As the Government continues preparatory work on a new national economic plan, something of a sea change in its approach to the vexed issue of regionalisation appears to be in the offing. Traditionally, successive governments have resisted the notion of dividing the State into different regions for the purposes of drawing down EU funds. Various administrations have taken the view that the best means of maximising EU funding is for the Republic to be treated as one region.
But the policy has not just been guided by this kind of economic pragmatism; there has also been a reluctance in government to devolve powers to the regions by establishing full-fledged regional structures of a type common elsewhere in the EU. There has been a paternalistic view in some official circles that power should continue to reside in Merrion Street and not in some far-flung regional quango.
The Republic's economic growth, which has pushed per capita income well above the 75 per cent average required to benefit from the maximum Objective One grant status, appears to have transformed the situation. It now appears that the Cabinet may approve plans to divide the State into separate administrative regions as part of a process which will allow 13 disadvantaged areas to retain Objective One status - and maximum EU funding and industrial grants- until 2006. A formal Cabinet decision on the issue is expected shortly.
The political, economic and social implications of the kind of regionalisation now under review are immense. Under the proposals, structural funding would be skewed away from the Dublin, Cork and Limerick regions and towards the West, the Border counties and the Midlands. Government studies indicate that these less well-off regions could retain Objective One status in the next EU funding programme which will run from 2000 to 2006. There are even good prospects that these regions could continue to benefit from substantial funding after 2006.
Until recently, it seemed that the Republic's designation as one single region for funding purposes was set to continue. The signal from Brussels has been that this State - after a generation of substantial EU supports - could avail of a soft landing in which the level of funding would decline gradually until 2006. But the Government now appears convinced that regionalisation offers better prospects for maximising EU aid; indeed, economic studies commissioned on its behalf have indicated that some 50 per cent of counties in the State could benefit from regionalisation without any overall loss in funding.
The challenge now is to convince the EU Commissioner for Regional Affairs, Ms Monika Wulf-Mathies, that there will be an adequate devolution of powers to regional bodies. But there is also the considerable task of changing mindsets in some quarters of the Civil Service and government about the virtues of regionalisation. The reality is that strong regional bodies form an integral part of government in most modern EU states. There is no reason why regions should not be allowed to stand on their own feet and no good reason the Republic should continue with excessively centralised structures.