the minute to sign off on any funding’ (Childcare Stakeholder, NI, quoted in Curristan et al., 2023). 12 https://www.education-ni.gov.uk/news/education-minister-announces-ps25million-package-measures-earlylearning-and-childcare-northern-ireland. Economic performance and living standards | 7 reporting has been mandatory for large employers in England, Scotland and Wales.13 Section 19 of the Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 provides for the making of gender pay gap reporting regulations by June 2017, but at the time of writing (late 2024) these have not yet been enforced.14 While previously both jurisdictions on the island of Ireland were part of the European Union, the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union has brought challenges in terms of reconciling regulations and standards between Northern Ireland and Ireland. One example of this is in the area of equality and human rights. In Article 2 of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol (Windsor Framework), the UK Government committed to ensuring that the rights, safeguards and equality laws set out in the Good Friday Agreement would not be diminished as a consequence of Brexit. The UK Government has conferred new statutory powers and related resources on the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland to monitor the implementation of this article, known as the ‘Dedicated Mechanism’.15 This Dedicated Mechanism has highlighted divergence in the area of rights and equality law since its establishment, particularly in the area of gender equality policy (Craig et al., 2024), and also to EU equality funding.16 More broadly, the common framework of EU law and policy previously facilitated North-South cooperation across all sectors significantly, and diverging legal and policy frameworks post-Brexit could well raise challenges or constraints. In Ireland, policy-making is relatively centralised and fiscal policy plays an important role in managing the economy, and the budget process determines funding for various policy initiatives. While coalition governments are the norm, the formulation of Programmes for Government has typically been relatively more straightforward than in Northern Ireland.17 The Government of Ireland has a spending rule to help guide policy and is also subject to EU fiscal rules. However, Ireland faces relatively less constraint under these rules as they are defined using 13 https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/. 14 See https://www.equalityni.org/GenderPayPolicy for further details. In principle the Good Jobs Bill in Northern Ireland could address this issue, though there is no indication of this to date. See https://www.economyni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/consultations/economy/good-jobs-consultation.PDF. 15 The UK Government has conferred new statutory powers and related resources on the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland to monitor the implementation of this article. See https://www.equalityni.org/brexit; https://www.ihrec.ie/documents/equality-and-rights-on-the-island-of-irelandafter-brexit/. 16 https://www.equalityni.org/ECNI/media/ECNI/Publications/Delivering%20Equality/DMU/DMU-WindsorFrameworkAnnualReport2022-23.pdf. 17 That is not to say government formation in Ireland is uncomplicated; the multi-party and proportional representation electoral system generally entails coalition governments who have to agree on a programme for government. Coalition government formation typically takes several weeks to a few months in Ireland. There are cases where it extends beyond that, such as after the 2020 General Election it took over four months to form a government. In Northern Ireland, parties have 24 weeks to agree on a power-sharing executive. However, there have been cases of much longer timeframes, such as, after the 2017 election, where the executive was only restored in 2020. 14 | Economic and social challenges and opportunities: Evidence from an ESRI research programme 33.5 per cent compared to 31.7 per cent in Northern Ireland, indicating that the gap in living standards has widened over the period. TABLE 2.2 STANDARD OF LIVING – ECONOMIC INDICATORS Units Year Ire ’000 NI ’000 % Diff (Ire - NI) % Change 2015-22 (Ire) % Change 2015-22 (NI) GNI* Per Capita Constant prices, €, ’000 2022 53.4 34.1 56.5 26.7 14.8 GDP Per Capita Constant prices, €, ’000 2022 104.2 34.1 205.3 66.2 14.8 Household Disposable Income Constant prices, €, ’000 (Per Equivalent Household) 2018 35.3 29.9 18.3 33.5 31.7 Source: OECD Regional Economy Database. CSOs National Income and Expenditure Accounts, population data from CSOs Annual Population and Migration Estimates, PPP adjustment from OECD Regional Economy Database. All estimates are converted into euro. Notes: The growth rate of household disposable income is measured from 2015-2018. As previously discussed, differences in educational attainment are a key driver of differences in productivity and, by extension, living standards. In Table 2.3 we use data from the OECD regional database to provide an assessment of changes in levels of educational attainment by age group between 2018 and 2022. The patterns are relatively stable over time, but there are some noteworthy changes. The educational enrolment rates among 3to 5-year-olds fell in both jurisdictions over the period, but more significantly in Ireland. It is not clear what drove the fall in enrolment rates, especially in Ireland over this period. It could be related to the pandemic. There has been an improvement in the Northern Ireland enrolment rate among 6to 14-year-olds, with the rate reaching 100 per cent in both Northern Ireland and Ireland in 2022. The gap in enrolment rates for 15to 19-year-olds, which will be heavily influenced by those engaged in post-secondary education, increased over the 2015 to 2022 period from 19 to 23.3 percentage points in favour of Ireland. This is particularly worrying as it points to a further erosion of further/ vocational education in Northern Ireland, which harms skills accumulation in Northern Ireland and will tend to further widen any existing productivity gap. Table 2.3 shows that between 2018 and 2022 the rate of early school leaving (as a share of the 18to 24-year-old population) has fallen by 1.3 percentage points in Ireland and increased by 0.6 percentage points in Northern Ireland, with the rate of early school leaving 2.7 times higher in Northern Ireland compared to Ireland, in 2022. Finally, there has been a decline in the rates of 18to 24-year-olds not in employment, education or training (NEET) in both jurisdictions between 2015 and 2022, with a more substantial decline in Ireland over the 2018 to 2022 period. Economic performance and living standards | 15 TABLE 2.3 STANDARD OF LIVING – MEASURES OF OPPORTUNITY Ireland Northern Ireland 2018 2022 2018 2022 Education Enrolment Rates by Age Range: 3-5 year-olds 100.0 93.2 86.6 83.8 6-14 year-olds 100.0 100.0 98.1 100.0 15-19 year-olds 92.6 93.9 73.6 70.6 20-29 year-olds 29.0 30.6 15.2 16.9 30-39 year-olds 7.3 6.5 3.3 4.1 40-64 year-olds 5.6 3.3 1.3 0.8 Rate of Early Leavers from Education and Training (in % of the total population aged 18 to 24) 5.0 3.7 9.4 10.0 Share of 18-24 year-olds population not in education and unemployed or inactive (NEET) 12.6 9.8 13.9 12.4 Source: OECD Regional Economy Database. Note: It should be noted that these figures refer to those resident and enrolled in the jurisdiction and does not include those who have moved from Northern Ireland to Ireland or the rest of the UK to study (see Smyth and Darmody, 2023). Life expectancy at birth is a measure that tends to reflect differences in aggregate wellbeing and changes in key drivers of living standards, such as income levels, educational participation, access to healthcare and education provision.31 In 2017, life expectancy at birth in Northern Ireland was reported to be 1.6 years below that of Ireland (McGuinness and Bergin, 2020) and here we use data from the OECD regional database in Figure 2.1 to update and extend the analysis up to 2021. There has been a general upward trend in life expectancy in both regions between 1999 and 2018, with life expectancy rates higher in Northern Ireland relative to Ireland until 2003, after which point life expectancy rates in Ireland began to increase more rapidly than those in Northern Ireland. By 2019, life expectancy in Ireland stood at 82.8 years compared to 80.6 years in Northern Ireland, a gap of 2.2 years. Between 2019 and 2021 life expectancy in both Ireland and Northern Ireland declined slightly, perhaps reflecting the impacts of the pandemic; by 2021 the life expectancy gap was 2.0 years in favour of Ireland. Finally, we repeat the analysis by gender in Figure 2.2, and the trends heavily reflect those in the previous chart, with the rates substantially higher in Ireland by the end of the period. By 2021 the gap in life expectancy was 2.1 years for males and 2.0 years for females. Consistent with the literature, life expectancies for females in both jurisdictions were approximately four years higher than for males. 31 The overall health of the population will not only impact health-related needs and spending, but also the need for care both within and outside the home, labour market participation and the wellbeing of the population. 16 | Economic and social challenges and opportunities: Evidence from an ESRI research programme FIGURE 2.1 LIFE EXPECTANCY, OVERALL, FOR <1-YEAR-OLDS Source: OECD Regional Database. FIGURE 2.2 LIFE EXPECTANCY, BY GENDER, FOR <1-YEAR-OLDS Source: OECD Regional Database. 2.5 SUMMARY This chapter provides an overview of differences in living standards between Ireland and Northern Ireland across a range of dimensions including traditional economic measures as well as broader measures of opportunity and overall welfare/wellbeing. It draws on findings from several comparative studies including on education (Smyth et al., 2022), productivity (Bergin and McGuinness, 2022), and 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Years Ireland Northern Ireland 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 Years Ireland Female Northern Ireland Female Ireland Male Northern Ireland Male Economic performance and living standards | 17 income inequality (Doorley et al., 2024), as well as updating some key metrics from previous studies. It is important to understand differences within the different policy contexts that Ireland and Northern Ireland operate. In particular, Northern Ireland is more constrained in terms of fiscal autonomy, and more affected by experience of political instability and the legacy of the Troubles. The chapter finds that household disposable income, a reliable measure of income that is not subject to the drawbacks of other conventional metrics used to assess living standards, was 18.3 per cent higher in Ireland than Northern Ireland in 2018 and this gap had widened over time. Access to and participation in education is a key factor in determining wage growth, career progression and social progression and represents a key measure of opportunity in each region. The most recent data show that across all age groups education participation rates are higher in Ireland than in Northern Ireland, and the gaps have increased over time for all age groups except for the youngest age group. A range of factors including income, education and employment opportunities, and access to healthcare services will generally determine life expectancy. As such, differences in life expectancy can be interpreted as a cumulative measure of differences in general welfare and living standards. The most recent data show that life expectancy at birth for males and females in Ireland exceeded that of Northern Ireland by two years. On balance, the evidence on economic performance and living standards presented shows varying trends over time between the two jurisdictions, though in more recent years Ireland is outperforming Northern Ireland in most metrics. 18 | Economic and social challenges and opportunities: Evidence from an ESRI research programme CHAPTER 3 Policy configurations and implications for life chances 3.1 INTRODUCTION Individual programme reports focus on specific topics, policy areas and often particular groups in the population. The purpose of this chapter is to synthesise available findings from early years to later life to gain a better understanding of how people’s relative conditions across the life course are influenced by where they live on the island of Ireland. A life course perspective draws particular attention to how an individual’s experience at one point in their life can impact later outcomes – for example, early childhood experiences influence school pathways, skills acquisition, job quality and incomes during the life course (Mayer, 2009).32 Life course research highlights how the impact of history and past institutions can combine to influence the life trajectories of different birth cohorts or generations, for example those born in the 1950s, 1970s or 1990s (Fosse and Winship, 2019). These cohorts might experience a recession or an economic growth period differently. History and institutions – such as the education system, the labour market, the tax and welfare systems – combine to shape individual life trajectories (Mayer, 2004). While the focus in this programme has been primarily on comparing individuals and groups in societies as a whole, individuals’ own decisions will influence their situation. Moreover, perceptions of their situation will also influence the decisions people make, so it is important to consider population attitudes to their society and their place within it, and how these vary in different periods and for different birth cohorts. A guiding theme of this chapter is life course inequalities within both jurisdictions as well as between them. 3.2 LEARNING SKILLS: FROM PRE-SCHOOL TO THIRD LEVEL Early years are crucial for skills development, both at home and in childcare and education settings (Cattan et al., 2024). Children’s skills are strongly influenced by their parents’ skills and their home environment, but childcare can play a role in compensating for a poor start (Kulic et al., 2019). Both Ireland and Northern Ireland have tended to lag behind European counterparts in early years provision and investment. Curristan et al. (2023) describe how recent policy changes have expanded provision, particularly in Ireland. Inequalities in cognitive outcomes are found at an early age. At age 5, children from lower income households and those whose mothers have lower education have poorer vocabulary skills (Curristan et al., 2023). Stakeholders highlighted how approaches to additional supports for children in pre-school settings differed across jurisdictions, with the potential for 32 Ideally, research using a life course perspective would analyse data from the same people over time (longitudinal data) (see for example Diewald et al., 2006). However, for most of the topics analysed under the research programme, comparative longitudinal data are not available. We return to this point in Chapter 6. Policy considerations and implications for life chances | 19 policy learning. There was more emphasis on children in disadvantaged areas in Northern Ireland (the Sure Start scheme) and children with special needs in Ireland (the AIM programme) (Curristan et al., 2023), though recently in Ireland policy changes have expanded provision for children experiencing disadvantage.33 As children move into school settings, Smyth et al. (2022) find that Ireland and Northern Ireland perform well in international comparisons of skill development at primary and secondary levels. At age 5, Curristan et al. (2023) find that children’s literacy and numeracy skills are high in both jurisdictions. Interestingly, teachers’ ratings of language are higher in Ireland, while teacher ratings of number skills are higher in Northern Ireland. However, there are marked differences in educational attainment between the jurisdictions, with a lower proportion of young people in Ireland leaving school early and lower expectations of reaching third-level education in Northern Ireland, largely driven by those in non-grammar schools.34 Furthermore, rates of early school leaving in Northern Ireland are twice as high as in Ireland. The fact that overall literacy and numeracy skills are similar but educational attainment is so different suggests that the different educational systems are producing different outcomes. Smyth et al. (2022) highlight two key contributory factors in this difference. Firstly, they point to the success of the Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools (DEIS) programme in supporting and retaining students in disadvantaged areas in Ireland. Secondly, they emphasise the impact of academic selection in Northern Ireland, which leaves students in nongrammar schools more likely to leave school early and have lower expectations of educational success as strong contributory factors in this difference. How an education system incorporates migrant students is sometimes seen as a ‘litmus test’ of migrant integration policy (OECD, 2023a). In most OECD countries, migrant-origin students score significantly lower than their native peers in terms of reading literacy at age 15, though this varies depending on the linguistic and socioeconomic background of the migrants and their children (OECD, 2019). In Ireland, McGinnity et al. (2023) find little difference in either academic achievement scores at age 15 between migrant-origin students, both first and second generation, and their Irish-origin peers in 2018. In Northern Ireland, first generation migrant-origin students have lower achievement scores in English reading and mathematics than their Northern Ireland origin peers. This difference remains even after controlling for language spoken at home and the child’s socio-economic background (McGinnity et al., 2023). Second-generation migrant-origin children in Northern 33 https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/035a5-equal-start-for-children-experiencing-disadvantage-a-major-new-modelof-government-funded-supports-isannounced/#:~:text=Equal%20Start%20is%20a%20funding,their%20families%20who%20experience%20disadvantage. 34 In Northern Ireland, standardised tests towards the end of primary schooling are used to determine entry to academically selective grammar schools, with the remainder of the student population attending secondary (nongrammar) schools. 20 | Economic and social challenges and opportunities: Evidence from an ESRI research programme Ireland do not differ from their Northern-Ireland origin peers in terms of achievement. Both jurisdictions are similar in the orientation of secondary students towards higher education, with further education perceived as a ‘second best’ option, though the landscape of post-school opportunities differs. Higher rates of return to skills can incentivise people to remain in education. Wage returns to education in Ireland substantially exceed those in Northern Ireland at all levels of attainment. Added to that, in Northern Ireland a significant proportion of students pursue thirdlevel education in other parts of the UK and, as many of these highly-skilled graduates – around one-quarter – fail to return, there is a systematic leakage of skills away from Northern Ireland (Smyth et al., 2022).35 The cap on places in universities in Northern Ireland for local students has resulted in significant competition for higher education there (1.7 applicants for every place) (Pivotal, 2021).36 This means many applicants need to move outside Northern Ireland to study, with around a quarter going to the rest of the UK for university (Smyth and Darmody, 2023). Smyth and Darmody (2023) suggest that the cap on places in Northern Ireland could usefully be revisited to enhance higher education participation in general, and student mobility between Ireland and Northern Ireland. 3.3 INEQUALITIES IN WORK AND INCOME The skills acquired by children and young people in their path to adulthood are very important for labour market opportunities – both getting a job and the quality of that job in terms of wages and working conditions.37 Hingre et al. (2024) find low education a strong barrier to work, and that differences in educational attainment account for much of the variation in labour market participation between Ireland and Northern Ireland (see also Table 2.1). The gendered nature of care and its consequences for access to employment, especially high-quality jobs, remains a common feature of both settings. In 2022, women’s labour force participation stood at 76 per cent in Ireland and 72 per cent in Northern Ireland, compared to men’s labour force participation of 88 per cent in Ireland and 81 per cent in Northern Ireland. This contemporary picture for women stands in contrast to historical trends, whereby female labour market participation 35 The impact of this outflow is compounded by the low level of inflow from the rest of the UK, or indeed Ireland, to take up university places in Northern Ireland (Smyth and Darmody, 2023). 36 This cap for local students in Northern Ireland, including those from Ireland, is derived using the Maximum Aggregate Student Number (MASN) formula. 37 This is not to downplay the importance of engagement in education and training as an adult (see Blossfeld et al., 2019), though most education is acquired in the initial education system and research has shown that participation in lifelong learning tends to be higher among those who already have higher levels of educational attainment (for an overview, see Weiss, 2019). Policy considerations and implications for life chances | 21 was higher in Northern Ireland than Ireland in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s (O’Connor and Shortall, 1999). Women with children are less likely to be in paid employment – not just mothers of pre-school children but also mothers of older children. The nature of participation also differs between men and women, with higher rates of part-time work among women in both jurisdictions, either through choice or constraint. Curristan et al. (2023) link more part-time participation to lower provision of formal childcare in Northern Ireland (see above). Lone mothers also have lower participation rates than partnered mothers, particularly in Northern Ireland, even though labour market activation in the welfare system is stronger in Northern Ireland (Hingre et al., 2024).38 Hingre et al. (2024) show how participation in the labour market drops among older working-age adults in both jurisdictions. This is also found internationally, and may be for a combination of reasons, including declining health, caring responsibilities, income and pension entitlements (Privalko et al., 2019). The drop in participation starts around age 50 and is particularly sharp in Northern Ireland; for those aged between 60-64 in Northern Ireland, participation is less than 50 per cent. Devlin et al. (2023a) investigate why such a high proportion of 50–64-year-old adults are economically inactive because of an illness/disability in Northern Ireland. Comparisons of Ireland and Northern Ireland point to a lower life expectancy (see Chapter 2) and higher prevalence of chronic health conditions such as heart disease and diabetes in Northern Ireland, which may explain part of the difference in participation for older age groups across jurisdictions. Northern Ireland has a particularly high incidence of mental illness, and suicide rates are the highest in the UK (O’Neill et al., 2019). A series of studies has found high levels of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) among the population of Northern Ireland, which is associated with other mental health problems and may make them particularly hard to treat (Ferry et al., 2008). Devlin et al. (2023a) find disability rates in Northern Ireland tend to be higher in deprived areas, particularly those most affected by the Troubles. A body of work now argues that mental ill-health is a major driver of worklessness and related poverty in Northern Ireland, a potential legacy of the protracted violent conflict (Tomlinson, 2013; O’Connor and O’Neill, 2015; NESC, 2022; Devlin et al., 2023a). For those who are at work, the quality of that job matters for both income and wellbeing. What constitutes a decent job is debated (Burchell et al., 2014), though along with employment security and the quality of the working environment, 38 Hingre et al., 2024, show the proportion of working-age adults who are living in lone parent households (with children of any age) in 2022 is slightly higher in Northern Ireland than Ireland. That said, these models control for differences in household composition across jurisdictions. 22 | Economic and social challenges and opportunities: Evidence from an ESRI research programme wages are a key indicator (Cazes et al., 2016). Hourly and weekly wages are much higher in Ireland than Northern Ireland overall (see Bergin et al., 2025). However, focusing on low wage work can be instructive to assess income adequacy and signal poor quality work. Hingre et al. (2024) compare rates of low pay among men and women in the two jurisdictions. In Ireland, low pay refers to the proportion of employees earning less than two-thirds of the median hourly pay; in Northern Ireland, it refers to those earning less than two-thirds of the United Kingdom median earnings (Department for the Economy, 2023).39 Women are more likely than men to be in low-paid jobs both North and South. Using these definitions, the proportion of employees who are low paid in Northern Ireland is actually lower than the proportion who are low paid in Ireland, linked to higher wage inequality in Ireland (Doorley et al., 2024). Higher education offers strong protection from low pay in both jurisdictions (Hingre et al., 2024), reiterating the strong link between education, skills and job quality. Wages also have a strong impact on overall household income. Linked to higher wages and productivity, household incomes are higher in Ireland than Northern Ireland (see Table 2.1 in Chapter 2). Yet how income is distributed is also important for living standards. Doorley et al. (2024) find, using 2019 income data, that market income inequality (that is before taxes and transfers) is lower in Northern Ireland. The younger and more highly educated population reduces inequality in Ireland. However, this is more than offset by greater wage differences between highand low-educated workers, and higher wages and wage inequality overall (ibid.). While both systems adopt similar welfare models, with a heavy emphasis on meanstesting, they differ in design. The Irish tax system is more progressive in terms of redistributing income than in Northern Ireland. However, the level and coverage of means-tested benefits in Ireland are lower than that in Northern Ireland. Therefore, the Irish means-tested benefit system reduces inequality less than the Northern Irish means-tested benefit system. The higher level of benefit recipients in Northern Ireland is related to higher levels of inactivity there, including long-term illness and disability-related inactivity, discussed above (Devlin et al., 2023a; Tomlinson, 2013). The result is that inequality in disposable income, that is posttax and transfers, is very similar between jurisdictions.40 In both Ireland and across the UK, children have had the highest income poverty rates of all the age groups over the past decade (Russell et al., 2025). Childhood poverty is a clear illustration of how experiences in one life domain can spill into another: childhood poverty leads to poorer outcomes in cognitive and educational 39 For Ireland the low pay threshold in 2022 was €14.13; In Northern Ireland the threshold was £9, based on the UK median hourly wage (£13.50 per hour). 40 Inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient using harmonised microsimulation models is slightly higher in Ireland (0.28) than in Northern Ireland (0.26), though this difference is small and not statistically significant (Doorley et al., 2024). Policy considerations and implications for life chances | 23 attainment, socio-emotional development, and health in childhood (Maître et al., 2021). It also illustrates how early life events can influence later life trajectories, as childhood poverty is associated with unemployment and higher poverty in adulthood (Curristan et al., 2022). Russell et al. (2025) show how since 2009, child poverty rates have been higher in Northern Ireland than Ireland, and the gap is widening, as child poverty rates rise in Northern Ireland and fall in Ireland. The sharp rise in child poverty throughout the UK, including Northern Ireland, has been partly as a result of child-related benefit cuts (Andersen et al., 2024). The two-child limit to child benefit (for children born after 2017) has had a particularly marked effect in Northern Ireland, given larger average family sizes there than in the UK as a whole, and child poverty is particularly high in 2023 for children from larger families (Russell et al., 2025).41 By contrast, using a scale that measures the enforced lack of five key items of household expenditure, Russell et al. (2025) found consistently higher levels of child material deprivation in Ireland from 2010 onwards. This trend continued until 2022/2023, when material deprivation in both Ireland and Northern Ireland reached approximately 24 per cent, with Northern Ireland experiencing a recent sharp increase.42 Higher prices mean even if they are not income poor, families cannot afford essential items. Comparative analysis of average deprivation across income quintiles from both surveys indicates that families in Ireland struggle more to translate their income into a satisfactory standard of living than families in similar income positions in Northern Ireland, primarily due to the higher cost of living in Ireland. In Ireland, rates of child material deprivation rose and fell following the cycle of boom, recession and recovery (Roantree et al., 2024). The fluctuation over time in both child poverty (Northern Ireland) and child material deprivation (Ireland) underscores the importance of ‘period effects’ described above; in particular, how some periods can affect some groups/life stages, and indeed some jurisdictions more. The specific ‘period’ may influence comparisons of, for example, child poverty and material deprivation between North and South at any one point in time. 3.3 HEALTH AND HOUSING ACROSS THE LIFE COURSE While healthcare provision is relevant for all age groups, it may be particularly important for older cohorts, as health risks rise with increasing age. Connolly et al. (2022) analysed the primary healthcare systems of Ireland and Northern Ireland. A key distinction between the two systems is that in Northern Ireland, residents are entitled to a wide range of health and social care services that are free at the point of use, while in Ireland, a majority of the population pay out of pocket for a range of basic healthcare services. This is also reflected in use of private health insurance in the two jurisdictions, with 18 per cent uptake in Northern Ireland compared to 41 Welfare mitigation package in Northern Ireland means benefit cap has not been applied (see Chapter 2). 42 The five items are those common to the Family Resources Survey (NI) and the Survey of Income and Living Conditions (SILC) are: being in arrears on bills; inability to keep the home adequately warm; inability to afford a holiday away from home in the last 12 months; cannot afford to replace worn out furniture; no money to spend on self. The official Irish measure of deprivation is based on enforced lack of 11 items (see Russell et al., 2025, for further discussion). 30 | Economic and social challenges and opportunities: Evidence from an ESRI research programme how policy interventions attempt to tackle inequalities in terms of socio-economic background, gender and other factors. 4.2 SKILLS, QUALIFICATIONS, EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY A number of studies under the programme have provided important insights into the relationship between skills, educational qualifications, employment quality and productivity levels in both jurisdictions. Literacy and numeracy skill levels within primary and secondary education are found to be on a par in Ireland and Northern Ireland (Smyth et al., 2022). The striking difference lies in how these skills are recognised through qualifications, with much higher rates of early school leaving evident in Northern Ireland. The study adds to the body of research that shows the way in which academic selection in Northern Ireland leads to underperformance and withdrawal from education among working-class young people (Brown et al., 2021; Gallagher and Smith, 2000). Between-jurisdiction differences are evident too in post-school skill formation, with a more developed further education and training (FET) sector leading to post-secondary qualifications in Ireland, suggesting the potential to develop FET as a route to higher-level qualifications in Northern Ireland. Relatively high rates of early school leaving in Northern Ireland have consequences for employment quality and overall productivity, with a large gap in productivity emerging between Ireland and Northern Ireland since 2001 (Bergin and McGuinness, 2021). By 2020, productivity per worker was approximately 40 per cent higher in Ireland compared to Northern Ireland, linked to both higher investment and higher skills and education levels. From a policy perspective, this strengthens the argument to improve qualification levels in Northern Ireland. However, the research indicates that improving skills alone would be insufficient, given the scale of the productivity gap. Therefore, any measures to improve skills and qualifications must also be supported by efforts to promote FDI investment and strategies aimed at improving competitiveness at the firm level.55 Access to a pool of highly educated workers also influences the level and nature of foreign direct investment and related job creation (Siedschlag et al., 2021). The rapid expansion of educational participation in Ireland since the 1990s coupled with an emphasis on attracting higher quality jobs has shown the way in which educational investment can help to lever increased productivity and higher living standards (Bergin and McGuinness, 2022). Budgetary constraints in Northern Ireland have limited the scale of educational investment, with lower per student funding than in the rest of the UK (Sibieta, 2021). The cap on university places acts 55 On the basis of available research, it is not possible to specify detailed measures needed. Further research is needed given that analysis of the usual drivers of productivity does not explain the lower productivity levels in Northern Ireland. Implications for policy | 31 as an incentive for young people to leave Northern Ireland for university, with many not returning subsequently. It is not just an issue of resources, as institutional differentiation at secondary level appears to limit returns on existing investment by dampening the expectations of young people not selected for grammar schools (Smyth et al., 2022). The process has longer term implications too, by leading to higher levels of intergenerational educational inequality in Northern Ireland (Devlin et al., 2023b). To date, the programme has not addressed lifelong learning and skill upgrading among the adult population, a topic that would merit future research. Existing studies do, however, show that both jurisdictions face challenges regarding workforce development in a number of sectors, especially early childhood care and education, health and housing (Curristan et al., 2023; Connolly et al., 2022; Disch et al., 2024). These challenges have been identified as barriers to increasing housing supply, developing early care and education, and meeting healthcare needs in both jurisdictions. The potential for further cross-border cooperation in relation to these and other key strategic priorities will be discussed further in Chapter 5. 4.3 TACKLING INEQUALITY Research under the programme has shown the way in which institutional systems in Ireland and Northern Ireland reinforce or counter broader inequalities. Overall income levels are higher in Ireland than in Northern Ireland, but levels of income inequality are higher too (Bergin and McGuinness, 2021; 2022; Doorley et al., 2024). In both jurisdictions, the tax and welfare systems interact in complex ways to shape levels of income inequality overall and for particular groups of the population (Doorley et al., 2024). In both Ireland and Northern Ireland, poverty rates among children are higher than for other age groups (Russell et al., 2025). Income poverty rates are higher in Northern Ireland than Ireland in 2022-2023 for the population as a whole and for children, a situation that has persisted since 2009/2010 (Russell et al., 2025; see also Bergin and McGuinness, 2021). However, the picture is more complex than this suggests, with higher rates of material deprivation in Ireland than in Northern Ireland. These higher deprivation levels appear to reflect a relatively reduced ability to convert income into an adequate standard of living due to a higher cost of living in Ireland. 4.3.1 Socio-economic inequalities The research findings highlight the way in which socio-economic circumstances are associated with poorer education, health and housing outcomes in both jurisdictions. However, the scale and nature of such inequality is found to differ. 32 | Economic and social challenges and opportunities: Evidence from an ESRI research programme There is a consistent body of evidence internationally highlighting the importance of early intervention in reducing educational (and other forms of) inequality (Cattan et al., 2024; Heckman, 2006). Ireland and Northern Ireland have a historical legacy of underdeveloped and expensive early years provision, although there has been a rapid expansion of provision and supports for families in recent years in Ireland (Curristan et al., 2023). There is considerable potential for policy learning from these recent developments as Northern Ireland embarks on an expansion of early years provision. The Sure Start programme in Northern Ireland provides a useful example of wrap-around supports to address the holistic needs of children living in disadvantaged communities. Until recently, early years provision in Ireland has had an income-related component in subsidies to parents but did not take account of area-based deprivation in the allocation of resources to providers. The newly launched Equal Start programme56 in Ireland draws on the example of Sure Start and other interventions internationally to provide additional resources and supports to settings in communities with a high level of disadvantage. In secondary education, inequality in Northern Ireland is generally manifest in qualification levels but, in Ireland, grades at the end of upper secondary level are even more differentiated by social background (Smyth et al., 2022). These patterns are consistent with international research which shows the way in which middle-class families seek to secure advantage for their children via different strategies depending on existing institutional structures (Lucas, 2001; Doecke, 2023). It is worth bearing in mind, therefore, that removing educational differentiation in Northern Ireland may not be a sufficient condition for bringing about educational equality in the absence of other measures to tackle disadvantage.57 The two systems differ in how they address educational disadvantage, especially in whether resources are targeted on the basis of the profile of the student or the school. The Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools (DEIS) programme in Ireland targets additional resources and supports towards schools serving disadvantaged communities and requires these schools to set and report on targets for students. It has been widely praised as a model (OECD, 2024). However, there are also some disadvantages with this model, with disadvantaged students attending non-DEIS schools receiving no supports by virtue of their disadvantage. In Northern Ireland, resources follow the student with additional payments (through a pupil premium) made to all schools that have students from disadvantaged backgrounds. This model has been criticised for not being 56 https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/b9219-minister-announces-details-of-additional-funding-to-ensure-childrenexperiencing-disadvantage-can-access-early-learning/. 57 Very recently, the RAISE programme is being piloted in 15 localities based on the identification and targeting of areas rather than on the profile of schools. The areas were selected on the basis of multiple indicators of disadvantage as well as education indicators, including attendance, prevalence of special education needs and GCSE attainment. https://www.education-ni.gov.uk/articles/raise-programme. Implications for policy | 33 sufficiently specific about what the additional funding is intended for (NI Audit Office, 2021). There appears to be a strong basis for policy learning in both directions – in targeting resources where disadvantage is highly concentrated in certain schools and linking this to specific requirements, but also providing some supports for disadvantaged students in more socially mixed schools. International research has indicated that health status and utilisation of healthcare services vary significantly by socio-economic background (Currie, 2024; Marmot, 2005). Available information does not allow for a detailed comparison of socioeconomic inequalities in health outcomes in Ireland and Northern Ireland. However, research findings suggest that financial barriers to accessing care play a stronger role in Ireland than in Northern Ireland (Connolly et al., 2022). Despite significant institutional differences between the systems, they both have long (and growing) waiting lists for secondary care services (out-patients, dayand in-patients), highlighting the importance of a greater emphasis on service delivery and workforce development in both settings. Housing is an important domain influencing quality of life. Housing tenure and quality vary by socio-economic background (Laurence et al., 2023a). Research under the programme indicates that both systems need greater investment in social or affordable housing to address the needs of those who cannot afford housing on the private market, with labour shortages in the construction sector operating as a constraint on the expansion of housing supply (Disch et al., 2024). 4.3.2 Gender and other inequalities In international research, Ireland and the UK are often characterised as having similarities in the set of policies that influence gender equality in the labour market (see, for example, Lightman, 2019). However, a more detailed near-neighbour comparison conducted under the research programme highlights important differences as well as commonalities between the two jurisdictions (Hingre et al., 2024). The gendered nature of care and its impact on employment access is a common feature of both settings, highlighting the importance of (continued) expansion of more affordable early years provision and after-school care. Similarly, lone parents face particular challenges in accessing (high-quality) employment, with even lower participation in Northern Ireland despite a greater emphasis on labour market activation. This pattern reinforces the case for subsidies for early years provision as well as appropriate education and training opportunities to facilitate access to well-paid employment. The research has also highlighted other aspects of social differentiation, including disability and migrant status. Disability has not been explored in detail to date under the research programme and would merit future research. However, 34 | Economic and social challenges and opportunities: Evidence from an ESRI research programme existing research points to the way in which poor health status can lead to earlier withdrawal from the labour market in Northern Ireland for women and men (Hingre et al., 2024), highlighting the interrelationship of different dimensions of inequality. Both jurisdictions have experienced significant inward migration in recent decades, with a much higher proportion of working-age adults in Ireland born abroad compared to Northern Ireland (McGinnity et al., 2023). The study findings point to challenges to integration in both settings, with some migrant groups more likely to be out of work and less likely to work in professional or managerial jobs than might be expected given their high qualification levels. The results suggest the need for increased supports for language learning and improved qualification recognition among employers in both jurisdictions. It is not possible on the basis of available data to identify the extent to which discrimination and negative attitudes towards migrants play a role in these outcomes. However, research under the programme has shed important light on attitudinal patterns in Ireland and Northern Ireland. Inequality in different outcomes can be produced and reproduced not only via institutional structures but also through micro-level interactions that shape the potential fault-lines in society. Programme research points to the dynamic nature of trust in institutions and in other people, as well as in perceptions of democracy and in people feeling they have a say in political issues (political efficacy), with attitudes responsive to economic crisis (Laurence et al., 2023b; McGinnity et al., 2023). Attitudes are also responsive to political instability, with the periods in which the Executive was not in place impacting on the people’s belief in the power of politics to improve their situation as well as negatively influencing the pace of policy change. There are challenges around low levels of political efficacy in both jurisdictions, albeit with even lower levels in Northern Ireland than in Ireland. In both settings, there is a growing gap in social and institutional trust by educational level and by generation, with much less buy-in among younger people and those with lower qualifications. The research findings also show that important levers of social cohesion such as feeling heard in politics and inter-group mixing have positive spillover effects on attitudes to migrants (McGinnity et al., 2023). Despite differences in political institutions, there appear to be common challenges in Ireland and Northern Ireland around fostering a shared sense of social cohesion, with the potential for greater fragmentation evidenced by recent riots in Dublin and Belfast, ostensibly fuelled by anti-migrant sentiments. Furthermore, it is worth noting that one of the major fault-lines in Northern Ireland, that of cultural or national identity, is generally not well captured in existing Implications for policy | 35 large-scale comparative surveys,58 influencing what is possible under the joint research programme. While, in one way, this represents a lacuna, it may have hidden advantages in turning the lens onto commonalities in the experience of socio-economic disadvantage across communities. This chapter has used the lens of policy learning to look at common policy challenges facing Ireland and Northern Ireland. Socio-economic and gender inequalities are evident in both jurisdictions but can take different forms, depending on the institutional structures. The discussion highlights the potential for the two systems to learn from each other in how best to tackle educational disadvantage, for example, and indeed there is recent evidence of such learning in the form of the Equal Start programme in Ireland and the RAISE programme in Northern Ireland. The potential for greater policy learning and some of the potential barriers are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5. 58 There is, however, a rich body of research which looks at attitudes, beliefs and outcomes on the basis of cultural, religious and/or national identity (see, for example, Gillespie et al., 2024; Shuttleworth et al., 2021). 36 | Economic and social challenges and opportunities: Evidence from an ESRI research programme CHAPTER 5 The nature and extent of North-South cooperation on the island of Ireland In this chapter we review the extent and nature of cross-border cooperation on the island of Ireland. We review the evidence on the effectiveness of the cross-border institutions set up under the 1998 Good Friday Agreement (GFA) and the extent and nature of collaborations in the specific policy areas designated for cross-border border cooperation under the GFA. 5.1 THE WORKINGS OF THE CROSS-BORDER INSTITUTIONS In examining the extent of North-South cooperation in Ireland, it is useful to begin by assessing the performance of political institutions and bodies that deliver crossborder or all-island cooperation and the extent to which these have fostered cooperation in key areas relevant to the life cycle, such as education, health, infrastructure development and economic development. In terms of institutions, the North South Ministerial Council (NSMC)59 is the overarching political institution with responsibility for developing cross-border cooperation, bringing together Ministers across the two Administrations on the island. The NSMC was established under the 1998 Good Friday Agreement with a remit to develop consultation, coordination and action across the island of Ireland. The NSMC has 12 areas of responsibility, and for six of these areas there are common policies agreed at the NSMC which are then implemented separately in each jurisdiction; these are: (1) Education (2) Health (3) Environment (4) Tourism (5) Transport and (6) Agriculture. In addition, there are six North-South Implementation Bodies that operate on an all-island basis, under the overall direction set by the NSMC, and are accountable to the Council as well as to the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Northern Ireland Assembly. These are (1) Waterways Ireland (2) InterTrade Ireland (3) SafeFood (4) Special European Union Programmes Body (5) The Language Body and (6) Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Agency. The NSMC can meet in either a Plenary or Sectoral format, with Sectoral meetings being the more frequent. The Sectoral meetings deal with specific areas of cooperation and involve the Ministers with area responsibility from Ireland, two from Northern Ireland including the minister with responsibility for the sector and an accompanying Executive Minister of another designation in the Assembly. The NSMC is dependent on devolved power-sharing institutions being in place in Northern Ireland and the Council did not meet during periods when the Northern Ireland Executive was not operational. While existing cooperation and the work of 59 https://www.northsouthministerialcouncil.org/. The nature and extent of North-South cooperation on the island of Ireland | 37 the six North-South Implementation bodies continues, the development of crossborder cooperation at the political level across the key areas has been highly constrained by Assembly suspensions. Since the first meeting of Stormont on December 2, 1999, the Northern Ireland political institutions have not been in place on a number of occasions for sustained periods; by February 2022 Stormont had been without a functioning government for 35 per cent of its life-span.60 In addition to the institutional framework for cooperation through the Good Friday Agreement there is a wide array of other cooperation that takes place between the two Administrations, in line with the principles of North-South cooperation laid down in the Good Friday Agreement. These include in the areas of energy; telecommunications and broadcasting; justice and security; higher and further education; arts, culture and sport; and inland fisheries. There is also extensive cross-border cooperation at local authority levels particularly in border regions, and by civil society organisations. There are, in addition, a number of EU initiatives that have funded projects that are designed to strengthen peace, reconciliation and cross-border cooperation between Ireland and Northern Ireland. The latest iteration of this funding stream is the PEACE PLUS programme, which combines the previous INTERREG and PEACE funding strands into a single programme for the 2021-2027 period. These funding streams focus on building cross-border cooperation through the funding of cross-border projects, many of which are administered by organisations in the voluntary and private sectors and, while important, tend not to have major impacts on the nature of policy or provision across key structural areas. Lagana (2017) concludes that the highly centralised nature of both the UK and Irish administrative systems coupled with the political connotations of cross-border initiatives restricted the genuine participation of some actors and interest groups in earlier EU funded initiatives. However, Lagana (2017) also found that the creation of bodies such as the NSMC and Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB), had positive impacts on later EU cross-border programmes such as INTERREG III. Nevertheless, the total scale or impacts of European funding streams on cross-border cooperation is difficult to assess. Pollak (2019), who is a former director of the Centre for Cross Border Studies, argues that North-South cooperation had become largely invisible over time and that tourism was the sole North-South area that could be considered a clear success story. Tourism Ireland, which markets tourism on an all-island basis, is seen as a prime example of successful cross-border cooperation. Overseas tourism was worth approximately €6 billion to the island economy in 2023 (Tourism Ireland).61 On the other hand, Pollak argues that it is difficult to see evidence of major progress in other areas – namely education, health, agriculture or energy – where the 60 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-60249249. 61 https://www.tourismireland.com/news-and-press-releases/press-releases/article/tourism-ireland-comments-onoverseas-tourism-figures-for-january-september-2024. 38 | Economic and social challenges and opportunities: Evidence from an ESRI research programme benefits of potential economies of scale and mutual learning are substantial. Pollak (2019) reviews progress on cross-border cooperation in each of these areas. With respect to agriculture, while there was a high level of cooperation to contain the spread of foot and mouth disease in 2001, there has been little subsequent progress on an all-island animal health policy or joint marketing campaigns under an Irish export brand. In the area of health, the Cooperation and Working Together (CAWT), which is a partnership of health boards and trusts set up in 1992 to serve the entire border region between Dundalk and Derry, is an example of successful good practice. Under the CAWT over 50,000 people have benefited from cross-border service provision in the areas such as ENT, radiography and paediatric health surgery. However, there has been a clear failure to extend such cooperation beyond the border regions (Pollak, 2019). With respect to education, Pollak (2019) asserts that in the 25 years since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, this largely amounted to thousands of individual projects funded by the EU and other bodies; however there was a lack of any structured coordination between the education departments in both jurisdictions. Finally, Pollak (2019) notes that there have been substantial developments in the area of energy, despite this not being one of the designated areas for cooperation under the NSMC, with commercial considerations acting as a major driver for cooperative behaviour. Examples of cooperation in the area of energy include the extension of the gas network from Ireland to Northern Ireland in 2005 and the establishment of an all-island electricity market in 2007 and an all-island electricity grid in 2008. There are also many examples of successful cross-border initiatives, across a range of areas, such as the voluntary sector (see the Journal of Cross Border Studies). 5.2 CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION IN HEALTH While Pollak (2019) provides an important overview of the evolution and effectiveness of North-South cooperation, other studies have provided more detailed insights into the nature of cooperation in the areas of both health and education. McQuillan and Sargent (2011),62 in a review of existing services, identified a series of areas of potential collaboration which included ENT surgery, paediatric cardiac surgery and acute mental health care. Heenan (2021) examines the nature of cross-border cooperation in health using the response to the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study. Consistent with Pollak (2019), Heenan (2021) points out that despite substantial potential gains from a more joined-up approach to healthcare delivery, there has been little in the way of any systematic efforts to develop an all-island delivery approach, with any advances to date mostly project specific. This is despite the fact that both systems face many common challenges including ageing populations, evolving healthcare needs and workforce planning 62 https://www.crossborder.ie/pubs/2011-cross-border-health.pdf. The nature and extent of North-South cooperation on the island of Ireland | 39 challenges. Both also have poorer health outcomes when compared to other European countries, creating even stronger grounds for enhanced cooperation. Specific project-based examples of collaboration include (1) the provision of paediatric cardiology services based at Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital Crumlin, (2) the North West Cancer Centre, (3) Cross-border percutaneous coronary intervention services based in the Altnagelvin Hospital and (4) the Human Donor Breast Milk Bank. There are also some long-standing cross-border health initiatives that predate the Good Friday Agreement, such as the Cooperation and Working Together (CAWT) partnership, that goes back to 1992 which, as noted, facilitates cross-border collaboration in Health and Social Care. CAWT’s stated objective is to: add value to health and social care activity by bringing a cross-border dimension to the ongoing collaboration between the health systems in both jurisdictions, and accessing EU funding in support of such activities where appropriate.63 CAWT initiatives appear to be mostly project based. Nevertheless, despite some good examples of collaboration, the divergent approach to the COVID-19 pandemic underlines how differences in political perspectives can undermine cross-border cooperation irrespective of the obvious benefits of having a shared approach to healthcare provision and pandemic management within a shared landmass. Political entrenchment north of the border coupled with strained British-Irish relations following Brexit all created barriers to a deeper collaborative cross-border health approach during the pandemic (Heenan, 2021; Hayward, 2020). The absence of an all-island approach to pandemic management has been identified as a major factor in the observed higher COVID-19 infection rates in border areas (Devlin et al., 2024). 5.3 CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION IN EDUCATION Smyth et al. (2022)64 examined levels of cross-border cooperation in education. Cooperation in education was largely ad-hoc, based on individual relationships or specific projects, with little evidence of any sustained effort to coordinate provision or activities at a structural level. Nevertheless, despite this, a number of stakeholders, interviewed as part of the study, highlighted a few examples of good practice. These included teacher education through SCoTENs (Standing Conference on Teacher Education, North and South), strong links between the Inspectorates, the Middletown Centre for Autism, which is a joint North-South initiative, and cooperation on the Peace programme funding. Also, four further and higher education institutions,65 on both sides of the border in the north-west, established the North West Tertiary Education Cluster with the goal of establishing effective 63 https://cawt.hscni.net/about-us/what-we-do/. 64 https://www.esri.ie/system/files/publications/RS138_1.pdf. 65 Ulster University, Letterkenny Institute of Technology, North West Regional College and Donegal ETB. 46 | Economic and social challenges and opportunities: Evidence from an ESRI research programme Ireland, and in Northern Ireland through the RAISE programme, which is part of a wider programme of cooperation and mutual learning by the Education Departments, North and South. In both jurisdictions addressing inequality is important for social cohesion, as well as the welfare of society more broadly. Widening gaps in terms of financial, social and cultural resources between groups in society can exacerbate cleavages and undermine people’s trust in the people and institutions they interact with, as well as their belief that policy and politics can meet their needs, and optimism for the future. Religious or community identity was not a difference explicitly explored in this research programme, not least due to a lack of comparable evidence. What the programme does illustrate is the multiple inequalities and the diversity evident in both jurisdictions in terms of socio-economic status, age, gender, family and migration status. Yet as Coulter et al. (2021) point out, the persisting focus in Northern Ireland on the nationalist-unionist cleavage fails to acknowledge other differences and inequalities. These are challenges that cut across the nationalistunionist divide and relate to the needs and wellbeing of the population overall, so addressing them can benefit all sections of the community. Policy-making does not occur in a vacuum, however, and is subject to a number of constraints. It is crucial to note that fiscal and policy constraints are more significant in Northern Ireland, which impacts on the complexity of pursuing systemic reform. Policy development in key areas, such as early years provision, has also been delayed during periods when the Northern Ireland Executive was not in place. Ireland faces other constraints; policy-making can change more rapidly because of its exposure to external shocks as a very open economy, as illustrated by the financial crisis and its impact on the economy and society. In both systems, different institutional structures can also limit the scope for systemic policy change, so policy learning needs to take account of current policy landscapes in looking at what can and should be done. Yet challenges with maintaining stable political government in Northern Ireland since 1998, demonstrated most cogently by multiple periods of Assembly suspension, have had other consequences than challenges and delayed policymaking. Analysing social and political attitudes in Ireland and Northern Ireland, Laurence et al. (2023b) found people in Northern Ireland are less satisfied with the political system, have lower trust in political, judicial and media institutions, and less of a belief that their voice counts in politics than in Ireland at the start of the 21st century and more recently. The authors attribute this in part to the instability of political institutions in Northern Ireland, and note how this highlights the importance of an effectively functioning political system which is able to maintain legitimacy and effectively meet the needs of the population it serves. While the period analysed in this research programme is after the Good Friday Agreement, a Conclusions | 47 key difference between Ireland and Northern Ireland is the characterisation of Northern Ireland as a post-conflict society (Coulter et al., 2021). Cross-border cooperation has the potential to improve skill development, employment opportunities, healthcare provision and efficiency of energy supply, and help develop approaches to mitigate the effects of climate change. However the main executive forum for such cooperation, the North-South Ministerial Council, is currently limited to six policy areas, and the regularity of meetings has been affected by periods of suspension of Stormont. While there are several examples of good practice, other avenues for cooperation have tended to be ad hoc, relying on particular programmes or initiatives and/or key individuals. The study findings in this report point to the potential value of enhancing cross-border cooperation but in a way that is systematic, transparent and covers a broader range of policy areas. There are a number of challenges to enhancing cross-border cooperation. Not least, Brexit is likely to lead to greater differences between jurisdictions in important domains like trade, labour market regulation, and environmental protection, potentially widening gaps in key outcomes. Brexit has already made rights and entitlements for migrant workers to work, access services and travel to the other jurisdiction more complex and insecure (McGinnity et al., 2023). There has been substantial funding for cross-border initiatives, with a total allisland investment commitment of more than €4 billion to 2030 (Department of Finance, 2024). This includes over €500 million which has been allocated from the Government of Ireland’s Shared Island Fund to date. It is important that policy cooperation and related funding should be informed by the evidence. SIU research has been commissioned through the joint research programme with the ESRI, by the National Economic and Social Council and through an Irish Research Council call for proposals. The evidence base is growing, but in a context where little systematic comparative research was conducted until very recently. 6.2 WHAT WE KNOW AND WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW The research conducted under the ESRI-SIU programme has largely drawn on existing large-scale datasets conducted at the national, European and/or international level. In-depth interviews and consultations with key stakeholders have also yielded rich insights, particularly in policy domains that have not been well documented to date. 48 | Economic and social challenges and opportunities: Evidence from an ESRI research programme There have been a number of challenges in securing comparable and up-to-date information on the two jurisdictions. In particular, Brexit brought about a rupture in the data infrastructure, with the UK withdrawing from key EU surveys such as the Labour Force Survey and the Survey of Income and Living Conditions. There is now a welcome commitment by the British Government to renewing data cooperation, but the scope of the arrangement, at least at present, is more limited than before Brexit. Another limitation has resulted from the place of Northern Ireland in the UK data infrastructure. For instance, in some UK-wide studies, the Northern Ireland sample is not sufficiently large for separate analyses of sub-groups of the population. Northern Ireland is included, and in sufficient numbers, in some longitudinal studies, such as Understanding Society and the Millennium Cohort Study, but several longitudinal school studies are confined to England only. The lack of an established longitudinal study of adults in Ireland means that following cohorts of adults in both jurisdictions, an important element of a life course perspective, is not currently possible. In Northern Ireland high-quality information on social and political attitudes is regularly collected through the Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey, but no equivalent data are collected in Ireland. More generally, future cooperation between the CSO and NISRA could further facilitate the generation of comparable statistical data. In addition, linking routine administrative data with survey data could also harness the potential of existing evidence for comparative purposes (Connolly et al., 2022). As noted in Chapter 1, these limitations on evidence constrain what we can know – the questions we can ask and what we can discover – but it is only in highlighting the gaps in evidence that they can potentially be addressed. Survey data are not, of course, the only potential source of information. Expert interviews with policymakers and detailed analysis of policy documents can be used to yield rich insights into policy commonalities and differences and are especially helpful in documenting a changing policy landscape. As mentioned above, systematic evidence is vital in informing current and future cross-border cooperation and related policy development. The evidence base is growing but needs to be developed further in two main directions. Conclusions | 49 Firstly, existing research at the ESRI and elsewhere has, often for the first time, identified important differences in outcomes across the life course that can feed into policy learning. Policy cooperation that could more impactfully contribute to closing those gaps for people across the island, would benefit from a further developed evidence base, to delve into the mechanisms driving these gaps and to assess the impact of existing inequalities and gaps on the broader economy and society. To give an example, the study on education indicated higher rates of early school leaving and lower levels of post-secondary qualifications in Northern Ireland. However, further research would be needed to explore what underlies these processes of early school leaving and to determine which types of further education could be of benefit to the current and future economy of Northern Ireland. Similarly, the research conducted points to large and growing gaps in life expectancy between Ireland and Northern Ireland, but further work would be needed to look at drivers of the social and other determinants of these health outcomes. A second direction for research relates to the topics covered by the programme to date. An obvious gap relates to climate change and environment, with considerable potential for evidence-based cooperation in this sphere. Disability has emerged as an important influence on labour market participation and poverty, so would merit further investigation, along with related mental and physical health differences between jurisdictions. Other topics that could usefully be addressed include but are not limited to; lifelong learning and skills upgrading among the adult population, income adequacy among older people, housing precarity and deprivation, digital skills and broadband connectivity. Also, regional and urban/rural differences across both jurisdictions recurred in many reports and consultations under the programme as an important dynamic that it was not possible to fully explore using existing data sources. A newly developed macroeconomic model of the Northern Ireland economy can be used to examine the potential impact of economic shocks and policy changes (Bergin et al. 2025),69 while the successful harmonisation of microsimulation models analysing general income inequality could also be applied to other questions. In conclusion, research to date has documented important commonalities and differences in outcomes between Northern Ireland and Ireland as a basis for public 69 The modelling framework in Bergin et al. (2025) allows the examination of the effects of economic policies, shocks and opportunities on Northern Ireland, Ireland, the UK and the international economy. 50 | Economic and social challenges and opportunities: Evidence from an ESRI research programme understanding, policy learning and cooperation, but has also highlighted significant barriers to this endeavour. The challenge for the future, both for research and for practical cooperation, will be to uncover and identify ways to address the processes underlying these different outcomes and the impacts they have on economic and social development and societal wellbeing. References | 51 REFERENCES Andersen, K., Redman, J., Stewart, K. and Patrick, R. (2024). ‘“It’s the kids that suffer”: exploring how the UK’s benefit cap and two-child limit harm children’, Social Policy and Administration. ISSN 0144-5596. Bergin, A., Low, H., Millard, S. and Kumar Verma, A. (2025). Modelling Northern Ireland within the context of the all-island economy, ESRI Research Series RS198, Dublin: ESRI/NIESR, https://doi.org/10.26504/rs198. Bergin, A. and McGuinness, S. (2022). Modelling Productivity Levels in Ireland and Northern Ireland, ESRI Research Series No. 152. Bergin, A. and McGuinness, S. (2021). ‘Who is better off? Measuring cross-border differences in living standards, opportunities and quality of life on the island of Ireland’, Irish Studies in International Affairs, 32(2), 143-160. Bergin, A., Banahan, C. and McGuinness, S. (in progress). Economic Overview of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Blossfeld, G.J., Blossfeld, P.N. and Blossfeld, H. (2019). ‘Chapter 2 A sociological perspective on education as a lifelong process’, in Research Handbook on the Sociology of Education. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Retrieved Nov 14, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788110426.00009. Bradley, J. (1999). The History of Economic Development in Ireland, North and South. Breen, M.J. and Healy, A.E. (2016). Changing values, attitudes and behaviours in Ireland: An analysis of European social survey data in Ireland, 2002-2012. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Brown, M., Donnelly, C., Shevlin, P., Skerritt, C., McNamara, G. and O’Hara, J. (2021). ‘The rise and fall and rise of academic selection: The case of Northern Ireland’, Irish Studies in International Affairs, 32(2), 477-498. Burchell, B., Sehnbruch, K., Piasna, A. and Agloni, N. (2014). ‘The quality of employment and decent work: definitions, methodologies, and ongoing debates’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 38(2), pp. 459-477. Cattan, S., Fitzsimons, E., Goodman, A., Phimister, A., Ploubidis, G.B. and Wertz, J. (2024). ‘Early childhood inequalities’, Oxford Open Economics, 3(1), i711-i740. Cazes, S., Hijzen, A. and Saint-Martin, A. (2016). ‘Measuring and Assessing Job Quality: The OECD Job Quality Framework’. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers No. 174. Commission for the Administration of Justice (CAJ) (2022). ‘Frontline Lessons for the Future Collaborative research on the impact of immigration law and policy in post-Brexit Northern Ireland’, CAJ, www.caj.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2022/06/Frontline-Lessons-for-the-Future-JUNE-22.pdf. Connolly, S., Brick, A., O’Neill, C. and O’Callaghan, M. (2022). An analysis of the Primary care systems of Ireland and Northern Ireland, ESRI Research Series 137, Dublin: ESRI, https://doi.org/10.26504/rs137. 52 | Economic and social challenges and opportunities: Evidence from an ESRI research programme Coulter, C., Gilmartin, N., Hayward, K. and Shirlow, P. (2021). ‘Northern Ireland a generation after Good Friday: Lost futures and new horizons in the “long peace”’, in Northern Ireland a generation after Good Friday. Manchester University Press. Craig, S., Lougarre, C. and O’Connell, R. (2024). European Union Developments in Equality and Human Rights: Impact of Brexit on the Divergence of Rights and Best Practice on the Island of Ireland – Update Paper on Developments post January 2022. Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. Creamer, C. and Hayward, K. (2023). The impact of Brexit on the development of Irish regions and their cross-border development, European Parliament, ISBN 978-92848-0484-9. doi:10.2861/65063. QA-05-23-132-EN-C. Currie, J. (2024). ‘Health and inequality’, Oxford Open Economics, 3(1), i549-i556. Curristan, S., Maître, B. and Russell, H. (2022). Intergenerational poverty in Ireland, ESRI Research Series 150, Dublin: ESRI. Curristan, S., McGinnity, F., Russell, H. and Smyth, E. (2023). Early childhood education and care in Ireland and Northern Ireland, ESRI Research Series 157, Dublin: ESRI, https://doi.org/10.26504/rs157. Department for the Economy (2023). Employee earnings in Northern Ireland, Department for the Economy. Department of Finance (2024). Shared Island, Shared Economy: Comparison of economic structures and linkages between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Dublin: Government of Ireland. Desmond, A., Magennis, E. and Hawkins, E. (2024). Tourism on the Island of Ireland, University of Ulster. Devlin, A., Whelan, A. and McGuinness, S. (2024). COVID-19 infection rates and social disadvantage in Ireland: An area-level analysis. ESRI Research Series 187, Dublin: ESRI, https://doi.org/10.26504/rs187. Devlin, A., French, D. and McVicar, D. (2023a). ‘Why are Disability Rates for Older Working-Age Adults in Northern Ireland So High?’, The Economic and Social Review, 54(1), 1-28. Devlin, A., McGuinness, S., Bergin, A. and Smyth, E. (2023b). ‘Education across the island of Ireland: examining educational outcomes, earnings and intergenerational mobility’, Irish Studies in International Affairs, 34(2), 30-47. Diewald, M., Goedicke, A. and Mayer, K.U. (eds) (2006). After the Fall of the Wall Life Courses in the Transformation of East Germany. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Disch, W., Egan, P., Kenny, E. and McQuinn, K. (2024). Contrasting housing supply in Ireland, Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, ESRI Research Series 175, Dublin: ESRI, https://doi.org/10.26504/rs175. Doecke, E. (2023). ‘Family strategies of educational advantage in the Australian and German school systems: a comparative analysis’, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 1-16. References | 53 Doorley, K., Gubello, M. and Tuda, D. (2024). Drivers of income inequality in Ireland and Northern Ireland, ESRI Research Series 196, Dublin: ESRI. https://doi.org/10.26504/rs196. Ferry, F., Bolton, D., Bunting, B., Devine, B., McCann, S. and Murphy, S. (2008). Trauma, Health and Conflict in Northern Ireland: A study of the epidemiology of trauma related disorders and qualitative investigation of the impact of trauma on the individual, University of Ulster and NICTT, Omagh. Fiscal Commission Northern Ireland (2022). ‘More fiscal devolution for Northern Ireland?’, available at: https://www.fiscalcommissionni.org/evidence/fcni-finalreport-more-fiscal-devolution-northern-ireland. FitzGerald, J. (2023). ‘Understanding the Irish economy’, QEC Special Article, Dublin: ESRI, https://doi.org/10.26504/QEC2023SUM_SA_Fitzgerald. FitzGerald, J. and Morgenroth, E. (2019). ‘The Northern Ireland economy: problems and prospects’, Trinity Economic Papers, Working Paper No. 0619, July 2019. https://www.tcd.ie/Economics/TEP/2019/tep0619.pdf. FitzGerald, J. and Morgenroth, E. (2020). ‘The Northern Ireland Economy: Problems and Prospects’. Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland, Vol. 49, 2019-20, pp. 64-87. Dublin. Fosse, E. and Winship, C. (2019). ‘Bounding Analyses of Age-Period-Cohort Effects’, Demography. Oct;56(5):1975-2004. doi: 10.1007/s13524-019-00801-6. PMID: 31463797. Gallagher, T. and Smith, A. (2000). The Effects of the Selective System of Secondary Education In Northern Ireland. Main Report. Bangor: Department of Education. Gillespie, A., McVicar, D., Rowland, N. and Shuttleworth, I. (2024). ‘Catholic-Protestant Wage Differentials in Northern Ireland 2011’, The Economic and Social Review, 55(2), 121-171. Hayward, K. and Rosher, B. (2024). ‘Does Northern Ireland lean Left or Right?’ ARK. https://www.ark.ac.uk/ARK/sites/default/files/2024-06/update154.pdf. Hayward, K. and Rosher, B. (2023). ‘Political Attitudes in Northern Ireland 25 Years after the Agreement’, ARK Research Update, No. 151. https://www.ark.ac.uk/ARK/sites/default/files/2023-04/update151.pdf. Hayward, K., Komarova, M. and Rosher, B. (2022). ‘Political Attitudes in Northern Ireland after Brexit and under the Protocol’, ARK. https://www.ark.ac.uk/ARK/sites/default/files/2022-05/update147_0.pdf. Hayward. K. (2020). ‘Northern Ireland: managing Covid-10 across borders’, Borders in Globalization Review, Vol. 2 (1). Health Insurance Authority (2020). The Health Insurance Authority annual report and accounts 2020. The Health Insurance Authority, Dublin. Heath, A., Breen, R. and Whelan, C. (1999). Ireland North and South: perspectives from social science. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Heckman, J.J. (2006). ‘Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children’, Science, 312(5782), 1900-1902. 54 | Economic and social challenges and opportunities: Evidence from an ESRI research programme Heenan, D. (2021). ‘Cross-border cooperation health in Ireland’, Irish Studies in International Affairs, Vol. 32 (1). Hingre, G., Russell, H., McGinnity, F. and Smyth, E. (2024). Gender and labour market inclusion on the island of Ireland, ESRI Research Series 176, Dublin: ESRI, https://doi.org/10.26504/rs176. Kaiser, C. and Oswald, A.J. (2022). ‘The scientific value of numerical measures of human feelings’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(42), e2210412119. Keep, M. (2024). ‘The Barnett formula and fiscal devolution’, House of Commons Library, available at: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP7386/CBP-7386.pdf. Kulic, N., Skopek, J., Triventi, M. and Blossfeld, H.-P. (2019). ‘Social background and children’s cognitive skills: The role of early childhood education and care in a cross-national perspective’, Annual Review of Sociology, 45, 557-579. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073018-022401. Lagana, G. (2017). ‘A preliminary investigation on the genesis of EU cross-border cooperation on the island of Ireland’, Space and Policy, Vol. 21 (2). Laurence, J., McGinnity, F. and Murphy, K. (2024). Attitudes towards immigration and refugees in Ireland: Understanding recent trends and drivers, Jointly-published Reports 5, Dublin: ESRI and Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, https://doi.org/10.26504/jr5. Laurence, J., Russell, H. and Smyth, E. (2023). Housing adequacy and child outcomes in early and middle childhood. Dublin: ESRI. Laurence, J., Sprong, S., McGinnity, F., Russell, H. and Hingre, G. (2023). Changing social and political attitudes in Ireland and Northern Ireland, ESRI Research Series 170, Dublin: ESRI, https://doi.org/10.26504/rs170. Lawless, M. (2021). Cross-border trade in services, ESRI Research Series 129, Dublin: ESRI, https://doi.org/10.26504/rs129. Lewis, T. (2007). ‘The problem of cultural fit – what can we learn from borrowing the German Dual System?’, Compare, 37(4), 463-477. Lightman, N. (2019). ‘The migrant in the market: Care penalties and immigration in eight liberal welfare regimes’, Journal of European Social Policy, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.182-196. Lucas, S.R. (2001). ‘Effectively maintained inequality: Education transitions, track mobility, and social background effects’, American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1642-1690. Maître, B., Russell, H. and Smyth, E. (2021). The dynamics of child poverty in Ireland: Evidence from the Growing Up in Ireland survey, ESRI Research Series 121, Dublin: ESRI. Marmot, M. (2005). ‘Social determinants of health inequalities’, The Lancet, 365(9464), 1099-1104. Mayer (2009). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134619. References | 55 Mayer, K.U. (2004). ‘Whose Lives? How History, Societies and Institutions Define and Shape Life Courses’, Research in Human Development, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 161-187. McGinnity, F., Laurence, J. and Cunniffe, E. (2023). Comparing migrant integration in Ireland and Northern Ireland. Dublin: ESRI. https://doi.org/10.26504/rs158. McGinnity, F., Carron-Kee, E., Alamir, A., Dalton, C., Darmody, M., Hingre, G., Murphy, K. and Quinn, E. (forthcoming). Monitoring Report on Integration 2024. Dublin: ESRI Youth. McGuinness, S., Bergin, A. and Devlin, A. (2024). ‘A study of cross-border working on the island of Ireland’, ESRI Working Paper 781, Dublin: ESRI, https://www.esri.ie/publications/a-study-of-cross-border-working-on-theisland-of-ireland. McGuinness, S. and Bergin, A. (2020). ‘The Political Economy of a Northern Ireland Border Poll’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 44(4),781-812. McQuillan, S. and Sargent, V. (2011). Unlocking the potential of cross-border hospital planning on the island of Ireland: A prototype modelling framework, The Centre for Cross Border Studies, Armagh. McQuinn, K. and Varthalitis, P. (2020). ‘How openness to trade rescued the Irish economy’, in N. Campos, P. De Grauwe, and Y. Ji (Eds.), Economic Growth and Structural Reforms in Europe, pp. 377-406, London: Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108782517.016. Menton, C., Longoria, G., Farrell, N. and Lynch, M. (2022). All-island coordination of energy infrastructure and renewable energy supports, ESRI Research Series 155, Dublin: ESRI, https://doi.org/10.26504/rs155. National Economic and Social Council (NESC) (2022). Shared Island, Shared Opportunity: NESC Comprehensive Report. Council Report No. 157. Dublin: National Economic and Social Council. Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) (2021). Closing the gap – Social deprivation and links to educational attainment. Belfast: Northern Ireland Audit Office. O’Connor, R.C. and O’Neill, S.M. (2015). ‘Mental health and suicide risk in NI: a legacy of the Troubles?’, The Lancet, 2(7), p. 582-584. O’Connor, P. and Shortall, S. (1999). ‘Does the border make the difference?’, in Heath, A.F., Breen, R. and Whelan, C.T. (eds.). Ireland: North and South: Social Science Perspectives, Oxford University Press, pp.285-318. OECD (2019). ‘How did countries perform in PISA 2018?’, in PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/28450521-en. OECD (2023a). Settling in 2018: Indicators of immigrant integration, Paris: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2023/06/indicators-ofimmigrant-integration-2023_70d202c4.html. OECD (2023b). PISA 2022 results Volume 1. Paris: OECD. OECD (2024). OECD review of resourcing schools to address educational disadvantage in Ireland. Paris: OECD.