O’Rourke & Hogan (2014) Too Much & Too Little. 1

Too Much and Too Little: Enterprise Discourse and Industrial

Policy in Ireland

Dr. Brendan K. O’ROURKE,

Research Fellow, School of Marketing,

College of Business, Dublin Institute of Technology,

Aungier St., Dublin 2, IRELAND

Tel. +353-1-4027097

Email brendan.orourke@dit.ie

Dr. John HOGAN

Lecturer in Irish Politics and International Political Economy,

School of Marketing

College of Business, Dublin Institute of Technology

Key Words: Enterprise; Entrepreneurship; Industrial Policy; Discourse; Ireland

Track Title Policy Paper Title Too Much and Too Little: Enterprise Discourse and Industrial Policy in Ireland. Aim of the Paper The aim of the paper is to show how enterprise in Ireland has made little difference to industrial policy at one level, but is extraordinarily dominant, in a specific discursive form, at a more general policy level. Background Literature Work on policy change concludes that there has been little movement in Irish Industrial Policy away from attracting Foreign Direct Investment towards prioritizing the growth of indigenous enterprises. A critical juncture theory analysis showed no higher-order changes in Irish industrial policy during the 1981-1986 crisis period (Hogan & O'Rourke, 2014). While there were lower order changes, such as the reorganization of industrial policy agencies in 1990s even as the Celtic Tiger disappeared it could be reported that ‘there is no official government entrepreneurship policy ’ (Cooney & Kidney, 2008: 4). Five years into the crisis that killed the Celtic Tiger, the current Irish government has initiated a process to produce a National Entrepreneurship Policy Statement yet ‘Enterprise policy development for indigenous industry however remains largely emergent and fluid, fifty-four years on from the advent of the national export-oriented industrial policy’ (Buckley, 2013: 2). When it comes to substantial policies focused on indigenous enterprises there seems to be far too little enterprise in policy. On the other hand, it is also argued convincingly that there is much enterprise talk at the level of overall policy discourse. This has been pointed to in other, particularly English-speaking, economies (see Armstrong, 2005; Shane, 2008). An age of enterprise has been declared and its operation in 1990s Irish government policy highlighted (Carr, 2000). The relationship between the longer historical Western development of enterprise discourse and its Irish specifics has been traced by O'Rourke

O’Rourke & Hogan (2014) Too Much & Too Little. 2

(2010). Its particular and powerful articulation in post-2008 Ireland has been illustrated by Kenny & Scriver (2012). So we seem to have in Ireland a case of both "too little" and "too much" enterprise policy - a conundrum that will have to be resolved in the interest of developing a coherent policy stance. Methodology We draw on discourse analysis to both illustrate the continuing importance of, and explain the connection between, the "too little" and "too much" in Irish enterprise policy. This draws on previous work that has studied similar tensions in enterprise (Du Gay, 2004; Marttila, 2012; O'Rourke & Hogan, 2013) but takes us further in looking at the specifics of enterprise discourse in recent Irish public debate. Results and Implications That the mixture of the too little and too much enterprise is still frustrating enterprise policy is clear from a recent report, produced as part of a government process to develop its enterprise policy, that declared that: ‘A flat tax on all types of income at 15-20% would be a fantastic way of attracting corporations, immigrant entrepreneurs, and keeping wealthy Irish entrepreneurs here in the country’ (Entrepreneurship Forum, 2014: 52). That this recommendation might be a ‘too big’ element of entrepreneurship, and so perhaps considered ‘unachievable’, is quickly acknowledged by the report itself (Entrepreneurship Forum, 2014: 52). Clarifying the senses in which Irish policy has both too much and too little enterprise resonates with

findings in the policy, enterprise discourse and small business literatures. The very triumph of

enterprise discourse, particular in its neoliberal form, in the overall governing of the economy, may

help explain its failure in industrial policy. Our view therefore complements Breznitz (2012), though we

draw more attention to the discursive aspects of the impasse.

O’Rourke & Hogan (2014) Too Much & Too Little. 3

Introduction

Ireland seems to have survived the economic crisis trigged by the financial and banking sectors

failures that, in 2008, become too obvious to ignore. There is even evidence of growth in Ireland’s

national product and prospects for more (Duffy et al. 2014). Without denying this progress or ignoring

the pain that was required to achieve, it is vital to society’s wellbeing that the still pressing economic

challenges of unemployment be addressed. Enterprise is not doubt a key component of such a

response. Yet Irish enterprise policy, despite achieving much, seems stuck. Its performance seems

dissatisfying to all whether they embrace enterprise as a liberating cry or hear it as a cynical attack. In

the spirit of seeking to understand this blockage, with a view to progressing enterprise’s role in the

flourishing of society, we apply a discursive lens to the problem, albeit in a preliminary manner.

In the next section we explore what might be the conundrum that is stalling enterprise – the

phenomenon there appears be at once too little and too much enterprise in policy discourse. We then

take a look at the particulars of Irish enterprise policy development from when enterprise discourse

started to dominate this policy arena in the early 1980s. Finally, we close this exploratory paper with

some necessarily tentative, but potentially important conclusions.

Too Little and Too Much

Work on policy change concludes that there has been little movement in Irish Industrial Policy away

from attracting Foreign Direct Investment towards prioritizing the growth of indigenous enterprises. A

critical juncture theory analysis showed no higher-order changes in Irish industrial policy during the

1981-1986 crisis period (Hogan & O'Rourke, 2014). While there were lower order changes, such as

the reorganization of industrial policy agencies in 1990s even as the Celtic Tiger disappeared it

could be reported that ‘there is no official government entrepreneurship policy ’ (Cooney & Kidney,

2008:4). Five years into the crisis that killed the Celtic Tiger, the current Irish government has initiated

a process to produce a National Entrepreneurship Policy Statement as ‘Enterprise policy development

for indigenous industry however remains largely emergent and fluid, fifty-four years on from the

advent of the national export-oriented industrial policy’ (Buckley 2013: 2). When it comes to

substantial policies focused on indigenous enterprises there seems to be far too little enterprise in

policy.

On the other hand, it is also argued convincingly that there is much enterprise talk at the level of

overall policy discourse. This has been pointed to in other, particularly English-speaking, economies

(Armstrong, 2005; Shane, 2008). An age of enterprise has been declared and its operation in 1990s

Irish government policy highlighted (Carr, 2000). The relationship between the longer historical

Western development of enterprise discourse and its Irish specifics has been traced (O'Rourke,

2010). Furthermore its particular and powerful articulation in post-2008 Ireland has been illustrated by

(Kenny & Scriver, 2012).

So we seem to have, in Ireland, a case of both "too little" and "too much" enterprise policy - a

conundrum that will have to be resolved in the interest of developing a coherent policy stance. We

need to clarify this tension in the literature and see how such tension, that is not merely an artefact of

confusion between different research approaches, operates.

Irish Enterprise Policy and Discourse

The development of Irish industrial and enterprise policy has been described and analysed in detail

elsewhere (Haughton, 2008; Hogan & O'Rourke, 2014; O'Gorman & Cooney, 2007; O'Rourke, 2009).

For our purposes, Table 1 below and the discussion which follows will provide an apposite analysis of

the development of policy.

O’Rourke & Hogan (2014) Too Much & Too Little. 4

Table 1 Phases of Irish Industrial Policy

Time Period Phase Charecterised by

1921-1931 State-building Laissez-Faire Laissez-Faire combined with establishing of key state institutions including state enterprises when considered strategically key

1932-1957 Ourselves Alone Protection of Irish industry coupled with haphazard expansion of state enterprises.

1958-1972 Strategising for an Open Economy

Opening up the economy to international competition with a growing reliance on foreign direct investment.

1973-2014 Globalisation of Irish Enterprise Deeper engagement with the global economy coupled with a greater rhetorical emphasis on the ‘Irishness’ of enterprises.

Sources: The particulars here are derived from O'Rourke (2009) but similar periodizations of Irish

industrial policy can be found elsewhere in the literature.

In the state-building phase from 1921 to 1931, the newly independent government adopted a very

liberal attitude to economic development. It was quickly made clear that the Irish revolution was not to

be like the Russian. Though engaging in some protection of indigenous industry, the new state

concentrated, in the main, on providing an environment suitable for a largely agricultural economy

with significant exports to the United Kingdom. This meant fiscal conservatism and a generally

laissez-faire attitude. State building and survival was the priority rather than grander economic plans

or strategy. The one exception to this was in the area of what were called ‘state enterprises’. In the

Dáil (parliamentary) debates of the time, one member supported a government plan for a state

electricity enterprise with the following words:

Deputy Thrift asks can we be absolutely certain that it will be a commercial success. I ask

myself, is that the test that is applied by a great nation going to war? Countries have taken the

great risk of declaring war without knowing that they were going to win; they had courage in

themselves, in their own capacity and their own resources, and they counted upon winning

through. This policy of caution that is recommended to us is very good in small commercial

enterprises, but as the experts have warned us, this is not to be viewed as merely a

commercial enterprise. (Magennis, 1925)

The clear expression that the state could and should be a greater risk-taker rather than a ‘merely

small commercial enterprise’ is in clear contrast with later views of enterprise. Furthermore, it is clear

that the model of a small enterprise is not seen as the ideal model for all organizational activity in the

way in which it is within more recent enterprise culture.

O’Rourke & Hogan (2014) Too Much & Too Little. 5

From 1932, there was a sharp change in government policy, towards economic self-sufficiency. To

some extent this economic policy was inherent to an overall nationalistic policy aimed at removing

barriers to Irish sovereignty from the 1922 independence treaty with the United Kingdom. The

resulting romantically termed ‘economic war’ implied a move towards autarchy. However, it is also

important to recognize that this period reflects a harking back to the policy of historic Sinn Féin. Pre-

1916, Sinn Féin initially had a very significant economic element to its policy. Indeed, the rugged self-

sufficiency of the phrase Sinn Féin (an Irish Gaelic expression translated as ‘ourselves’ or ‘ourselves

alone’) chimes with modern enterprise culture’s self-reliance, though with a more collectivist tone. As

well as its protectionist theme, this phase of Irish economic policy also involved the increased

development of the state enterprise sector that had begun earlier, showing again a collectivist flavor

to the enterprise culture in the Ireland of the time. During the 1932-1957 period there was much in the

way of a vision of cultured and spiritual ‘frugal comfort’ of a repopulated Ireland. However, until 1958

there was hostility to the planning, the popularity of which was growing in other western democracies.

Geiger (2000), for example, provides a good discussion of this in the context of Ireland’s lack of

enthusiasm for the Marshall plan, while Lee (1989:227-234) shows the hostility to economic planning

even during the ‘emergency’ of World War II.

Our third phase, ‘Strategising for an Open Economy’, can probably be traced to the aftermath of

World War II, though 1958 is commonly identified as the date when Irish economic policy turned

outwards. This was also an acceptance of the benefits of strategy in the form of planning, following

mainland Europe’s planned reconstruction in the post-1945 period. Ireland’s final embrace of planning

was signaled by the publication of the First Programme for Economic Expansion (1958). Such a

programmatic or strategic-planning approach to policy continued in the Second Programme 1964-

1970 and the 1969 Third Programme for Economic & Social Development 1969-1972. From 1958,

protectionist measures were dismantled, a stress was put on the need for exports to lead growth, and

encouragement of multinational enterprises replaced the policy of creating state enterprises. The

Industrial Development Authority (IDA) focused its efforts – and had much success – in attracting

multinational investment to Ireland. By 1973, Ireland had joined the EU and it has now become one of

the most open economies in the world.

The fourth phase of development of strategy and enterprise in Ireland brings us from 1973 to 2014

and might be usefully labelled the ‘Globalisation of Irish Enterprise’. It incorporates diverse conditions

of tentative and short-lived recovery from the oil crisis, a boom driven by state spending, a period of

deep depression and state foreign indebtedness, a period of recovery and spectacular economic

growth, during which Ireland has been referred to as the ‘Celtic Tiger’, followed now by a period of

slowdown. Despite the diversity of this fourth phase, there is a unity in it that consists of an increasing

complementation of the internationalisation policy with much talk of what was in the early days

referred to as ‘indigenous industry’ (Telesis, 1982) and then increasingly ‘enterprise’. Also throughout

the era, Ireland like most of the rest of the world moved from a strong faith in a programmatic

approach to policy to more ‘strategic thinking’ and enterprise, than ‘strategic planning’, approaches.

O’Rourke & Hogan (2014) Too Much & Too Little. 6

Some preliminary observations on Irish enterprise policy discourse

One explanation of the too little and too much conundrum is the enterprising of all policy. This in

addition to the core enterprise or industrial development policy documents that are to be our focus on

below, enterprise discourse in Ireland has since the 1980s be found, not just in policies addressing

the enterprise sector but through the whole spectrum of Irish policy making. So in the sense that

Ireland has ‘too much’ enterprise it may be because ‘entrepreneurship has bled out of its heartland …

and has stained nearly every aspect of public life’ (Jones & Spicer, 2005: 179). This argument has

been made elsewhere both for Ireland and internationally (Kenny & Scriver, 2012; Marttila, 2012;

O'Rourke, 2010; O'Rourke & Hogan, 2013). While this explanation accounts for the ‘too big’ role of

enterprise in public discourse generally, does it also account for the ‘too little’ enterprise in the public

policy towards the domains or sectors in which we might more naturally expect enterprise discourse

to occur?

To approach this more focussed question we focus on enterprise discourse in what used to be termed

the ‘industrial policy’ arena. Since we here are focussed on the enterprise policy we will confine

ourselves the development of the policy since 1982, since as we argued in the last section this is

when industrial policy became enterprise policy. Table 2 below provides a listing of key enterprise

policy documents and will facilitate the discussion which follows.

O’Rourke & Hogan (2014) Too Much & Too Little. 7

Table 2 Key changes in Irish Enterprise Policy Discourse

Year Document Title Comment Reference

1982 A Review of Industrial Policy: NESC Report No.64

Published by NESC, authored by private consultancy firm

(Telesis, 1982)

1992 Report of the Industrial Policy Review Group - A Time for Change: Industrial Policy for the 1990s

Published by the Stationery Office. Report for the Minister of Industry & Commerce.

(Culliton, 1992)

1993 ‘Department of Enterprise and Employment’ (Department of Government

This, change from an ‘Industry’ title for the department government has persisted with retained its enterprise element up to 2014 and is now called Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation.

1996 Shaping Our Future - A Strategy for Enterprise in Ireland in the 21st Century

Forfás assisted by a steering group & advisory committees of social partners & experts.

(Forfás, 1996)

2000 Enterprise 2010: A New Strategy for the Promotion of Enterprise in Ireland in the 21st Century’

Policy proposal produced by committee, of social partners and experts, chaired and supported by Forfás

(Forfás, 2000)

2003 Towards an Entrepreneurial Society: Ireland’s Response to the Green Paper ‘Entrepreneurship in Europe’

Government’s response to EU written by Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment after a wide consultation with other departments and wider society

(Department of Enterprise, 2003)

2004 Ahead of the Curve -Ireland ’s Place in the Global Economy

Published by Forfás.Group involved individuals from the private sector, academics, trade unions etc.

(Enterprise Strategy Group, 2004)

2007 Towards Developing an Entrepreneurship Policy for Ireland

Published by Forfás with the assistance of a small advisory group from state agencies, departments and private business but no trade union representation.

(Forfás, 2007)

2008 Building Ireland’s Smart Economy: A Framework for Sustainable Economic Renewal

This was a government policy statement

(Department of the Taoiseach, 2008)

2010 Report of the Innovation Taskforce

The task force was a broad range of people from business, academia, government but no trade unions.

(Department of the Taoiseach, 2010)

2012 Action Plan for Jobs 2012 This was a government policy statement

(Department for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation 2012)

2014 Entrepreneurship Forum Report The forum was open to submissions from all but the report was authored by a small group of commercial enterprise focussed individuals from private and public sectors.

(Entrepreneurship Forum, 2014)

A policy concern with encouraging indigenous rather than just multinational firms can be traced back to 1973 (O'Farrell, 1986:13), with the initial policy stress on creating linkages between the multinational firms and indigenous enterprises. However in 1982, a report published by NESC

O’Rourke & Hogan (2014) Too Much & Too Little. 8

(Telesis, 1982) indicated that the policy of greater support for ‘indigenous’ industry was a consensus concern, and industrial policy in Ireland ought to be enterprise policy. Yet despite the expressed policy concern for indigenous industry, the focus of policy implementation remained on attracting Foreign Direct Investment. In the late 1980s, the IDA (the principal state agency of the time), in the restrained language of an official report, ‘created an institutional gap regarding support for micro-enterprise’ (Fitzpatricks Associates, 2004:9) by closing down its Small Industry Programme, its main instrument aimed at small enterprises.

An even more explicit move than the landmark Telesis (1982) report towards enterprise culture was apparent in the equally significant Culliton report: “The contribution of productive enterprise to our social and economic objectives should be an issue of primary importance at all educational levels to de-emphasis the bias towards the liberal arts and the professions” (Culliton, 1992: 52) The term enterprise became even more entrenched when, in 1993, a key government department changed its title from ‘Industry and Commerce’ to ‘Enterprise and Employment’. Also in 1993, County Enterprise Boards (CEB) were set up. These are independent companies limited by guarantee with boards composed of local government politicians, trade-union representatives, employer representatives and other social partners. These cater for 35 local regions across Ireland, overlapping somewhat with other services developed by other agencies. EI also provides support for micro-enterprise but these are very selective, supporting only those selected as High Potential Start-ups likely to be engaged in exporting. In contrast, CEB are prepared to back local firms falling outside these criteria. Rural development programmes like LEADER (funded by the EU) and LEADER-Ireland (LEADER programmes no longer funded from the EU but now funded nationally) aid small firms engaged in rural development. Under Ireland’s social partnership agreements a number of ‘Partnership companies’ were sent up. These companies target enterprise development in a number of disadvantaged areas. As institutional arrangements develop and as EU funding to Ireland decreases or even disappears, CEB and EI come to the forefront in the promotion of micro-enterprises and the enterprise culture (Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, 2003).

In 1994 a major shake-up of the government agencies helping business, the agency aimed at indigenous industry was named Forbairt (an Irish Gaelic word meaning ‘development’ or ‘progress’, distinct from the Gaelic fiontar that is much closer to ‘enterprise'); perhaps the choice of Forbairt might have represented a less than whole-hearted adopted of the private-enterprise culture at the time. Forbairt was renamed Enterprise Ireland in 1998. Of note too is the fact that the state agency dealing with foreign investors has retained its well-recognised brand (the Industrial Development Authority) in its new title ‘IDA Ireland’. Here the word ‘enterprise’ was directed at indigenous or domestic rather than multinational business. Under the same right-leaning minister, Mary Harney, the Department of Enterprise and Employment was retitled in 1997 as the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (DOET&E). The insertion of the word ‘trade’ reflected the stamp of a new minister in a new administration but also a concern not to neglect the international aspects of business by concentrating too much on the more indigenous-oriented word ‘enterprise’

That enterprise discourse was now firmly established in Irish policy as evidenced by the titles of the following major reports on what used to be termed ‘industrial policy’: Shaping Our Future - A Strategy for Enterprise in Ireland in the 21st Century (Forfás, 1996), Enterprise 2010: A New Strategy for the Promotion of Enterprise in Ireland in the 21st Century’ (Forfás, 2000), Towards an Entrepreneurial Society: Ireland’s Response to the Green Paper ‘Entrepreneurship in Europe’ (Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, 2003). Though a 2004 report (Enterprise Strategy Group, 2004) did not manage to get the terms ‘enterprise’ or ‘entrepreneurial’ into its title, its pages are replete with the language of enterprise (that there are 10 occurrences of the word ‘enterprise’ itself in the 404 word letter submitting the report to the Minister is indicative, compared to one use of ‘economic’ and no occurrences of the word ‘planning’).

The document Towards Developing an Entrepreneurship Policy for Ireland (Forfás, 2007) was interesting in that the advisory group involved was not, as had become the norm, draw from a wide array of social partners and specialisms, but rather the group was made mostly of individuals that would be considered champions of commercial enterprise. Nonetheless the report insisted that ‘In its implementation, entrepreneurship policy must incorporate a broad set of institutional partners, which necessitates the involvement of Government and a wide range of public and private interests.’ (Forfás, 2007: 78). This might be read as ‘too little’ involvement in enterprise policy formation and ‘too much’ demanded for its implementation. Was Forfás, as a policy agency being captured by too limited a subset of its stakeholders?

O’Rourke & Hogan (2014) Too Much & Too Little. 9

Social partnership had very much returned in the government policy statement that followed: with the

Taoiseach (Ireland’s head of government) declaring in its preface he had met with the social partners

and believed the best prospects of success ‘lies with a collective effort grounded in the values of

partnership’ (Department of the Taoiseach, 2008). The next major enterprise policy document to

follow (Department of the Taoiseach, 2010) was delivered by a task force containing was a broad

range of specialists from business, academia, government but not from the trade unions.

The 2012 action plan for jobs was the first of the new post-crisis Fine Gael- Labour government’s major enterprise policy documents (Department for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, 2012). What it calls for is a ‘Transformation We Can All Back’ and ‘depends on the sustained commitment of people in every community’ and requiring support from ‘new thinking in public policy’ but ‘driven by a new energy from Irish entrepreneurs’ (Department for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, 2012:13). There is no mention of social partnership. In general enterprise seems to refer to private-sector commercial entities, although there is a celebration of co-operative enterprise and there is a promise of a report on social enterprise. Generally non-commercial entities seem to be cast in the role of support but not creation of jobs. The section of the report which focuses on sectoral opportunities may be an exception to this. For example, the identification of education as an important growth sector must imply some entrepreneurial job-creating action on the part of the public institutions that are so prominent in the sector. Generally the plans seems to envision much job-creating enterprise to be confined to the commercial private sector with the rest of society in a merely supporting role from which it seems little enterprise is to be expected. The most recent report listed above (Entrepreneurship Forum, 2014: 52) will presumable form just

one of the inputs into the enterprise policy statement being developed and this status- as one input

among several- explains the narrow composition of the forum’s members whose specialisms are

generally on commercial enterprises though they come from both private and public sectors. That the

mixture of the too little and too much enterprise is still frustrating enterprise policy is clear in the

document. Though the not-for-profit enterprise of ‘Coderdojo’ is celebrated in the report’s foreword,

and ‘entrepreneurship starts with a culture of engaged citizenship’ of responsible, committed giving,

the conception of what is considered enterprise seems to be largely confined to the commercial: ‘A

truly entrepreneurial Ireland is dependent on strong and self-reliant entrepreneurs, who are focused

on their customers, their teams, and their networks’ (Entrepreneurship Forum, 2014: 5). All must be

focussed on the commercial with a recommendation that ‘PhD and Post Doctorate students should

also receive mandatory commercialisation instruction as part of their research programmes’

(Entrepreneurship Forum, 2014: 7). Little enterprise seems to be expected from those engaged in

postgraduate research if mandatory instruction is required. The state’s role, which seems to be an

abstract entity free of citizens, should supportive merely aligning its ‘supports to be conducive to

entrepreneurial development’ and it should be courageous in ‘looking to fill gaps rather than create

new initiatives’ (Entrepreneurship Forum, 2014: 5). It seems the state is not to be entrepreneurial. The

report calls for a ‘flat tax on all types of income at 15-20% would be a fantastic way of attracting

corporations, immigrant entrepreneurs, and keeping wealthy Irish entrepreneurs here in the country’

(Entrepreneurship Forum, 2014: 52). That this recommendation might be a ‘too big’ element of

entrepreneurship, and so perhaps considered ‘unachievable’, is quickly acknowledged by the report

itself (Entrepreneurship Forum, 2014: 52). Perhaps the report can be seen as a needed corrective to

the neglect of native commercial enterprise but unleavened it seems too much is to be expected from

this sector and too little enterprise allowed from elsewhere.

Conclusion

The above observations suggest that policy discourse in Ireland has both narrowed and broadened

the meaning of enterprise. Expectations of what Irish enterprise is to achieve seems to have

O’Rourke & Hogan (2014) Too Much & Too Little. 10

expanded, while those who can be considered enterprising seems to have shrunk. The idea of an

enterprising state, propounded in 1925 seems to be anathema to those who see commercial

enterprise as the sole engine of prosperity and perhaps have had their hackles raised at some

bureaucratic innovation that almost designed to thwart their l efforts. Undoubtedly more needs to be

done whereby the genius and tacit knowledge of entrepreneurs (commercially and/or socially

motivated), private individuals or groups is freed from unnecessary red-tape or excessively

burdensome regulation. Yet it is clear from the recent crisis that even the most skeletal of state

regulation required for the proper functioning of markets and the creation of an environment requires

major and continuing innovations on the part of public servants. Of course, the day-to-day

administration of agreed rules may require more of a bureaucratic, than an entrepreneurial ethic.

However, it would be silly to think that even the clearest of rules can always be administered

mindlessly – the ethic of a dedicated public servant is essential. Alas, making too much of enterprise

may also crowd out the ethic of such a public servant if it means that ‘the character of the

entrepreneur can no longer be represented as just one among a plurality of ethical personalities, but

must be seen as assuming an ontological priority’ (Du Gay, 1996: 157). Demanding there that there

be little or no enterprise in state policy leaves too big a burden on commercial entrepreneurs and

denies how enterprising states have been (Mazzucato, 2013).

This paper is a preliminary attempt at clarifying the senses in which Irish policy has both too much

and too little enterprise discourse resonates with findings in the policy, enterprise discourse and

small business literatures. The very triumph of enterprise discourse, particular in its neoliberal form, in

the overall governing of the economy, may help explain its failure in industrial policy. Our view

therefore complements (Breznitz, 2012), though we draw more attention to the discursive aspects of

the impasse. Our point is not to deny the contribution of individual commercial entrepreneurs nor the

need to ensure barriers to their productivity and innovation are minimised. Rather our point is to

ensure that commercial entrepreneurs are not crushed under the weight of too much enterprise while

also ensuring the ethic of other productive personalities such as, the social entrepreneur, the

innovative policy maker or the dedicated bureaucratic is not shorn of contribution through an

insistence that they have too little enterprise.

References

Armstrong, P. (2005). Critique of Entrepreneurship : People and Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Breznitz, D. (2012). Ideas, structure, state action and economic growth: Rethinking the Irish miracle. Review of international political economy, 19(1), 87-113.

Buckley , A. P. (2013). Indigenous Firm Performance in a Small Late Developing State: A Case-Study of the Role & Contribution of Public Venture Capital in Ireland. (PhD), Lancaster University, Lancaster.

Carr, P. (2000). The age of enterprise : the emergence and evolution of entrepreneurial management. Dublin: Blackhall.

Cooney, T. M. and Kidney, E. (2008). Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy in European Countries: A Mapping of Measures in Ireland: Dublin Instiute of Technology.

Culliton, J. ( 1992). Report of the Industrial Policy Review Group - A Time for Change: Industrial Policy for the 1990s. Dublin: Stationery Office.

Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. (2003). Towards an Entrepreneurial Society Ireland's Response to the Green Paper "Entrepreneurship in Europe" In Ireland (Ed.). Dublin: Department of Enterprise, Trade & Employment.

Department for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (2012). Action Plan for Jobs 2012. Dublin: Department for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation

O’Rourke & Hogan (2014) Too Much & Too Little. 11

Department of the Taoiseach. (2008). Building Ireland’s Smart Economy: A Framework for Sustainable Economic Renewal. Dublin The Stationery Office.

Department of the Taoiseach. (2010). Report of the Innovation Taskforce. Dublin The Stationery Office.

Du Gay, P. (1996). Organizing Identity: Entrepreneurial Governance and Public Management. In S. Hall & P. Du Gay (Eds.), Questions of Cultural Identity (pp. 151-169). London: Sage.

Du Gay, P. (2004). Against ‘Enterprise’ (but not against ‘enterprise’, for that would make no sense). Organization, 11(1): 37–57.

Duffy, D., FitzGerald, J.,Timoney, K.., & Byrne, D. (2014). . Quarterly Economic Commentary, Spring, 2014. Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute.

Enterprise Strategy Group. (2004). Ahead of the Curve -Ireland ’s Place in the Global Economy. Dublin: Forfás.

Entrepreneurship Forum. (2014). Entrepreneurship Forum Report. Dublin: Entrepreneurship Forum Report c/o Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation.

Fitzpatricks Associates (2004). Review of the Role of County and City Enterprise Boards in the Development of Micro-Enterprises. Dublin: Forfás. Forfás. (1996). Shaping our future - a strategy for enterprise in Ireland in the 21st century. Dublin

Forfás. Forfás. (2000). Enterprise 2010 : a new strategy for the promotion of enterprise in Ireland in the 21st

century. Dublin: Forfás. Forfás. (2007). Towards Developing an Entrepreneurship Policy for Ireland Dublin: Forfás. Geiger, T. (2000). Why Ireland Needed the Marshall Plan but Did Not Want it: Ireland, the Sterling Area and the European Recovery Program, 1947-8. Irish Studies in International Affairs, 11. Haughton, J. (2008). The Historical Background. In J. W. O'Hagan & C. Newman (Eds.), The Economy

of Ireland - Policy and Performance of a European Region (pp. 2-28). Dublin: Gill and McMillan.

Hogan, J., & O'Rourke, B. K. ( 2014). The Critical Role of Ideas: A Discursive Institutionalist Approach to Understanding Change in Irish Industrial Policy. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Conference Chicago, IL. http://www.johnhogan.net/drupal-7.0/conferences#sthash.xKcDp376.dpuf

Jones, C., & Spicer, A. (2005). Outline of a genealogy of the value of the entrepreneur In G. Erreygers & G. Jacobs (Eds.), Language, Communication and the Economy (pp. 179-197). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Kenny, K., & Scriver, S. (2012). Dangerously empty? Hegemony and the construction of the Irish entrepreneur. Organization, 19(5), 615-633. doi: 10.1177/1350508412448693

Lee, J. (1989) Ireland, 1912-1985: Politics and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Magennis, W. (1925). Extract from a Speech Given during the Resumed Debate on The Shannon

Scheme. - motion by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. (Vol. Volume 10). Dublin: Dáil Éireann.

Marttila, T. (2012). The Culture of Enterprise in Neoliberalism: Specters of Entrepreneurship. New York / London: Routledge.

Mazzucato, M. (2013). The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public Vs. Private Sector Myths: Anthem Press.

O'Farrell, P. (1986). Entrepreneurs and Industrial Change. Dublin: Irish Management Institute O'Gorman, B., & Cooney, T. M. (2007). An Anthology of Enterprise Policy in Ireland. Irish Journal of

Management, 28(2). O'Rourke, B. K. (2009). The dichotomous unity of enterprise-strategy discourse in interviews with

small-firm owner-managers. (PhD), Brunel University, London. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2438/3359

O’Rourke & Hogan (2014) Too Much & Too Little. 12

O'Rourke, B. K. (2010). Enterprise Discourse: Its Origins and its Influence in Ireland. In J. Hogan, P. F. Donnelly & B. K. O'Rourke (Eds.), Irish Business & Society: Governing, Participating & Transforming in the 21st Century (pp. 69-89). Dublin Gilll & McMillan

O'Rourke, B. K., & Hogan, J. (2013). Reflections in the eyes of a dying tiger: Looking back on Ireland’s 1987 economic crisis In A. De Rycker, & Z. Mohd Don (Eds.), Discourse and crisis: Critical perspectives., (pp.215-238). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Shane, S. A. (2008). The illusions of entrepreneurship : the costly myths that entrepreneurs, investors, and policy makers live. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Telesis. (1982). A Review of Industrial Policy: NESC Report No.64. Dublin: National Economic and Social Council.