www.peer-review-social-inclusion.eu

Ireland In-work poverty and labour market Segmentation

A Study of National Policies

Mary Daly Queen’s University Belfast, UK

Disclaimer: This report reflects the views of its May 2010 author(s) and these are not necessarily those of either the European Commission or the Member States. The original language of the report is English.

On behalf of the European Commission DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities

IRELAND

Content

Summary...... 3

1. Presentation of the Current Situation – Statistical Overview ...... 4

2. Main Causes of In-Work Poverty and Labour Market Segmentation: Literature Review ...... 10

3. Presentation and Analysis of Policies...... 13

3.1 In-work Poverty...... 13 3.1.1 Low Net Wage ...... 14 3.1.2 Tax Credits for Low-wage/Income Workers ...... 15 3.1.3 Social Benefits to Those on Low Wages...... 16 3.1.4 Low work Intensity ...... 17

3.2 Labour Market Segmentation...... 19 3.2.1 Job Retention and Advancement...... 19

3.3 Working Conditions and “Employees' Friendly” Flexibility: Voluntary part-time, Parental leave, Atypical hours ...... 19

3.4 Life-long Learning...... 20

3.5 Non-Discrimination Policies and Inclusive Work Environments ...... 20

3.6 The Role of the Social Partners...... 21

References...... 22

2 IRELAND

Summary

While it hardly needs pointing out, one has to make reference at the outset to both the rapid changes that Ireland has been undergoing and the fact that there are major gaps in our knowledge about the impact of this. While official statistics are very helpful in illuminating some of these changes, there is always a time lag in getting underway the kind of detailed research needed to illuminate underlying causal relationships. Against this background, it should be noted, therefore, that much of the research reported here is based on the period of boom in Ireland and that the report was written in May 2010. Then, as now, detailed and timely research on the impact of the recession and the kinds of changes it has induced was unavailable.

Ireland’s rate of in-work poverty, at 6 per cent in 2008, compares relatively favourably in the European constellation, being below average. It is a rate that has remained more or less stable over the recent period, not touched by the downward trend in financial poverty especially among the unemployed in the years preceding 2008. As regards the labour market, on the main indicators of labour market segmentation, Ireland is around the EU average. But it is clear that the Irish labour market has a significant share of low-quality employment. Gender segregation, both vertically and horizontally, continues to be a feature of the Irish labour market and has remained stable or stubborn in the face of the huge inflow of Irish women into the labour market in the last decade or so. In addition, mention must be made of the fact that the low wage traps in Ireland are higher than the EU norm for some sectors of the population (viz. one earner couples with two children).

Labour market segmentation and in-work poverty have both been taken up by the policy making process in Ireland and indeed could be said to have been the subject of policy innovation. However, at the present time they are definitely not to the forefront of the policy agenda. The priority now is, first, getting the banks on a sustainable financial footing, then righting the country’s fiscal situation (with particular emphasis on cutting expenditure and public services) and, some considerable distance after that, reducing unemployment (although the unions accuse the government of not being sufficiently concerned about unemployment).

To take an overview of the current general policy direction of the Irish government, it could and has been depicted as inclined towards an ad hoc ‘slash and burn’ approach to cutting public spending (Dobbins 2010). The Irish government shows few signs of following the US, UK, or continental European ‘Keynesian’ stimulus option of borrowing to invest in areas such as public works programmes or infrastructure, in order to ‘pump-prime’ the economy and inject much needed demand at a time of recession. Concerns about debt levels weigh heavily on the government framing of debate about the state of the economy. In particular, the response to unemployment has been muted. The trade unions and Ireland’s main employer organisation, IBEC, have jointly called for a €1 billion plan to maintain jobs; however, the government has initially only committed to a small-scale €250 million jobs plan aimed at maintaining 30,000 existing jobs. Furthermore, issues of job quality have received relatively little attention and have generally been downgraded in priority since the onset of the recession. The fact that social partnership is in limbo does not help here since it was the trade unions and the social pillars which championed issues of job quality and in-work poverty during the 20+ years of social partnership.

3 IRELAND

However it is not just a matter of being pushed in the background. While Ireland has many of the right approaches in place, there are gaps and weaknesses also. Existing policies on job quality and in-work poverty need to be reframed in several respects. Furthermore, there are real gaps as regards monitoring, information and knowledge. Quality of employment has not been as important in Ireland as quantity of employment and this is reflected in the available information and the lack of clear definitions and indicators of in-work poverty and job quality indicators.

1. Presentation of the Current Situation – Statistical Overview

In-work Poverty

At the time of writing, the most recent available figures are from the EU-SILC 2008 (CSO 2009a). The overall in-work at-risk-of-poverty rate in Ireland1 in 2008 was 6.7 per cent – this is equivalent to over 110,000 persons. The overall at-risk-of- poverty rate was 14.4 per cent.

The in-work poverty rate was unchanged from the 2007 figure. At that stage Ireland was considerably below the 2007 EU-25 average (8 per cent). In fact, the 2007 figures placed Ireland among the 9th lowest in the EU-25, along with Austria, Cyprus, France and Hungary (ibid: 86). It is relevant to note that the 2007-2008 period saw a decline in the overall at-risk-of-poverty rate in Ireland of 2.1 percentage points and a decline of some 15.7 percentage points for those whose principal economic status was listed as ‘unemployed’. A relatively static in-work poverty rate is notable in this context, although looked at in the longer term the rate has been on a downward curve.

Looking at the poverty population overall in 2008, those in employment had the lowest risk of poverty of any group – however overall they made up nearly one fifth (19 per cent) of persons at risk of poverty and comprised the largest single group of persons at risk of poverty. There are no significant gender differences. No breakdowns by age, educational level or household type for the in-work poor are published.

Looking at the changes in income and risk of poverty more broadly, the risk of poverty was closely related to the number of people working in a household. In 2008, the at risk of poverty rate for households with no workers was 32.7 per cent, for those with one worker it was 15.7 per cent, for those with two it was 5.1 per cent and for those with three or more workers it was 4.2 per cent (ibid: 48).

Somewhat less than a half of those at risk of poverty in 2008 lived in households where at least one person was in employment.

1 Defined as those individuals who are classified as employed (according to their most frequent activity status) and whose equivalised disposable income is below 60% of national median equivalised income.

4 IRELAND

Tax Rate on Low Wage Workers: Low Wage Traps

The low wage trap (as defined for Table 19.M6, European Commission 2009) in Ireland in 2008 was 88 for a one earner couple with two children and 50 for a single person with no children. Around the EU average for the latter, it was considerably above the EU average for the former, suggesting work disincentives for this family type. In both cases the low wage trap has gone up considerably over the course of the decade.

The unemployment trap as measured by the marginal effective tax rate taking account of the combined effect of increased taxes and benefits withdrawal as one takes up a job was in 2008 according to statistics reported in the Compendium 74, up from 70 in 2001 (Table 19.M7, European Commission 2009).

As reported by ICTU (2009) some 1.05m (46 percent) of the total of 2.29 tax units did not pay income tax in 2007– their income being too low.

The Minimum Wage

The most recent figures I could locate for the proportion of workers on the minimum wage was for 2005/2006 when it stood at 5.2% for those employed in private-sector, non-agricultural employment.

In the most recent Employment Survey for which results are available – that for 2007 – some 13.6 per cent of all employees earned less than €10 an hour (CSO 2009b). Just over half (51.8 per cent) earned between €10 and €20 an hour and some 34.8 per cent earned over €20 an hour. The median was €16.29 and the mean €20.08. The highest average wages were in the education sector and the lowest in the hotel and restaurant sector. Public sector hourly earnings were on average some 47.6 per cent higher than those in the private sector.

Ireland introduced a minimum wage in 2000. Initially, the statutory minimum wage was set by the National Minimum Wage Commission. Subsequent increases were then negotiated between the social partners under successive social partnership agreements. However, since 2005, the Labour Court has recommended appropriate rises in the national minimum wage, and this is rubber-stamped by government. At the time of writing (May 2010) Ireland’s national minimum wage is €8.65 an hour - a rate which was set in 2007. The imposition of income levies introduced in 2009 have effected a cut in the minimum wage – the trade union SIPTU now claims that the actual take home rate is €8.48 an hour. Workers under 18 years of age receive 70 per cent of the full adult rate; other younger workers, those just over 18 years of age, and those undergoing apprenticeship receive between 75 per cent and 90 per cent of the full rate.

As reported by the OECD (2009: 87) a survey for the Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association (ISME) based on 400 of its members showed that, over the six months to March 2009, half of the sample had implemented a pay freeze and 41 per cent had cut wages with an average reduction of 13 per cent. Most construction firms had cut wages and around 40 per cent of services firms had implemented reductions. The latest available statistics nationally however, for the third quarter of 2009, indicate that average hourly earnings in all sectors apart from agriculture (at € 21.60) are relatively stable (compared to €21.53 in the first quarter of 2008),

5 IRELAND

although weekly earnings are down slightly. This is most likely due to a drop in the hours of paid work which is down slightly over the period from an average of 32.7 to 32.

Gender Pay Gap

On the figures presented in the Compendium of Indicators (European Commission 2009), Ireland had a gender pay gap (measured as the difference between men's and women's average gross hourly earnings as a percentage of men's average gross hourly earnings for paid employees) of 17.1 in 2007 (down from 17.2 in 2006).

A recent study (McGuinness et al 2009a) is one of the best sources on the detail of this, although it is based on data from 2003 (the Employment Survey). The unadjusted, observed or ‘raw’ gap between men's and women's hourly wages was about 22 per cent for all employees. However, about two-thirds of the observed gap was due to differences in observable characteristics between men and women, notably different levels of education and labour market experience, job and firm characteristics, among others. When account is taken of such factors, the remaining adjusted (or unexplained) wage gap was close to 8 per cent.

For full-time employees, the unadjusted gap was about 18 per cent and the adjusted gap just under 7 per cent. For part-time employees, the unadjusted wage gap was around 6 per cent, but the adjusted gap was higher, at 10 per cent. This suggests that part-time female workers are on the whole more qualified and experienced than their male counterparts. The difference in the labour market experience levels of men and women - which widened the gap by 3 percentage points - was the largest single influence in explaining the gender wage gap. Higher levels of educational attainment among women did help to reduce the wage gap, but this factor alone was not sufficient to compensate for the effects of labour market experience. Other factors - such as a higher incidence of supervisory responsibility, longer tenure and higher trade union membership among men, and a higher incidence of part-time work among women - also acted to widen the gap.

In relation to the occupational analysis, the unadjusted wage gaps across the eight occupations examined were found to be broadly similar. However, much larger variations occurred in terms of the adjusted gap, which reflected substantial differences in the role of observable characteristics (such as education, experience, family structure and organisational factors) across occupations. The adjusted wage gap varied from about 2 per cent in clerical occupations to 21 per cent for plant and machine operatives. Regarding the sectoral analysis, the raw gender wage gap was widely distributed, ranging from 13 per cent in the hotel sector to 46 per cent in the education sector. The adjusted wage gap was somewhat more uniformly distributed: ranging from under 1 per cent in the transport and communications sector to 20 per cent in construction.

In terms of policy implications, the report concluded that expanding the availability of career- breaks for full-time female workers would improve their relative pay.

6 IRELAND

Gender Segregation

Gender segregation in the Irish labour market in 2008 as measured by occupation was 27.6, considerably above the EU average of 26 for EU-27 and 25 for EU-15 (European Commission 2009). Looked at over time, the segregation rate has been on a gradual upward curve – in 2000 it was 26.9. The situation is arguably worse for the sectoral comparison, although the absolute figures are lower - 22.5 compared with an EU-15 average of 20.3. This too has been on an upward curve – in 2000 it was 20.4.

A recent study on women in the Irish labour market (Russell et al 2009) suggests that the rapid increase in female employment has been accompanied by some narrowing of the gender difference in low pay (defined as earning less than two-thirds of the median wage) since 2000. In 2000 female employees were 1.8 times more likely than male employees to be low paid, but by 2005 the ratio had dropped to 1.4. There was little change in the early part of the period (1997 to 2003) but between 2003 and 2006 the raw gap narrowed. The Russell et al study also analysed occupational change. It demonstrated that between 1996 and 2006 women made significant inroads into some traditionally male occupations. For example, over this ten-year period women’s share of all employment increased from 37 per cent to 43 per cent, while their share of managerial/executive occupations increased from 32 per cent to 42 per cent, and that of business and commerce occupations increased from 35 per cent to 48 per cent. Women’s share of professional occupations also increased. However, there were also some trends in the opposite direction - most noticeably the decrease in women’s presence in computer software occupations. Using two summary indices, the study concludes that the level of gender segregation across the labour market as a whole (divided into 24 occupational categories) was relatively stable between 1996 and 2006.

The study also showed that vertical segregation along gender lines is prevalent in the Irish labour market. Their analysis of the 2003 NCPP/ESRI survey of employees showed that men are twice as likely as women to occupy senior and middle management positions. The ratio of men to women among these higher management positions was found to be highest in the business and finance sector and lowest in the health sector. Moreover, the level of segregation remains high in Ireland by international standards (Korpi et al. 2009) and there is still a high level of concentration i.e., 63 per cent of women are still located in just 5 occupational categories. One of the mechanisms through which occupational segregation is reproduced was highlighted by the longitudinal analysis of women’s transitions from economic inactivity to employment. The study found that over a third (34 per cent) of the women returned to a job at a lower level of status than the preceding one.

Inactivity and Part-time Work due to Lack of Care Services for Children and Other Dependants

There is no information available from official sources on this for Ireland. However a special module run as part of the Quarterly National Household Survey in 2005 examined the work-care balance (CSO 2005). It found that almost 8 per cent of men and 10 per cent of women wanted to reduce their working hours to allow more time for caring. Almost twice as many women (6.3 per cent) as men (3.4 per cent) were outside the labour force as a result of their caring responsibilities; this was especially true among lone parents at 13 per cent.

7 IRELAND

Other research corroborates the continued effects of young children on women’s labour market participation in Ireland. The Compendium of employment statistics for example shows that the difference in percentage points in employment rates (age group 20-49) without the presence of any children and with presence of a child aged 0-6 for women in Ireland is 16.5 compared to an EU-15 average of 11.8 and EU-27 average of 12.6 (European Commission 2009: Table 18.A5). Moreover, this is a gap that has got worse for Irish women over time. Recent research has concluded that lower levels of participation amongst mothers are likely to reflect both women’s preferences for reducing paid work when their children are young and constraints in terms of affordability of childcare, availability of flexible working arrangements, and so forth (Russell et al 2009). There is considerable evidence that childcare costs remain a significant barrier to participation.

Transitions by Pay Level or Type of Contract

Transition information is not available for Ireland.

Diversity and Reasons for Contractual and Working Arrangements

There are many gaps in this information for Ireland but for 2008 more information is available although its reliability is lessened by small sample size. The proportion of total employees in part- time and/or fixed-term contracts plus total self-employed as a percentage of persons in employment in 2008 in Ireland was 36.5 per cent (for men it was 33.5 and for women 40.4) – the proportions for the total and for women are considerably below the EU average but those for men are around the EU averages.

For the 15 per cent in part-time work the main reason given is care (of children or for other family reasons) – this accounts for about half of all those involved and is followed by education or training. As one would expect, the reasons differ significantly by gender with care a far more important rationale for part-time work for women than for men (for whom education or training dominated). The proportions on fixed-term contract are much smaller (4.2 per cent) and the population is quite evenly spread between those who could not find a permanent job and those who did not want one.

Undeclared Work

The only data available for undeclared work in Ireland is for 2002 when the size of undeclared work in the national economy (e.g. as share of GDP or persons employed) was estimated at 8 (Table 21.A1 European Commission 2009).

8 IRELAND

Overtime Work and Hours of Overtime

Overtime and hours of work overtime in Ireland are below the EU-15 average for all workers at 5.5 – in 2008 they were 3.1 (Table 21.A3 European Commission 2009). Looked at over time, the variability from year to year is quite striking – in 2002 it was 1.5 whereas in 2006 it was 4.5. As one would expect there are strong gender differences here – the male rate in 2008 was 4.3, compared to a female rate of 1.9.

Access to Flexitime

The latest figures reported by the EU on this are for 2004 when some 20.2 per cent of Irish employees had access to flexi-time (22.8 per cent of men and 17.4 per cent of women).

Thirty-six per cent of respondents in the Quarterly National Household Survey (2008) said that they had access to flexible working arrangements (CSO 2010: 18). The results contradict the figures reported above for 2004 in that the proportion of women reporting the availability of flexible working arrangements was significantly higher than the proportion of men (42 per cent to 30 per cent). A significant difference in availability was also reported for nationals as against non- nationals. Flexible working availability also varied by age group (most available to those in the 25 to 59 age group) and by educational level (availability increasing by ascending level of qualification). In terms of sectoral distribution, public administration towered over other sectors in the extent to which flexible working arrangements were available to workers – some 68 per cent of respondents from this sector reported that flexible working time was available to them.

Monitoring

There is no official definition of low wage employment in Ireland and in-work poverty is not a widely-used term in policy or other circles.

EU-SILC is the main source of monitoring of in-work poverty in Ireland. In terms of labour market segregation, there is no statistic or monitoring of ‘low wage employment’ although the National Employment Survey provides very detailed information about individual earnings (from the employer) and characteristics (from the employee). It was first carried out in 2003 and has been repeated more or less annually. Other than one-off surveys, it is the source of most information on working conditions also.

At the moment the EU-SILC is not linked to other relevant sources and analytical tools. In particular it is not linked to the Quarterly National Household Survey (which tracks changes in employment patterns but mostly at the level of the individual and collects only information about earnings). As a recent review (Callan et al 2007) pointed out, it should be made possible to use EU-SILC and the results from the National Employment Survey together to understand much more about the relationships between low pay at the level of the individual and low income (relative to needs) at the level of the household, among other things.

9 IRELAND

2. Main Causes of In-Work Poverty and Labour Market Segmentation: Literature Review

Analyses of In-Work Poverty

There have been two recent analyses of the working poor, interpreted as individuals who are in employment and live in a household in which the equivalised income is less than 60 per cent of the median equivalised income.

One such analysis is that by Callan et al (2007) and is based on an analysis of EU-SILC 2005. It is clear from these analyses that the working poor have particular characteristics. These included:

ƒ Occupational concentration: One-third of the ‘working poor’ in Ireland were self-employed or farmers. Farmers were especially likely to be counted as ‘working poor’: they comprised less than 7 per cent of those at work but almost 17 per cent of the ‘working poor’. There was also a poverty bias among other self-employed people other than farmers who made up about 11 per cent of those at work but 16 per cent of the ‘working poor’. Employees, on the other hand, accounted for over 80 per cent of those at work but only about 63 per cent of the ‘working poor’.

ƒ Age concentration: Compared with all those at work, the ‘working poor’ were more concentrated in the older age ranges: 57 per cent were aged 40 years or over, compared with 44 per cent of the workforce as a whole. This reflected the generally older age of self- employed people (including farmers), though ‘working poor’ employees are not very different in age from all employees. Men made up 61 per cent of the overall ‘working poor’, compared with 57 per cent of all those at work. However, men made up only 49 per cent of ‘working poor’ employees, compared with 52 per cent of all employees.

ƒ Education: In general the ‘working poor’ had much lower levels of education than all those at work.

ƒ Household with children: Sixty-three per cent of the overall ‘working poor’ population were in households with children. Only 8 per cent were lone parents with children and 55 per cent were in households with two or more adults and children. The largest share of ‘working poor’ - 26 per cent - were in households with three or more adults plus children. In many cases, these are a couple with children, some of whom were aged 18 or over. ‘Working poor’ employees are even more likely to be in households with children. Strikingly, only 6 per cent were living alone. So most of the ‘working poor’, and ‘working poor’ employees in particular, were below the income threshold not because their individual income was below the ‘at risk of poverty’ threshold for a single person, but because the total income coming into the household was below the threshold for a household of their size and make-up.

ƒ Few adult members in work: For all households with people of working age, the average number of working age adults in their household was 2.6. For the ‘working poor’, the figure was only slightly lower, at 2.3. However, for all those at work the average number of people in the household in work is 2.0, whereas for the households of the ‘working poor’ the average number of people in work was only 1.3. The gap was even greater for those in full-time work: an average of 1.6 people in households of all those at work and 0.8 in households of the ‘working poor’.

10 IRELAND

Other research tends to confirm these findings (e.g., Nolan et al 2000). Rocks (2008) also draws similar conclusions to those of Callan et al (2007) but he highlights an important gender difference in that the majority of men who are working poor are employed in full-time jobs whereas among the poor working women part-time jobs predominate. The women are also more likely than the men to be located in the service sector, in which poor pay and a general low skill level of workers raises the odds of being in poverty. Earlier research also found that women above 25 years of age face a substantially higher risk of being low paid than men, with married women being particularly vulnerable to low pay (Nolan et al 2000). This research also found strong evidence of a widening gap between those who are more and less skilled and educated.

Overall, two sets of factors emerge from the literature as risk factors for in-work poverty. The first set relates to the personal characteristics of the individuals who tend to be low-skilled and poorly educated. Secondly, there are job-specific factors, including whether the job was full or part-time and which sector it was located in. However, I would like to draw attention to a third factor which is household/living arrangements. This tends to be often cast in the shade – no doubt because of policy’s limited capacity or political will to engage in social engineering, but the reality is that people’s chances of being poor or non poor depend crucially on those with whom they share their living situation. Most of the ‘working poor’, and in particular ‘working poor’ employees, are below the ‘at risk of poverty’ threshold not because their individual income is below the threshold for a single person but because the total income coming into the household is below the threshold for a household of that size and make-up. While the situation and incomes of those in work is crucial, the overall picture in influenced in key ways by the income levels of all the adults in the household. As the concept of work-poor households alludes to, the number of employed adults in the household exerts an important and crucial influence. However the influence of the household works both ways. Callan et al (2001) make the point that the overlap between low pay and poverty in Ireland is weaker than often assumed because many low-paid workers are not the only earner in their household. And in fact only a small minority of low-paid persons are in households that would generally be identified as being poor. The complexity is striking for many households characterised as poor do not have anybody working at all. This is a reflection of the tendency towards a polarisation between ‘work-rich’ and ‘work-poor’ households. This underlines the need to know more about the composition of households and families and to treat employment not as a property of individuals but as a collective resource. Employment has tended to be seen in individual terms – although the advent of the term ‘workless households’ which was especially to the fore under the successive New Labour governments in the UK suggests a growing realisation in policy circles that employment is often collective in nature in the sense that the resources secured from it and even the major decisions around it have strong collective elements.

Analyses of Labour Market Segmentation

There are many dimensions to labour market segmentation in Ireland but not all of these have been researched. In fact, I found it difficult to locate studies on labour market segmentation in Ireland and would suggest that it is an under-researched area.

One issue on which there is more information is about the experiences of what one might call ‘disadvantaged groups’. These include women, the low-skilled, those with a disability and migrants.

11 IRELAND

We have seen that segregation along gender lines is persistent. The research evidence suggests that at least part of this is due to factors outside the labour market and in particular the still low availability and high cost of childcare facilities. Surveyed in 2007 some 60 per cent of people disagreed with the statement that they have access to high-quality, affordable childcare in their community (CSO 2009c). So childcare availability – understood in a manner that prioritises quality - is a major issue despite considerable policy attention and investment of public resources. As regards costs, the National Women’s Council of Ireland (2009a) has calculated that net childcare costs are 45 per cent of the average wage in Ireland, compared to an average of some 16-17 per cent in EU and OECD countries. Calculated as a proportion of family income, the cost is just under 30 per cent in Ireland (only the UK is higher at 33 per cent), compared to an average of around 12.5 per cent in the EU and OECD. Recent data (ibid) on the cost of childcare revealed that adjusting for inflation, the current (in July 2009) cost averages €157 per week.

A recent analysis of the 2003 Employment Survey found that centralised wage bargaining, specifically the implementation of the national wage agreement, benefited women within both the full-time and part-time labour markets (McGuinness et al 2009a). The study also found that the existence of some family-friendly policies within firms, specifically career-breaks, helped to reduce the gender wage gap. However, this result was only evident within the full-time labour market. Working flexitime had a neutral impact on the gender pay gap, while the greater concentration of women in part-time work, the most common form of flexible employment, was found to widen the gender wage gap by almost 2 percentage points. The research also concluded that social partnership arrangements, through the implementation of the national wage agreement, helped to standardise wages both within and across firms and sectors, and this in turn led to an improvement in the relative position of women across all labour markets.

As regards those with a disability, their rate of employment is low at 37 per cent figures from 2004 (reported in Department of the Taoiseach, 2009: 54). The target is for 45 per cent for 2016.

As regards migrants, the latest research suggests that they do less well in the labour market as compared with nationals even though they tend to have high levels of human capital. Research by Barrett and McCarthy (2007a; 2007b) showed that immigrants earned between 15 and 18 per cent less, on average, relative to native workers, controlling for factors such as education and length of labour market experience. For immigrants from non-English speaking countries, this wage gap was over 30 per cent. Barrett and McCarthy (2007a) also showed that the wage gap was biggest for the more highly educated immigrants, relative to comparable native employees. In broad terms, the findings confirm those of the earlier paper.

A second issue is about general employment conditions. Looking at the statistics which compare Ireland to its EU partners (as presented in the Compendium – European Commission 2009), the particular weak points of the Irish labour market from the perspective of quality relate in the main to gender inequalities and some inflexibility around working arrangements.

One must underline the absence of long-term data to monitor job quality in Ireland. Using the data then available, a general analysis of quality in the Irish labour market by O’Connell and Russell (2008) examined change in a range of factors, including as well as the usual conditions of work, worker autonomy, work pressures and stress, job security and job satisfaction (for the period between the early 1990s and 2003/4). Among other things they noted a growth in both higher-

12 IRELAND

grade and lower-grade occupations, a fall in the incidence of involuntary part-time working and the volume of fixed-term contracts (unlike the rest of the EU), a marked reduction in overall hours of work, a large drop in the number of workless households (from 22 per cent in 1994 to 14 per cent in 2000) and high job satisfaction and felt job security. It concluded that while there was little evidence of a general deterioration of job quality in recent years in Ireland, there was evidence to suggest a polarisation of job quality. Their assessment of the boom on balance is that it has been largely positive.

More recent evidence continues to raise questions about whether Ireland is a low-wage economy. TASC (an independent think-tank dedicated to combating Ireland’s high level of economic inequality) has argued that, in reality, Ireland was and is a low-waged economy, with private sector wages ranking 11th out of the EU15 (TASC 2009). Furthermore, half of all employed women, who make up nearly 40 per cent of the private sector workforce, earn below €12.34 an hour, while half of those aged under 25 years earn less than €10 an hour. Surveying the situation in 2008, TASC suggested that half of the entire private sector workforce in Ireland – encompassing about 600,000 workers – earned substantially below the average industrial wage. Many people in this group had incomes at or just above minimum wage level. To tackle income inequality, TASC concludes that public policy measures to reduce economic inequality would need to involve stronger redistributive mechanisms – these could include some combination of increased taxation together with improved social transfers.

3. Presentation and Analysis of Policies

To start with an overview of the general policy direction of the Irish government as of May 2010, it could and has been depicted as inclined towards an ad hoc ‘slash and burn’ approach to cutting public spending (Dobbins 2010). The Irish government showed few signs of following the US, UK, or continental European ‘Keynesian’ stimulus option of borrowing to invest in areas such as public works programmes or infrastructure, in order to ‘pump-prime’ the economy and inject much needed demand at a time of recession. Concerns about debt levels weighed heavily on governmental framing of debate about the state of the economy. The response to unemployment has been muted. The trade unions and Ireland’s main employer organisation, IBEC, have jointly called for a €1 billion plan to maintain jobs; however, the government committed only to a small- scale €250 million jobs plan aimed at maintaining 30,000 existing jobs. Furthermore, issues of job quality received relatively little attention and were generally downgraded in terms of priority since the onset of the recession. The fact that social partnership was in limbo did not help here as it was the trade unions and the social pillars which championed issues of job quality and in-work poverty during the 20+ years of social partnership.

3.1 In-work Poverty

As such, in-work poverty is not targeted officially in Ireland. In particular, there are no targets to reduce in-work poverty - indeed in-work poverty is hardly mentioned in the latest National Action Plan For Social Inclusion 2007-2016. This entire document is underpinned by the dominant anti- poverty approach which is for more employment. The focus in the section of the National Action Plan on people of working age is strongly oriented on enabling people to gain access to the labour market. This and the way that activation has taken hold in Ireland reflects a general philosophy of employment as the panacea for poverty. The vibrant and rapidly expanding job market, until relatively recently, served to downgrade the issue of in-work poverty.

13 IRELAND

Notwithstanding this however, there have been initiatives to raise the income levels of those in employment and the employees’ representatives and also the ‘social pillar’ have for quite a while been concerned to improve the conditions of those in work within the auspices of the social partnership process. This has been something of a tension in the social partnership process however (Dobbins 2010). The priority of employers and government has been to increase the numbers at work whereas trade unions and the social pillar, while endorsing an activation approach, have also argued that Ireland’s model of peak-level social partnership could go further in terms of achieving social and redistributive goals – in particular, reducing the number of working poor. Overall, however, the Irish model of social partnership – which has been largely based on a wage moderation/tax reduction trade-off – has been primarily geared towards economic growth and employment creation and issues of redistribution and in particular in-work poverty have been secondary (ibid).

From the perspective of incomes, three main sets of reforms/issues have been advanced to deal with in-work poverty: the national minimum wage, changes to the tax system, and changes to the benefit system.

3.1.1 Low Net Wage

Ireland’s system of wage minima is relatively complex. The national minimum wage applies universally but there are also sectorally specific agreements. Some sectors, such as hotels and hairdressing, are covered by Employment Regulation Orders, agreements drawn up by sector- specific Joint Labour Committees and which can be registered with the Labour Court and extended over the sector as a whole. It is estimated that some 300,000 workers are covered by these sectoral orders. Sectoral minima set in this way are typically slightly higher than the national minimum. This mechanism can also determine other elements of working conditions, which can have a substantial impact on labour flexibility and costs, such as overtime pay or Sunday working arrangements. In other sectors, such as construction, the sector minimum is set through a Registered Employment Agreement (REA). In the mid 2000s, these collective agreements covered some 250,000 workers. Like the ERAs they are negotiated between employers and trade unions and can also be registered with the Labour Court. Generally, workers covered by the Agreements are higher paid than those covered by the Orders. Some of the minimum wages that result are high, such as €18.60 per hour for craftsmen in the construction sector (at the time of writing).

The OECD (2009) has recommended that arrangements for sectoral minima should be reconsidered. It points out that un-coordinated arrangements in different sectors create a risk of overall pressure on wages. In addition, they can lead to wages and conditions that are uncompetitive in particular sectors. This risk is heightened where the minimum wage is negotiated and then extended to a wider group of workers and firms. Reforms are being considered. The Government is considering introducing a new ‘inability to pay’ law’ which will affect the Orders. One of the trade unions – SIPTU – has launched a campaign against this. They view it as part of a government strategy to load the costs of the collapse onto the less well off (see http://www.siptu.ie/bulletin/pdf/1270654447ShiftingtheBurden0704.pdf).

In terms of the impact that the national minimum wage has had on limiting the number of working poor, the evidence is mixed. One study, relatively old at this stage and conducted within one year of the introduction of the minimum wage, concluded that as few as 5 per cent of employees had

14 IRELAND

their pay increased as a direct result of the introduction of the minimum wage (Nolan et al 2001). Eurostat (2008) estimated that only about 3 per cent of full-time workers are on the minimum wage in Ireland. Nolan et al (2001) surveying the situation nearly a decade ago argue that tight labour market conditions and labour shortages were more significant factors behind wage increases, reducing the incidence of the working poor in many low paying sectors, as unemployment dropped sharply from the late 1990s. The study found that as many as 81 per cent of employers claimed that they would have increased wages to attract or retain workers regardless of the minimum wage. The same study found that the impact of the national minimum wage in reducing the numbers of working poor was limited to specific sectors (Nolan et al 2001). The percentage of employees who had had a wage increase as a direct result of the introduction of the minimum was highest in the retail industry (11.6 per cent), followed by hotels, restaurants and bars (8.9 per cent), and textile manufacturing (7 per cent). It was here that the impact of the national minimum wage on the working poor was most significant. There was also variation by company size. Only 2.5 per cent of people in companies with over 100 workers were directly affected by the minimum wage. This is an indication that many large companies pay above the minimum wage anyway. Four times as many workers in indigenous Irish-owned companies were affected by the minimum wage than in foreign-owned multinationals, where wages often tend to be higher. According to the research, most families benefitting from the minimum wage were in fact in the middle-income distribution range.

3.1.2 Tax Credits for Low-wage/Income Workers

In recent years, one of the main measures introduced in Ireland to improve the income situation of the working poor is the system of tax credits (Dobbins 2010). All ‘pay as you earn’ (PAYE) taxpayers are entitled to a tax credit known as the PAYE Tax Credit. This was worth €1,830 in 2009.

As cited in Dobbins (2010), the ESRI has suggested that careful tweaking of the tax system and a greater use of refundable tax credits may be of most benefit to households close to the poverty line. Making all current tax credits refundable, regardless of whether the recipient actually pays tax, is regarded by the ESRI as an effective way of directing resources towards those on low incomes and reducing the number of working poor.

Another important fiscal policy measure aimed at the working poor was to remove those earning the national minimum wage and below from the tax net. This, too, has been a generally successful measure and the government has tended to adhere to this principle while adjusting for recession, although it is not always made explicit as a policy goal. However it should be noted that significant numbers of the working poor still pay tax. Research on the EU-SILC for 2005 found that 45.7 per cent of working poor households were paying tax (Rocks 2009).

However, tax increases announced in the Supplementary Budget (April 2009) will further reduce net earnings. Given that women with low levels of qualifications are known to be particularly responsive to the wages available (Russell et al 2009), the forecast decline in wage levels is likely to depress participation amongst this group in particular.

Ireland makes relatively little use of in-work (top-up) benefits, especially in the lower- income/paying sectors. But it must also be said that information on this is relatively limited.

15 IRELAND

3.1.3 Social Benefits to Those on Low Wages

A further significant anti in-work poverty measure has been to increase the amount of in-work social welfare benefits availed of by some of the working poor population. There are problems here though. For example the Family Income Supplement (the social welfare payment dedicated to those on low wages) has a low take-up - some 30,000 families - compared with the very large number of households that should in principle receive the benefit. While measures to increase its effectiveness have been introduced for example reducing the qualifying number of hours worked (it is now at 19 hours work per week), it is not as widely promoted as it might be and it has a 60 per cent taper rate. This is a primary area for reform.

There is also a problem with other taper rates. For example, from 2009, Rent Supplement was reformed to allow recipients to work up to 30 hours a week but once that threshold is reached the Supplement is withdrawn at a rate of 100 per cent, so marginal effective tax rates are extremely high over this range for the 85,000 households who receive it.

The result as we have seen earlier makes for high marginal effective tax rates. These may act as barriers to seeking more or better paid work for some people and may also hinder the return to work altogether by discouraging the kind of part-time work that might keep workers close to the labour market in the absence of full-time work.

The OECD (2009) has underlined that interaction of various means-tested benefit components creates high marginal effective tax rates, particularly for weekly earnings around half the average, and so net incomes do not vary much over quite a wide range of gross earnings. These effects are part of a wider problem for the supply of labour with the incentive to increase household hours worked often limited on below-average wages or part-time employment.

Moreover, there is a wide range of different benefits and schemes, which are not integrated with each other. This makes for a complex range of taper rates at different points in a somewhat arbitrary way. The OECD (2009) has pointed out that a simpler system could help to avoid “benefit traps” by allowing withdrawal of benefits to be spread more evenly across different situations. A further difficulty is that the complexity of the system makes it difficult for people to understand it and hence make good decisions about how much to work.

In its review of the system published in 2009, the OECD made the following relevant recommendations:

ƒ The incentive to work for those with below-average earnings potential would be enhanced by eliminating high taper rates and moving towards a single social payment for working-age adults to simplify the system, improve the incentive to work and strengthen activation requirements.

ƒ Administrative reform was also recommended. Ireland, the OECD points out, is unusual in the number of agencies involved with helping the unemployed. It recommends a single organisation should deal with paying unemployment benefits and managing activation programmes.

ƒ It also recommends changes in the modalities of the activation approach. In particular a strengthening of the requirements for early and regular interaction for all unemployed with the

16 IRELAND

employment services and improving follow-up, backed by stronger sanctions. Claimants should ultimately be required to enter an effective work programme if other options are not taken up.

3.1.4 Low work Intensity

The social partnership process has given some attention to this, mainly through workers’ rights programmes and matters of employment quality.

It seems to me, however, that much of the matter of employment intensity in Ireland revolves around the question of female labour supply and gender gaps in employment quality (including gender segregation). It is female labour that remains the main source of under supply and, as Russell et al (2009: 79) point out, in the short to medium term at least, Ireland will no longer be able to rely on economic growth to draw women into the labour market. In this context, attention must be refocused on the efforts required for Ireland to achieve and maintain the targets set for female employment within the EU and to attend to matters of quality as well as quantity (which in any case are intimately inter-connected).

There has been great attention to improving childcare provision and this has yielded fruit. Childcare has had a central place in successive social partnership agreements which delivered among other things the first National Childcare Strategy in 2006. This Strategy built on existing (inadequate) provision and targeted the creation of an additional 50,000 childcare places, broadly equivalent to enough places to provide childcare for every child born in a single year. It has led to a substantial increase in the national set of childcare capacity, both in terms of facilities and the availability of qualified staff. However, there are still major gaps. The supply of out-of-school- hours provision has also been targeted but the results here too have been limited - although 5,000 additional places have been provided, this is a tiny fraction of the number of children aged 6-12 years.

Overall it seems that much more needs to be done and that existing provision needs to be reframed in several respects.

The recent study of female employment by Russell et al (2009) concluded that policy developments in relation to combining work and care for young children have not played a very significant role in the rise in participation over the last decade. Part of the reason for this was that a significant proportion of spending within the childcare strategy was allocated to the Early Childcare Supplement, a payment to families that was not connected to whether the child is cared for outside the home or linked to the employment status of parents. Therefore, as Russell et al (2009) point out, it did not create any real incentive to increase labour market participation among mothers. A new more focused and instrumental policy to provide a year of pre-school Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) for children aged between 3 years and 4 years and 10 months was introduced in January 2010. The scheme will provide 3 hours of pre-school for 5 days a week over a 38 week year. The hours and scheduling of the provision are likely to limit the labour market effects of the scheme, however, although there is some flexibility in delivery so that children attending year-round care on a full-time or part-time basis will be subsidised to the amount of €48.50 per week over 50 weeks. This should reduce childcare costs for parents. However, the places are ‘subject to availability’ and there are likely to be capacity constraints in providing the service as the latest figures from the CSO suggest that only 10 per cent of families

17 IRELAND

with pre-school children used formal centre-based care as their main form of childcare (CSO 2006 cited in Russell et al 2009: 77).

The impact of higher tax rates on second-earners should be carefully assessed and consideration given to moving to full individual taxation. Analysis by Callan et al. (2009) suggests that individualisation undertaken to date boosted participation by between 2 and 3 percentage points. Clearly there is more to be done as the information on benefit traps considered earlier shows.

Rising educational attainment has been one of the most significant factors driving increased female labour force participation. Therefore, education may be one of the most important policy domains in terms of female participation both in the past and in the future. Russell et al (2009) advise that while cohort effects will continue to raise the educational levels of the workforce in the future, policy changes that halt the expansion of third-level education for instance could impact on future participation rates of women.

The situation of lone parents is also vital, not least because with participation rates in the range of 50 per cent they are considered to have an unsatisfactory level of labour market participation. Russell et al (2009) actually noted a decline in participation rates among lone parents with children under 5 years. They and many others have pointed out that labour market participation of lone parents hinges critically on the availability of affordable and good quality childcare. This is a need that is not currently met in Ireland. The cost of childcare is a big issue. Both this and the existing challenges to make work pay and to tackle in-work poverty traps associated with loss of secondary benefits need to be managed out of the system if policy is to be effective (Murphy 2008). Various poverty traps are already associated with the One Parent Family Payment and Job Seekers Allowance and it has been pointed out that the proposals to transfer lone parents from the (still relatively new) Parental Allowance to the Job Seekers Allowance once their youngest child reaches the age of 8 will not address current traps and will also create new, and maybe even more intense, traps (ibid). While such losses may be mitigated by tapering arrangements, there may still be a net loss in the transition from the new Parental Allowance to Job Seekers Allowance (as claimant or qualified adult).

It has also been argued that an activation policy that compels lone parents to work is inconsistent with other elements of the welfare system that support full-time caring among married/cohabiting parents (ibid). Murphy (2008) develops what she terms a positive model of activation capable of supporting mothers and those with caring responsibilities of working age. On the basis of cross- national research she concludes that it is not activation that achieves high levels of maternal employment but incorporating family-friendly and work-life balance policy into overall labour market and activation policy. Her framework focuses on broader social inclusion rather than employment focused approaches to activation. It outlines a long term human and social capital approach, which focuses on ‘education first’ rather than ‘work first’ employment strategies. This kind of approach is validated by the fact that lone parents are overrepresented among the low paid and the lowest qualifiied sector of the population. Furthermore, Murphy’s positive approach anchors the state’s obligations to claimants in legally-defined rights and standards frameworks, and seeks to ensure that claimants’ obligations are proportionate to the level of investment by, and obligations to, the state. The activation debate also needs to be framed in the context of the quality of jobs available to lone mothers. Nevertheless, fear of losing secondary benefits such as the medical card or rent supplement remain a barrier to employment among lone parents (Murphy et al. 2008: 63).

18 IRELAND

3.2 Labour Market Segmentation

The latest social partnership agreement (Towards 2016) contained many measures directed at labour market segmentation. However, with that process in abeyance in the current crisis, the current and future functioning of many of its measures are in doubt. In addition, with most of the effort in Ireland being expended on activation measures, the question of labour market segmentation has been generally less prioritised. However some initiatives are worthy of note

3.2.1 Job Retention and Advancement

In June 2009, the Government announced the introduction of the Employment Subsidy Scheme (Temporary), managed by Enterprise Ireland, the aim of which was to support the retention of jobs in viable exporting enterprises that might otherwise be rendered redundant as a result of the impact of the global and financial economic crises. The scheme applies to eligible manufacturing and internationally trading, exporting enterprises that can identify a number of full-time jobs at risk in their company as a result of the economic downturn. Employment subsidies of up to €200 per week per full time (working an average 35 hour week) person for the first 26 weeks and then on a reducing scale thereafter to a maximum of €9,100 over the 15 month period to November 2010 may be awarded to successful applicants. The maximum support an enterprise can receive is €500,000. A condition of approval is that companies commit to maintaining a multiple of the number of full-time jobs that may be covered by employment subsidies until November 2010. The scheme is implemented under the EU State Aid Temporary Framework Guidelines. The deadline for receipt of applications under the scheme was September 2009 and some 650 applications were received.

While welcome, this can be said to be rather a weak response and in fact the social partners have criticised it from this perspective.

3.3 Working Conditions and “Employees' Friendly” Flexibility: Voluntary part-time, Parental leave, Atypical hours

Of these parental leave is the only measure to have received significant legislative attention. The extent of maternity and parental leave in Ireland was low historically compared to other European countries. In 2001 paid maternity leave was increased from 14 to 18 weeks, and unpaid leave was raised from four to eight weeks. A series of successive changes meant that by April 2007, paid maternity leave was 26 weeks in duration, and unpaid leave 16 weeks. Women have also been given the right to return to the same job, or a job on a similar level, after maternity leave. Maternity leave provision in Ireland now compares well to other West European countries. However, there is no paid parental leave available in Ireland and paternity leave is discretionary. So, Ireland is below the European norm on employment leaves relating to child-rearing.

Neither voluntary part-time work nor atypical hours policy is strongly promoted in Ireland and the policy approach on both of these could be characterised as voluntaristic and rather rudimentary. There is scope for expansion. As Murphy (2008) points out, without strategies to enhance the

19 IRELAND

capacity of part-time work to be an effective route out of poverty, an activation strategy based on part-time work may trap particular women and men in poverty.

3.4 Life-long Learning

Ireland performs quite well in this regard and is close to the EU-15 average (see Compendium, European Commission 2009). However, when one looks closer, one sees that Ireland reflects an EU disparity in that those people with low educational attainment have a much lower prevalence of participation in education and training as compared with the better educated. Seventeen per cent of those with the highest educational attainment had participated in education and training in the four weeks prior to the survey in 2008, compared with 8.7 per cent of those of medium educational attainment and 4.2 per cent of the least well educated (Table 23.M4 European Commission 2009). This and other information suggests inequalities in access to training, in general and among workers.

The question this raises for Ireland is not so much about the range of policies but their targeting. Ireland has in fact a range of policies in place and its life-long learning approach is integrated into the social partnership process and is broad-ranging in several respects. The National Skills Strategy (NSS), launched in March 2007, set out clear long-term objectives for the lifelong learning of those in the workforce and for developing Ireland’s human capital through upskilling, training and education for the period to 2020. While the Strategy has a universal labour market range, it has a key focus on targeting the lower skilled. In addition, to this the FÁS One Step Up Initiative (training for those in employment) assists individuals to build on their competency levels and obtain a recognised qualification within the National Framework of Qualifications. The low- skilled are targeted especially as is the promotion of an ethos of lifelong learning in the workplace so as to enable employees to cope with frequent and ongoing changes in work practices. There is also the Skillnets Training Networks Programme and specifically the Training Networks Programme wherein networks of employers working in consort determine training programmes. However, funding is rather low and recent communications, including the 2009 Progress Report on the National Reform Programme, indicate that activation measures for the unemployed will now be given priority. In fact, it states quite clearly that the Budget for these programmes will be reduced. This seems short-sighted.

3.5 Non-Discrimination Policies and Inclusive Work Environments

Workplace discrimination is a persistent problem in Ireland. A survey of persons aged 18 years and over carried out in 2004 found that 18.3 per cent of people reported discrimination on gender grounds, 15.9 per cent cited discrimination on age grounds and 17.4 per cent on grounds of race, ethnicity or nationality (CSO 2007).

A broad-brush equality approach, which includes nine possible grounds of discrimination backed by legislation is favoured in Ireland. While the Equality Authority (which has seen a significant cut in its finances recently) oversees equality in general, a National Framework Committee for Equal Opportunities at the level of the Enterprise promotes equality in the workplace. This is a social partnership committee, grounded in the social partnership agreement, and is charged with developing and disseminating practical supports for planned and systematic approaches to equality. There is little information available on how it is functioning.

20 IRELAND

3.6 The Role of the Social Partners

As is well know at this stage, the role of the social partnership process has been a vital part of Ireland’s strategy for economic and social progress up to the relatively past. This now looks to be in abeyance if not in disarray. The partners are in dispute over the latest round of wage adjustments.

21 IRELAND

References

Barrett, A. and McCarthy, Y. (2007a) ‘Immigrants in a booming economy: Analysing their earnings and welfare dependence’, Labour, 21, 4: 789-808.

Barrett, A. and McCarthy, Y. (2007b) ‘The earnings of immigrants in Ireland: Results from the 2005 EU Survey of Income and Living Conditions,’ Quarterly Economic Commentary, Winter. Available at: http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20071219164742/QEC2007Win_SA_Barrett%20McCart hy.pdf

Callan, T. et al, (2001) Reforming Tax and Welfare, Dublin, Economic and Social Research Institute.

Callan, T., Fahey, T., Coleman, K., Maitre, B., Nolan, B., Russell, H. and Whelan, C.T. (2007) A Social Portrait of People of Working Age in Ireland, Dublin: Stationery Office. http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20080310134930/BKMNEXT109.pdf

Central Statistics Office (2005) Reconciliation between Work and Caring Responsibilities, Dublin: Stationery Office. Available at: http://www.cso.ie/qnhs/documents/qnhs_caringq22005.xls

Central Statistics Office (2007) Equality in Ireland 2007, Dublin: Stationery Office. Available at: http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/other_releases/2007/equalityinireland.pdf

Central Statistics Office (2009a) Survey on Income and Living Conditions SILC 2008, Dublin: Stationery Office. http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/silc/Current/silc.pdf

Central Statistics Office (2009b) National Employment Survey 2007, Dublin: Stationery Office. http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2007/nes_2007.pdf

Central Statistics Office (2009c) Quarterly National Household Survey Childcare Quarter 4 2007, Dublin: Stationery Office. Available at: http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/labour_market/2007/childcareq42007.pdf

Central Statistics Office (2010) Working Conditions Quarterly National Household Survey Quarter 1 2008, Dublin: Stationery Office. Available at: http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/labour_market/2008/workcond_q12008.pdf

Department of the Taoiseach (2009) Ireland National Reform Programme 2008-2010, Progress Report, Dublin. Available at: http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Publications/Publications_2009/Ireland%20National%20Reform %20Programme%202008-2010,%20Progress%20Report,%20October%202009.pdf

Dobbins, T. (2010) Working Poor in Europe – Ireland – European Working Conditions Observatory, online report, available at: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/studies/tn0910026s/ie0910029q.htm

22 IRELAND

European Commission (2009) Compendium of Indicators for Monitoring the Employment Guidelines and Employment Analysis, Brussels.

Eurostat (2008) ‘Minimum Wages 2008’, Statistics in Focus, No. 105, Eurostat: Luxembourg.

ICTU (2009) Areas where Taxes can and should be Raised in Budget 2010, available at: http://www.ictu.ie/download/pdf/areas_where_tax_can_should_be_raised_in_budget_2010_2_de c_09.pages.pdf

Korpi, W., Ferrarini, T. and Englund, S. (2009) ‘Egalitarian Gender Paradise Lost? Reexamining Gender Inequalities in Different Types of Welfare States’, paper presented at the EMPLOY- FAMNET Workshop in Berlin, May 11-12.

McGuinness, S., Kelly, E., Callan, T. and O’Connell, P.J. (2009a) The Gender Wage Gap in Ireland, Dublin: The Equality Authority/ESRI. Available at: http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20090911101000/BKMNEXT141.pdf

McGuinness, S. McGinnity, F. and O’Connell, P.J. (2009b) Did Ireland Become more Unequal during the Boom Years?, Dublin: ESRI Research Bulletin, 2/4/2009.

Murphy, C., Keilthy, P. and Caffrey, L. (2008) Lone Parents and Employment: What are the Real Issues? Dublin: One Family and Combat Poverty Agency. http://onefamily.ie/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/Lone-Parents-Employment-Full-Report.pdf

Murphy, M. (2008) Reframing the Irish Activation Debate: Accommodating Care and Safeguarding Social Rights and Choices, Dublin: The Policy Institute Trinity College and the Combat Poverty Agency. Available at: http://eprints.nuim.ie/1190/1/MMOctReframing.pdf.

National Women’s Council of Ireland, (2009a) Who Cares? Challenging the Myths about Gender and Care in Ireland, Dublin: National Women’s Council of Ireland. Available at: http://www.nwci.ie/download/pdf/who_cares_october_2009.pdf

National Women’s Council of Ireland, (2009b) Pre-Budget 2010 Submission, Dublin: National Women’s Council of Ireland. Available at: http://www.nwci.ie/download/pdf/prebudget_submission_2010_final.pdf

Nolan, B., O’Connell, J. and Whelan, C.T., (2000) Bust to Boom? The Irish Experience of Growth and Inequality, Dublin, Institute of Public Administration.

Nolan, B., O’Neill, D. and Williams, J., (2001) A Follow-up Study on the Impact of the Minimum Wage in Ireland, Report for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

O’Connell, P.J. and Russell, H. (2008) ‘Employment and the quality of work’, in Fahey, T., Russell, H. and Whelan, C.T. (eds) Best of Times? The Social Impact of the Celtic Tiger, Dublin: IPA.

OECD (2006) OECD Economic Surveys: Ireland 2006, Paris: OECD.

23 IRELAND

OECD (2009) OECD Economic Surveys: Ireland 2009, Paris: OECD, available at: http://www.irishtimes.com/focus/2009/oecd/index.pdf

Rocks, P. (2008) The Working Poor in Ireland: An Analysis of EU-SILC 2005, Dublin: Combat Poverty Agency, available at: http://www.cpa.ie/publications/workingpapers/2008-09_WP_TheWorkingPoorInIreland.pdf

Russell, H., McGinnity, F., Callan, T. and Keane, C. (2009) A Woman’s Place Female Participation in the Irish Labour Market, Dublin: The Equality Authority/ESRI. Available at: http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20091113090533/BKMNEXT153.pdf

TASC, (2009) The Solidarity Factor: Public Responses to Economic Inequality in Ireland, Available at: http://www.tascnet.ie/upload/SolidarityFactorFinal_06_07_09.pdf.

24