As with many European regions and cities, Dublin
(Ireland) has undergone far-reaching and often conflictual cycles
of development and change, decay and renewal, such that its social
and physical landscape has been radically reconfigured through the
post-war era. It presents an interesting case study of the local tensions
and implications consequent upon such processes, particularly given
the intensity of recent transformations and the diversity of development
policies and institutional experiments that have been implemented
in response at national, city and local level. The aim of this paper is to offer an account of these
diverse trends and a brief evaluation of how urban governance has
been realigned in an effort to deal with some of the challenges. In
the main, the paper focuses on specific patterns of economic and social
change in Dublin, highlighting some of the particular problems of
decay and growth in the inner city, in order to unpack some of the
complex and variable outcomes of the general processes at work. The
paper then provides an account of public responses to the particular
problems of regeneration, including a number of innovations over recent
years in urban development policies and governance approaches. There
have been many interesting departures and experiments, as well as
continuing conflicts and tensions, and these offer useful insights
and lessons about uneven global processes, urban change and governance
in the contemporary city. The emergence of the new economic realities of global
capitalism is a key factor in understanding recent patterns of (uneven)
urban development, decline and regeneration. In the post-war era,
general transformative forces emerged on an international scale producing
changes that worked through every dimension of space and society.
Key dimensions of this period of restructuring included the globalisation
of commodity chains (Scott and Storper 1986; Gereffi 1994), the increasing
concentration and centralisation of social power in transnational
corporations and world cities (Friedmann 1986; Sassen 1991, 1994;
Clark 1996), the reorganisation of the spatial structure of production
and the readjustment of regional and urban economies to international
conditions (Massey 1995). These structural movements have had profound
implications for the work and living conditions of people and communities
across the world, generating radical changes in investment and employment
patterns and new and intensified forms of competition between states,
regions, cities and localities. It
must also be remembered that, although these general processes have
worked their way through all societies, the outcomes and meanings
have been profoundly uneven across different social classes and geographic
spaces. At the urban scale, municipal authorities have had
to deal with two main consequences of the new global economic order
in particular (Morin and Hanley 2004). First, cities now face a strong
imperative to compete within an international market for investments
in order to counter deindustrialisation and achieve regeneration.
Second, cities have to find ways of responding to the problems of
increasing inequality, poverty and social polarisation linked to these
global shifts. In many cities, there has been a retreat to local or
bottom-up strategies to counter such problems both on the part of
urban social movements and the local state (Goetz and Clarke 1993;
Moulaert et al. 2003; Morin and Hanley 2004). At the same time, new
policies are often underpinned by a neoliberal ideological (re-)orientation
and a prioritisation of economic rather than social concerns (Peck
2001). At the city level, this is, perhaps, most starkly evident in
the way that local and central states adopt entrepreneurial roles,
diverting resources to “sell” (and prepare) locations as
“prime” sites for investment (McGuirk 1994; Harding et al.
1994). Thus, planning and housing policies become increasingly dominated
by market and pro-growth ideologies, driven by the aim of achieving
a strong identity and competitive advantage on the global stage. Typical
strategies have included place promotion, flagship projects, image
boosterism, and urban regeneration, as well as a general emphasis
on market-driven approaches, “business-friendly policies”
and a pro-growth ethos (Bartley and Treadwell Shine 2003). Furthermore,
there have been shifts in the institutions, networks and practices
of governance as reflected in the increasing popularity of public-private
partnerships, QUANGOS, growth coalitions and, generally, the privatisation
of local politics (Hula 1993; Peck 1995). The broad problematic with regard to urban change
and regeneration, therefore, relates to the patterns of development,
growth and decline emerging under conditions of globalisation, the
resultant social conflicts and pressures and the challenges that all
of these processes pose for urban authorities and systems of governance. The broad economic develompent model pursued by the
Irish state has evolved over a number of decades, while external influences
have also been critical, as the nature of the country’s integration
within a broader global political economy has changed substantially
with differential socio-spatial implications. For most of the first
few decades of its existence, the Irish state (founded in 1922) favoured
economic policies based on protectionism, import-substitution and
indigenoues industrialisation (for detailed commentary, see Lee 1989;
Breen et al. 1990; Drudy 1991, 1995, 1998). By contrast, the period
from the late 1950s onward was marked by a shift to "outward-looking”,
export-oriented, and supply-side policies (e.g. grants and infrastructural
investment, no restrictions on profit repatriation, low tax on capital),
an increasing reliance on foreign investment and a reduction in the
traditional dominance of agriculture. There followed a period of rapid
economic expansion in the 1960s (GNP increased by almost 50% over
the decade), although there were also concerns that this boom was
built on a vulnerable model of dependent development based on foreign
capital (O’Hearn 1992). Under the influence of inflows of multi-national
investment, the country took on a new function in the international
division of labour (Frobel et al. 1980) as a site for manufacturing
satellites performing basic assembly, test, packaging and simple machining
functions (NESC 1982; Perrons 1986; Drudy 1991), and these branch
plants typically developed weak local linkages and generated a high
proportion of relatively low-paid female employment (Breathnach 2000).
This initial boom lasted into the 1970s, but the uneven spatial and
temporal development of the Irish economy entered into a new phase
with the deep recession of the 1980s and the return of the spectre
of mass unemployment and out-migration, affecting all regions. The more recent economic boom of the late 1990s has
been widely remarked upon, as the country experienced average annual
GDP growth of almost 8 per cent, though recording notably lower GNP
growth due to capital repatriation by foreign MNCs (Kirby 2002). Since
2001, growth rates have slowed, though remaining strong. GDP growth
was 6 per cent in 2002, for instance, although again GNP growth was
only 2 per cent, a significant gap that is largely attributable to
the performance of the pharmaceutical and biomedical sectors, where
margins are exceptionally high and accrue largely to foreign MNCs
(OECD 2003). Although the underlying factors for this period of
economic expansion are complex, commentators typically identify factors
such as the low-tax regime, geographic location, government incentives,
access to external aid in the shape of EU structural funds, which
amounted to 3 per cent of GDP in the early 1990s (Fitzgerald 1998),
as well as a national social partnership model of negotiating wage
agreements (thus engendering some typical aspects of both American
and European modes of regulation). However, as the divergence between
GDP and GNP suggests, transnational capital has been a central force,
Ireland reinforcing its position as a key site for particular roles
in a number of global commodity chains, notably computer parts, pharmaceutics,
biomedics and some back-office functions. There have been notable and important contradictory
outcomes, however. Underpinned by neoliberal macroeconomic and urban
policies and driven by overseas investment, the Irish boom has involved
a process of deepening uneven development characterised by dependent
industrialisation and social polarisation (O’Hearn 2001; Saris
et al 2002; Kirby 2002). At a national level, inequality increased
considerably between 1994 and 1997, and Ireland remains one of the
most unequal countries in Europe (O’Reardon 2001). This has been
reflected in increased relative poverty and deepening experiences
of deprivation (Callan and Nolan 1999).
Thus the contradiction between the opportunities and benefits
accruing to the privileged and middle classes and those accruing to
working-class and marginalised people remains a key issue and a central
feature of Irish society, which has perhaps been reinforced, if anything,
by the economic boom. Broadly, Dublin has played a composite role over
many centuries as the primate city of a peripheral region of a colonial
economy, which functioned as an administrative, legal and financial
centre, a port and commercial site, and a location for some important
manufacturing functions, notably textiles, brewing, distilling, glass
works, metal working, chemical plants, printing and ship building
(Daly 1985). The uneven development of this economic base over recent
decades has been influenced by the changing development model pursued
by the Irish state, as outlined above. Initially, the urban economy
was strengthened by the early policies of protectionism and import-substitution
industrial strategies, as the bulk of industrialisation over this
period (1930-50) concentrated in the Dublin region (Breathnach 1999).
However, its dominant economic role was compromised somewhat by the
post-war shift to export-oriented industrialisation via foreign investment.
The first wave of post-war multinational capital tended to avoid Dublin
(influenced in part by regional policies that favoured the poorer
western regions), leading to the creation of a dispersed branch-plant
economy and the decline of indigenous industrial sectors (Breathnach
1982). This spelled considerable social disruption for urban working-class
populations. The 1980s recession contributed further to deepening
economic decay and considerable problems of social deprivation, poverty,
out-migration and general disinvestment and physical decay (unemployment
in Dublin was as high as 18 per cent by the early 1990s, and between
1981 and 1991, net out-migration amounted to just over 74,400 people). In more recent years, however, rapid economic growth
underpinned the reinforcement of Dublin as the main population and
commercial centre, and the city also witnessed a rapid expansion in
urban tourism, becoming one of Europe’s fastest growing destinations
(see Gillmor 2001, for details). Foreign investment over recent years
has increasingly concentrated in Dublin, resulting in expanding employment
in a number of new manufacturing and service industries. The organisational
strategies of (predominantly) US TNCs were important factors, as the
city took on a number of niche roles in some global commodity chains
(Breathnach 2000; 2002). In particular, Dublin has become an emergent
global site for back-office functions (particularly financial services),
electronics and computer software manufacturing, and personal and
professional services. At the same time, much of its older manufacturing
base continued to fare badly, as traditional, indigenous industries
declined. These broad processes and policies at work have been greatly
to the detriment of the Dublin working class, for whom patterns of
urban decline and growth over recent decades have created many problems
and challenges. The industrial employment opportunities available
to them and their families were concentrated in the old indigenous
Irish industries, which fared poorly in the post-1958 era relative
to new industries attracted through the State's development policies.
So the traditional urban working class was effectively marginalised
in the course of economic development, without opportunities for manual
work and unable to compete for the skilled-manual or white-collar
positions being created on their doorstep (Breen et al. 1990, 73). Overall between 1961 and 1996, industrial employment
declined by almost 55 per cent (Table 1) in Dublin City (inner city
and inner suburbs). Expansion in the service sectors was also slow
(decline in the mid 1980s ensured that total employment in services
in 1991 was little different to 1961). Although there has been rapid
growth in service employment in the 1990s, such jobs are not readily
accessible to those traditionally employed in the industrial sectors.
Importantly, the expansion in service employment between 1961 and
1996 was entirely accounted
for by the professional and personal services sectors. This reflects
in part the city’s emerging role as a site of back offices for
multinational industry, but also a common tendency in the restructuring
of the urban economy towards a polarised occupational structure. The
typical process is that job loss is concentrated in manufacturing,
while growth tends to be in either the high-grade professional services
(for example, legal services, engineering, architecture, consultancy,
research, education, etc.) or the often low-paid and vulnerable (part-time,
temporary) personal services (for example, hotels, restaurants and
cafés, cleaning, private domestic service). Against this, there has
been a steady expansion in both industrial and service employment
in Dublin County (the outer suburbs and periphery) (Table 2). The city has also seen considerable changes in its
social geography. For many decades, the inner city experienced considerable
disinvestment, as private capital favoured suburban residential expansion,
while the local authority adopted a profoundly anti-city planning
approach, envisaging no residential function for the central area
and adopting a divisive public housing policy of detenant, decentralise
and demolish. This pattern of urban disinvestment was reflected in
the broad suburbanisation of the population (Table 3), as well as
the fact that between 1961 and 1991, the inner-city population halved,
falling to under 77,000 people (see Table 4). This was particularly stark given that the inner
city population in the mid 1930s was 267,000 (Horner 1999). Although
the population increased since 1991, influenced strongly by new urban
policies (outlined below), this only involved a recovery to mid-1980s
levels, and the overall proportionate decrease since 1961 is substantial
(Figure 1). Clearly, the city’s economic base has undergone
a considerable process of restructuring and transformation since the
1960s, as global influences and national development policies began
to influence the fortunes of various sectors and localities. Although
Dublin arguably never developed fully into an industrial urban complex
in the manner of other British and European city-regions, its central
(or inner) city area includes a number of distinct locales which possessed
a dense and heterogeneous industrial fabric, wherein a close bond
traditionally existed between the economy and the local working class
community. For instance, in the docklands, local employment depended
on the port and docks, boat-building, coal yards, flour milling, bottle-making,
sugar refining and chemical fertiliser manufacture, as well as a number
of public and (laterally) semi-state facilities, including transport
activities, the power station and gas works (DDDA 1997). Elsewhere,
textiles, shoemaking, brewing, distilling, ironworks and other sectors
have been further important sources of jobs. Therefore, in terms of
the broader economic structure, for many decades the most important
resource of inner-city locales was the existence of a large pool of
relatively cheap semi-skilled or unskilled labour. The importance
of local development of
this nature led to cultural links between community and workplace
in everyday life: there was little distinction between the economic
space of the city and the life-place of the community within such
areas. However, the manufacturing base of the city was substantially
deindustrialised since the 1970s, as the data presented above indicates. The restructuring of the urban economy had particularly
marked economic, social and physical implications for inner-city locales,
which lost out to disinvestment (capital flight to the periphery and
further afield), rationalisation (technological change, job shedding)
and closure (Drudy and Punch 2000). It has been estimated, for example,
that the inner city alone lost about 2,000 manufacturing jobs annually
during the late 1970s (Bannon et al. 1981). In the docklands, technological
change led to considerable job loss in port activities, where containerisation
decimated a formerly labour intensive sector, while jobs also disappeared
in traditional local employers. Economic restructuring of this kind was a key dimension
of the ‘inner city crisis’ from the 1980s onwards. Unemployment
escalated rapidly, reaching 33 per cent in the inner city in 1991,
although many flats complexes recorded much higher levels (over 80
per cent in many cases). Absolute numbers of unemployed actually increased
up to 1996, although there was an apparent reduction in the unemployment
rate to 28 per cent (this was entirely attributable to the dilution
effect of a more recent influx of new middle-class residents). Although
unemployment reduced through the Irish boom years in the late 1990s,
a recent profile of social-housing tenants based on administrative
data collated by the city council for the purpose of assessing rents
confirms the continuing reality of low incomes and marginalisation
for many inner-city communities (Housing Unit 2002). The human implications of this crisis included the
reality of low incomes, poverty, joblessness and the loss of any hope
of future employment for many people in an area with a tradition of
early school leaving in order to take up the low-skilled employment
available in the older industrial base. Working-class communities
that had previously enjoyed close to full employment and the “certainty”
of a job in one of the local industries were faced with a stark new
reality. A number of related social problems also took hold. The relatively
rapid rise of unemployment, the impoverishment of whole areas, the
emerging phenomenon of inter-generational unemployment and the general
air of depression and alienation created the perfect demand conditions
for hard drugs, and tragically in the early 1980s, a heroin crisis
erupted with sudden ferocity. It has persisted to the present day,
and many localities have been faced with the attendant conflicts,
tensions and loss of life (Punch, forthcoming).
More recent rounds of restructuring and economic
growth have seen the form and function of the city within the international
economy shift once more, as new and complex patterns of investment
in some areas finally reversed a long trajectory of disinvestment.
Among the more striking effects in the inner city include a property
boom, the reinforcement of the commercial function, tourism growth
(Gillmor 2001), the internationalisation of the retail sector (Parker
1999) and the rapid growth of the financial services sector and other
professional services. The important point to note, however, is that
those displaced from employment by the restructuring of industry cannot
easily transfer into whatever employment opportunities emerge in other
sectors, particularly when the new employment is qualitatively worlds
apart from the old. In this way the central contradiction of the restructured
city begins to take shape: the juxtaposition of deprived inner-city
communities and the high-tech frontier of the global economy, much
of it of marginal relevance to the older working-class communities.
Though spatially juxtaposed, the social distance between the
two worlds, the devalued places inhabited by the indigenous working-class
communities and the revalorised spaces of the restructured urban economy,
is considerable. They co-exist, but do so in uneasy and sometimes
conflictual relationship. The economic and social changes traced in the foregoing
have generated considerable pressures and conflicts, raising new challenges
for urban policy and planning, as well as practical and normative
concerns about the future of the city. These include many critical
questions beyond the scope of this paper, such as quality of life
issues, environmental standards and conservation, congestion in the
city, sprawl on the edge and the haphazard extension of the commuter
zone into distant rural towns and villages (see Ellis and Kim 2001;
Williams et al. 2003). A considerable housing problem has also emerged
in Dublin (and across the country), as the social housing sector was
underdeveloped for much of the 1990s, and rents and private house
prices accelerated (between 1994 and March 2003, the average new house
price in Dublin increased by 262 per cent to 295,158 Euro, while the
average second-hand house price increased by 324 per cent to 350,603
Euro). This has created a considerable boom for speculative developers,
but problems of access and affordability for middle- and low-income
groups (Drudy and Punch 2002; 2004). There are also the added concerns
about inequality and social deprivation highlighted above and the
challenge of achieving an inclusive form of urban regeneration and
development into the future. It would be impossible to deal with all of these
in detail here. Instead, this final section will outline some recent
departures in urban governance in response to the challenges of urban
and social dereliction and regeneration. This is of wider interest,
as experiences in Dublin reproduce important aspects of the general
tendencies in governance highlighted in the theoretical context above,
notably competitive strategies to attract globally mobile capital
and area-based socio-economic regeneration policies to “sell
the city” and respond to localised problems of decay. The first serious urban policies of note were devised
and put in place from the mid-1980s onwards. However, rather than
responding directly to the structural problems of economic change
or the local social problems with poverty, drugs, a decayed living
environment and inadequate housing access, these new policies focused
instead on market-driven approaches and tax incentives to encourage
private property redevelopment, in the main, high-grade residential
and commercial office space. The adopted approach, initiated by the
central state, involved schemes for urban renewal in a number of small
areas designated at various points between 1986 and 1997, offering
a range of fiscal incentives to entice property capital back into
decayed areas (for details of the incentives, see MacLaran 1993; 1999;
MacLaran and Williams 2003; KPMG 1996). In some cases, special renewal
authorities were set up, notably the Customs House Docks Development
Authority, which was charged with promoting the redevelopment of a
Port and Docks site as a facility for global finance capital (the
International financial Services Centre). The physical and economic effects were dramatic –
total estimated investment in the various areas between 1986 and 1997
amounted to IR£1.1 billion (Drudy and Punch, 2000). The sociospatial
effects were also substantial, introducing a new middle-class population
(MacLaran et al. 1995), predominantly housed in segregated, gated
developments. However, the predominant focus of urban renewal policies
on property-led regeneration received considerable criticism, including
problems with deadweight, displacement, transfers, community effects,
land-price escalation, transport implications, physical design, as
well as the structural limits to area-based approaches to regeneration
(see, for example, KPMG 1996; MacLaran and Murphy 1997; MacLaran 1999;
Drudy and Punch 2000). The broader concern is that the new urban policies
have simply underpinned the gentrification of the inner city, raising
serious concerns about social integration, cohesion and the displacement
of poorer residents and older communities (MacLaran and Murphy 1997;
Kelly and MacLaran 2004). Though the new and older residential locales
are spatially juxtaposed, they are socially and economically ‘worlds
apart’, with gated private apartment complexes reinforcing social
class divisions and segregation within the inner city (Punch et al.
2004). Criticism and opposition was most trenchant at grassroots level,
however, where the major effect was the promotion of invasive and
intrusive commercial and high-grade residential developments and the
threat of displacement (such as in the case of Sheriff Street, a public-housing
area that has been largely redeveloped as part of the Customs House
Docks scheme, which included premises for international financial
capital and high-grade residential investors). Partly in response to such criticisms, a further
re-orientation in the approach to urban governance came with the initiation
in 1997 of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and in 1999
of five “Integrated Area Plans” (IAPS) across the city.
These new approaches – incorporating a range of social, environmental
and community concerns as well as the existing emphasis on tax incentives
for private property development – also suggested a willingness
to respond to local criticisms that earlier policies were exclusionary,
unsympathetic, undemocratic and failed to take account of community
needs. These more recent initiatives included channels for participation,
generally by inviting local activists and leaders to act as community
representatives on some kind of partnership structure (for example,
a “Community Liaison Committee” was established in the docks,
while a “Monitoring Committee” was set up to include local
representation in the Liberties Coombe Integrated Area Plan in the
south-west inner city). Most importantly, the concept of community
gain was introduced as a central element in the plans. Thus, the hope was that the obvious problems with
regard to earlier renewal efforts (achieving considerable economic
growth and property development, but at the cost of a considerable
democratic deficit and deepening social polarisation) would be ameliorated
through the emphasis on community participation and social gain (Bartley
and Threadwell Shine 2003). Early assessments would urge caution,
however, as problems and conflicts have already erupted. In the Liberties-Coombe
IAP, for instance, there has already been considerable unrest about
the minimal levels of community gain forthcoming, the granting of
planning permission to developments that contravene urban design guidelines
for the area and the lack of power vested in the monitoring committee,
or even clarity about its role or level of authority, such that the
participation to date has proven shallow or even a diversion of local
energies, commitment and critical input. Indeed, recent (and continuing)
research indicates that “regeneration” in the Liberties
IAP thus far, driven by the promotion of private capital as the sole
motivator for change, has proven insensitive to a pro-community agenda.
Gentrification and social segregation have been facilitated and encouraged
through past urban renewal schemes and are now being legitimised via
quasi-participatory micro-area planning mechanisms under the guise
of ‘encouraging a variety of housing tenures’. Where before,
in terms of the structural requirements of capital, the most important
local resource was a pool of low-skilled labour, now the prime resource of the Liberties area is the land itself. (See Punch et al. 2003, 2004, and Kelly and
MacLaran 2004 for comment). Overall, this paper has offered a theoretical and
empirical exploration of recent patterns of economic and social change,
highlighting the global context, the unevenness of the main processes
at work and some of the consequent problems and conflicts that have
emerged at local level, as well as the changing nature of national,
urban and local development approaches and systems of governance.
The evolution of the Irish development model and the specific case
of Dublin provide useful examples of the reality, complexity and challenges
liked to these interconnected issues. Driven by a confluence of global forces and state development
policies, a long process of decay and growth, boom and slump can be
demonstrated, and these have generated considerable problems for some
social groups and localities in particular, as well as general challenges
with regard to planning and concerns for the future direction of city
governance and urban change. What is interesting in more recent years
is the manner in which the policies, priorities and practices of urban
planning and governance in Dublin have adopted a particular emphasis
and ideology, broadly that of neoliberalism. This is evident in a whole
raft of strategies, generally focused on economic priorities and competing
for investment, substantially restructuring the social and physical
landscape in the city in the process. In short, the new urban governance
has tended to emphasise the interests of private capital in the built
environment over and above direct state action, regulation or social
concerns. Such policies have perhaps contributed to economic growth
and a property boom over recent years, but have been less well attuned
to community regeneration or social need. Yet, the organic emergence
of community structures, local culture and identity within the locale
– however such a problematic geographic unit is to be delimited
– is also complex and important to people’s well-being and
social integration in a broader sense. Experiences in Dublin suggest
different approaches may be needed if these concerns are to be dealt
with in a holistic and meaningful manner. It is intended to explore
all of these issues through an expanded inner-city research programme
(theoretical, analytical) in order to provide a sounder basis for proposals
for a genuinely inclusive, cohesive and empowering city housing and
regeneration strategy in this era of global economic change, deepening
inequality and shifting tendencies and practices of urban governance. Dr. Michael Punch is currently the Broad Curriculum
Lecturer in Globalisation at the Departments of Geography and Sociology
in Trinity College Dublin. He is also a Research Fellow of the Centre
for Urban and Regional Studies. His main areas of research interest
include economic geography; local development and economic renewal;
urban governance, planning and community change; housing policies and
inequality. http://www.tcd.ie/Geography/MP_01.html
or http://www.tcd.ie/CURS/
Bannon, M. (1981) Urbanisation:
Problems of Growth and Decay in Dublin. Dublin: National Economic and Social Forum. Bartley, B. and Treadwell Shine, K. (2003) “Competitive
city: Governance and the changing dynamics of urban regeneration in
Dublin.” In F. Moulaert, A. Rodríguez and E. Swyngedouw (eds)
The Globalized City: Economic Restructuring and Social Polarization in
European Cities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 146-66. Breathnach P. (1982) “The demise of growth centre
policy: the case of the Republic of Ireland.” In R. Hudson and
J. Lewis (eds) Regional Planning in Europe. London: Pion
Ltd., 35-56. Breathnach, P. (1999) “From geographical peripherality
to cyberspatial centrality: the emergence of Dublin as a pan-European
services centre.” Paper to the International Conference Industrial Policy in an Integrating Europe. Dublin: European Network
on Industrial Policy. Breathnach, P. (2000) “Globalisation, information
technology and the emergence of “niche” transnational cities:
the growth of the call centre sector in Dublin.” Geoforum.
31 (4), 477-485. Breathnach, P. (2002) “Information technology,
gender segmentation and the relocation of back office employment:
the growth of the teleservices sector in Ireland.” Information,
Communication & Society. 5 (3)
320-35 Breen, R. et al. (1990) Understanding
Contemporary Ireland: State, Class and Development in the Republic
of Ireland, Dublin: Gill and MacMillan. Callan, T. and Nolan, B (1999) “Income inequality
in Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s.” In F. Barry (ed) Understanding
Ireland’s Economic Growth. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Central Statistics Office (1961-2002) Census of Population. Dublin:
Stationery Office. Clark D. (1996) Urban
World/Global City, London: Routledge Daly, M. (1985) Dublin:
The Deposed Capital. Cork: Cork University Press. DDDA (1997), Dublin
Docklands Area Master Plan, Dublin: Dublin Docklands Development
Authority. Drudy, P.J. (1991) “The regional impact of overseas
industry.” In A. Foley and D. McAleese Overseas
Industry in Ireland, Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 152-169. Drudy, P.J. (1995) "From protectionism to enterprise:
a review of Irish industrial policy." In A Burke (ed) Enterprise and the Irish Economy, Dublin: Oak Tree Press, 71-89. Drudy, P. J. (1998) “Ireland.” In F. Somers
(ed.) European Union Economies: A Comparative Study,
Essex: Addison Wesley Longman, 183-200. Drudy, P. J. and Punch,
m. (2000) “Industrial restructuring, urban change and
regeneration: the case of Dublin,
Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland,
29, 155-212. Drudy, P. J. and Punch, M. (2002) “Housing models
and inequality: perspectives on recent Irish Experience.” Housing Studies, 17 (4), 657-672 Drudy, P. J. and Punch, M. (2004) “Problems and inequalities in the Irish housing system: the
case for policy change.” Dublin: TASC. Ellis, G. and Kim, J. (2001) “City profile:
Dublin.” Cities. 18 (5), 355-364. Fitzgerald, J. D. (1998) “An Irish perspective
on the structural funds.” European
Planning Studies. 6 (6), 677-694. Friedmann, J. (1986) “The world city hypothesis.”
Development and Change. 17, 69-84. Frobel, F., Heinrichs, J. and Kreye, O. (1980) The New International Division of Labour”.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gereffi, G. (1994) “Rethinking development theory:
insights from East Asia and Latin America.” In A. D. Kincaid
and A. Portes (eds) Comparative National Development: Society and
Economy in the New Global Order. University of North Carolina
Press. Gillmor, D. (2001) “Tourism in Dublin: trends
and characteristics.” In P. J. Drudy and A. MacLaran (eds) Dublin: Economic and Social Trends, Vol. 3. Dublin: Centre for Urban
and Regional Studies. Goetz, E. G. and Clarke, S. E. (eds.) (1993) The New Localism: Comparative Urban Politics
in a Global Era, London: Sage. Harding, A. et al. (eds.) (1994) European Cities: Towards 2000. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Horner, A. (1999) "Population dispersion and
development in a changing city-region." In J. Killen, J. and
A. MacLaran (eds.) Dublin: Contemporary
Trends and Issues for the Twenty-First Century, Dublin: Geographical
Society of Ireland and the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies. Housing Unit (2002) Profile
of Households Accommodated by Dublin City Council. Dublin: Dublin
City Council Hula, R. C. (1993) “The state reassessed: the
privatization of local politics.” In Goetz, E. G. and Clarke,
S. E. (eds.) The New Localism: Comparative Urban Politics
in a Global Era, London: Sage, 22-45. Kelly, S. and MacLaran, A. (2004) “Incentivised
gentrification in central Dublin”. Paper to the Conference of
Irish Geographers, Maynooth: NUI Maynooth. Kirby P (2002) The
Celtic Tiger in Distress: Growth With Inequality In Ireland. Basingstoke:
Palgrave KPMG (1996) Study
of Urban Renewal Schemes, Dublin: Stationery Office, Dublin. Lee, J. J. (1989) Ireland
1912-1985: Politics and Society. New York: Cambridge University
Press. MacLaran A. (1993) Dublin:
The Shaping of a Capital. London: Belhaven Press MacLaran, A., (1999) “Inner Dublin: change and
development.” In J. Killen and A. MacLaran (eds.) Dublin:
Contemporary Trends and Issues for the Twenty-First Century, Dublin:
Geographical Society of Ireland and the Centre for Urban and Regional
Studies, 21-34 MacLaran A. et al (1995) A
Report on Recent Residential Developments in Central Dublin. Dublin:
Centre for Urban and Regional Studies MacLaran A. and Murphy L (1997) “The problems
of taxation-induced inner-city housing development.” Irish Geography 30(1), 31-36 MacLaran
A. and Williams B (2003) “Dublin: property development and planning
in an entrepreneurial city.” In A MacLaran (ed) Making Space: Property Development and Urban
Planning (pp 148-171). London: Arnold Massey, D. (1995) Spatial
Divisions of Labour: Social Structures and the Geography of Production.
London: Macmillan. McGuirk, P. (1994) “Economic restructuring and
the Realignment of the Urban Planning System: the Case of Dublin”.
Urban Studies, 32, 287-308. Morin, R. and Hanley, J. (2004) “Community economic
development in a context of globalization and metropolization: a comparison
of four North American cities.” International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28 (2), 369-83. F. Moulaert, A. Rodríguez and E. Swyngedouw (eds)
(2003)The Globalized City: Economic Restructuring and Social Polarization
in European Cities. Oxford: Oxford University Press NESC (1982) A
Review of Industrial Policy. Dublin: National Economic and Social
Council. OECD (2003) Economic Surveys: Ireland – Volume
2003. Paris: OECD. O’Hearn, D. (1992) Putting
Ireland in a Global Context. Cork: Department of Sociology, UCC. O’Hearn, D. (2001) The
Atlantic Economy: Britain, the US and Ireland. Manchester: Manchester
University Press O’Reardon, C. (2001) “Inequality in the
new Irish economy.” In S. Cantillon, C. Corrigan, P. Kirby and
J. O’Flynn (eds) Rich and Poor: Perspectives on Tackling Inequality
in Ireland, Dublin: Oak Tree Press, 111-149 Parker, A. J. (1999) “Retail trends and the
suburbanisation of Dublin’s retailing: into the twenty-first
century.” In J. Killen and A. MacLaran (eds.), Dublin:
Contemporary Trends and Issues for the Twenty-First Century, Dublin:
Geographical Society of Ireland and Centre for Urban and Regional
Studies. Peck, J. (1995) “Moving and shaking: business
élites, state localism and urban privatism”. Progress
in Human Geography, 19 (1), 16-46. Peck, J. (2001) Neoliberalizing states: thin policies/hard
outcomes. Progress in Human
Geography 25(3), 445-455 Perrons, D. (1986) “Unequal integration in global
Fordism: the case of Ireland.” In A. J. Scott and M. Storper
(eds.) Production, Work, Territory: The Geographical Anatomy of Industrial Capital,
Boston: Allen & Unwin, 246-264. Punch, M. (forthcoming in 2004) “Problem drug
use and the political economy of urban restructuring: heroin, class
and governance in Dublin”. Forthcoming in Antipode.
Punch, M., Redmond. D. and Kelly, S. (2003) “Restructuring
the Divided City: Gated Communities and Socio-Economic Change in Dublin’s
Inner City”. Paper to the Gated Communities Conference: Building
Social Division or Safer Communities, Glasgow: University of Glasgow Punch, M., Redmond, D. and Kelly, S. (2004) “Uneven
development, city governance and urban change: unpacking the global-local
nexus in Dublin’s inner city. Paper to City
Futures: An International Conference on Globalism and Urban Change,
Chicago: University of Illinois. Saris J, Bartley B Kierans C, Walsh C and McCormick
P (2002) “Culture and the state: Institutionalizing ‘the
underclass’ in the new Ireland.” City
6(2), 173-191 Sassen, S. (1991) The
Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University
Press Sassen, S. (1994) Cities
in a World Economy. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Pine Forge Press Scott, A. J., and Storper, M., (eds.) (1986) Production,
Work, Territory: The Geographical Anatomy of Industrial Capitalism.
Boston: Allen and Unwin. Williams, B., Shiels, P. and Hughes, B (2003) “Affordability
and access to Irish housing; trends, policy and prospects.” Journal of Irish Urban Studies. 2 (1),
1-24.Introduction
Context [1]: Global Restructuring of Capital and the Challenges
for Urban Governance
Context [2]: Changing Nature of the Irish Development Model
1. Global restructuring, development policies and urban change:
trends in Dublin
Key economic and social trends
Local Effects: Inner City Crisis, Inner City Boom
Policy departures and the new urban governance
2. The realignment of urban governance in Dublin
Conclusions
References