Manpower Planning in Science: (Vol XXIII Part II, p21)

This opportunity arose as a result of the inclusion in the 1971 Census of a question relating to qualifications in science and technology, a consequence of the setting up of the National Science Council (NSC), and the earlier 1966 OECD Report 'Science and Irish Economic Development'.

A further source for the analysis was a series of reports 'Research and Development in Ireland' by Dr Diarmuid Murphy. The model implicit in the thinking of the NSC was 'a flow of trained technologists...emerging from the 3rd-level system into the industrial system, transforming the latter by creative innovation..'.

The paper was the result of some work supported by the IDA, and implemented by the authors, with some piloting and prototyping done by MSc students in the TCD Department of Statistics.

The general background of graduates was analysed by sector and discipline, and projected taking into account the age-profiles as elucidated in the census returns. Embedded in this was a core-group of 'R&D graduates' as identified in the Murphy Reports. The Census data was aggregated to conform to the classifications of the Murphy Reports. Account was taken of higher education expenditure and R&D expenditure. The model was validated by a process of estimating 1971 figures from a 1967 base-line.

A serious mismatch was exposed between the output of the higher education system and the needs of industry, especially for graduates having science qualifications. Procedures were suggested for encouraging young graduate uptake, such as encouraging mobility and entrepreneurship among experienced graduates employed in the State agencies, and developing masters-degree programmes to enable science graduates to achieve an industrial applied-science problem-solving orientation.

The paper attracted an audience which included the UCD and TCD careers officers (Derek Scholefield and Dermot Montgomery), Catherine Keenan of the National Economic and Social Council, Dr Diarmuid Murphy, Monica Nevin, Dr RC Geary, Paid McMenamin, Professor BM Walsh and AP O'Reilly. The responses were all substantive and reflected an appreciation that a significant problem had been identified and quantified. The consensus was not 'reduce output of graduates' but 'stimulate uptake by industry', and many of the people in the audience were in a position to influence policies in this direction, and did. Some of the seeds that led to the prosperity of the 90s were I think sown on this occasion.

The raw material of the paper had emerged from just such a 'problem-solving re-orientation' MSc programme (Operational Research and Statistics) pioneered in TCD by Professor Gordon Foster. Genevieve Franklin, along with Aoileann Ni h-Eigeartaigh, had earlier participated in this course, after completing honours maths degrees, and had gained some experience in computer-based modelling of techno-economic systems, in support of planning decisions.

It was hoped at the time that the result of this work might have become embedded somehow in a national 'skilled human resources planning' unit, perhaps in the IDA or elsewhere, but this did not take place, and it remained a 'one-off' exercise. The philosophy behind it however has subsequently gained general acceptance, and is now the norm.

Comments on Other Authors

JB Broderick on May 25 1975 gave a paper on EEC Social Accounting (Vol XXIII Part II, p150). I am on record (p175) as having commented on it, urging a distinction between social payments determined by social policy decision, and social payments arising out of the mal-functioning of economic policies. In an economic model, the former would be independent variables (eg a social wage, children's allowance or whatever) while the latter would be dependent variables (eg unemployment benefit) arising from the mismatch between economic development and social need.

I seem to recollect having been present in somewhat critical mode, having been involved, not long previously, in the campaign against joining the EEC.

Dr T F Hoare on April 21 1977 gave a paper entitled 'International Economic Interdependence- The Commission of the European Communities Meteor Model' (Vol XXIII Part IV, p175). I attended this, partly to keep a critical eye on what the EEC was doing, and also out of an interest in macro-economic models and how they might be of use in the Irish context.

I am on record on p222 as having identified the Meteor model as '...a flexible methodology which can be adapted to a variety of databases....what is to stop us from adapting it to a data-base having four 'country' sub-models (eg Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Britain and the US) and five country-block sub-models (eg rest of EEC, non-socialist non-EEC Europe, socialist bloc, oil producing countries and third world)?

What I had in mind was the need '...to evaluate quantitatively the economic options consequent on a favourable political solution...of the Northern question, thereby perhaps helping towards the achievement of the latter desirable objective.'

(I had previous to this been playing with some fairly simple-minded macro-economic prototype models addressing this question, and getting a feel for how non-linear multiplier effects arising out of north-south trade had the potential for fuelling a 'win-win' situation, such as is now embedded in the Good Friday Agreement with its north-south agencies. I did not get around to putting this more explicitly on record until a comment on some work by John Bradley in 1993. I had been consciously following a line of thought which JJ had been following since Partition, and was in a stronger position that he was to deal with the mysteries of econometrics. RJ 1999)

In the same spirit as the above I attended the presentation by the Central Bank group (which then included John Bradley) of their macro-economic model of the Irish economy, which took place on November 2 1978. (Vol XXIV Part I p1). I am on record as having spoken, but there is no record of what I said. Commentators included Norman Gibson of Queens, Dr RC Geary, Justin Wallace, Dermot McAleese and John Fitzgerald. The basic thinking was Keynesian, and with hindsight one can perhaps relate it to the Martin O'Donoghue programme which led to the famous Fianna Fail election victory of 1977, and the subsequent near-bankruptcy of the country. One critic homed in on the lack of explicit recognition of agriculture in the model, and I suspect my father, had he been alive and able to understand the language, would have supported on this criticism.

Then to end the decade I contributed to the discussion on May 29 1980 of a paper by J McKeon on 'The Economic Appraisal of Industrial Projects in Ireland' (Vol XXIV Part II p119). Again to my regret my contribution is not on record, but I can without difficulty resurrect my motivation for attending on that occasion. The TCD Applied Research Consultancy Group had got a start with some IDA grant-aid in 1976, some £15K, and had turned over something like 30, 60, 90 and 120 k£ in successive years, the makings of a success story; there were up to 8 people involved apart from myself. We had put in for some additional grant-aid for equipment, wishing to lessen our dependence on marginal use of academic resources, for which we paid. Our application had been rejected, because of our College connection. I must have been curious to tease out the philosophy behind this decision.

I did not find the paper illuminating, and it was received critically by an audience which included Frances Ruane, Sean Cromien, Sean Nolan, Joe Durkan, Louis Smith, Brendan Walsh and David Croughan.

I conjecture that my comment would have been along the lines of the need for venture-type investment in suitably equipped graduate labour, in support of high-technology start-ups.

Some navigational notes:

Copyright Dr Roy Johnston 1999