From dozy cat to Celtic Tiger in 20 years - and Australia can do it, too

In Ireland in the new century, support for education is finding expression with a more focused emphasis on research and development. With an educated workforce in place the creation of new knowledge and the fostering of innovation, especially interdisciplinary work, is the next logical step. This is simply because research and development are seen as natural corollaries of a skilled workforce and as such the underpinning for increasing productivity of that workforce. In Ireland there is limited potential for further massive expansion of the workforce size owing to social, demographic and infrastructural constraints, but there is seen to be scope to extend the productivity of the existing workforce. The idea is to increase the output per person in the economy and, inter alia, put to rest the old joke about the number of Irishmen needed to change a light bulb.

Increases in productivity especially need capacities to develop and apply new technologies and to exploit the best in physical infrastructure such as equipment and buildings. In this regard, Ireland is in the same position as Australia in that its research expertise across the board is far from leading the world. There is, however, a difference in the way that capacity for increased productivity is being built. Certainly, the Irish government is funding research and development for the knowledge economy but, more significantly, there is very strong leadership coming from Irish and multi-national businesses. Even the smallest companies are investing in research and are wait-listed for places in technology parks such as the one attached to Dublin City University (DCU). At DCU I was intrigued to find that one of the issues facing staff is how to manage the high volume of requests for university-business research collaborations. One academic told me that he felt overwhelmed by the number of businesses wanting to access his department's expertise for major work-place projects. Allocating money is not the issue for businesses looking ahead. Rather, it is finding the expertise to drive their innovation programs.

The question to be asked is what does this mean for Australia? What lessons are there from the Irish experience if we are to become a Tiger economy? First, government policy is important, as was the case in Ireland. The critical role played by what was a handful of visionary, and in many ways desperate, Irish politicians to turn around a very depressed economy has been recognised. There was bi-partisan support for new tax regimes, continued investment in education, and decent industrial practices. Would Australian politicians be capable of a bi-partisan approach to creating the policy framework for the development of a real, as opposed to a rhetorical, knowledge economy? I fear not. And even if there was bi-partisan leadership in Australia the question of how Australian industry might respond remains.

A major difference between Australia and Ireland lies in the way in which the Irish community and businesses responded to government leadership; the Irish started from a position where they did not think education and research were luxuries or the pastimes of elites. They recognized that these were fundamental strategies to improve the economy and, through that, the quality of everyone's life. Educators and researchers were seen as people to be taken seriously and not the subject of jokes about their irrelevance to the concerns of the 'real' people, the 'battlers'.

We have the policies here in Australia such as the Coalition's 'Backing Australia's Ability', with the Labor Party's 'Knowledge Nation' and 'Research: Engine Room of the Nation' waiting in the wings. But none of these addresses the cultural and attitudinal issues that face Australia if research and innovation are to become part of the fabric of the way we do things here. Adequate funding and support will never come as long as researchers and university people are regarded, even affectionately, as 'boffins'. In the past, Australian governments have been very effective in changing perceptions, for example, in the drive to establish a harmonious multicultural society. While there are many outstanding examples of how science & technology is being communicated to general audiences, we need to find out why the community's general interest in science has not translated into an understanding that it is fundamental to any effective modern economy and the quality of life.

There are two challenges for our politicians if they are serious about developing a knowledge economy in Australia. First, there needs to be a bi-partisan approach to establishing a policy framework for research and development to underpin the movement forward. Second, government needs to foster a climate of respect and valuing of research and development. This has to be done through funding strategies but even more critically, by symbolic action, promotion and 'talking up' the importance of R&D. There has to be a climate within which it is seen to be smart (cool) to be involved in research, development and education generally.

For business, the task is simple if they believe they are not getting what they need from Australian research. Instead of expecting to pluck relevant research and innovation ideas off a state-funded tree, business might put energy and resources into planting a few trees of the type that will bear the kind of fruit they want. Or, to put it more crudely perhaps, business could put its money where its mouth is and make the kind of contribution to its own future that is characteristic of business in other developed countries.