The Politicisation of Disadvantage in the Republic of Ireland:
The Role Played by the Third Sector
Disadvantage has informed and led the work of the third sector in Ireland for a long time.
Historically, however, there have been some changes in the way that poverty has been dealt with and
the perspective that third sector organisations have taken on poverty and disadvantage. In the last
century, and through more than half of the present century, charity was a defining feature; in other
words, a duty to help the 'poor' or 'needy' was fundamental to non profit activity. During the past
thirty or so years, however, there has been a sea change in attitudes to and perspectives informing
work with the disadvantaged and this, as far as this paper is concerned, marks what could be called
the 'politicisation of disadvantage', that is the entry of disadvantage onto the political agenda as a
very real issue that needs to be addressed in a systematic and structured way.
Central to this more recent perspective on disadvantage has been the role of the community-based third sector which has become increasingly important and vocal over the past decade. Its
significance can be measured in its presence 'at the table' for discussions on the government's latest
programme, Partnership 2000, for consultation and negotiation as part of the National and Economic
Social Forum (NESF), and also in the role that community-based organisations played in bringing
the National Anti-Poverty Strategy (NAPS) to fruition in 1997. An important part, too, has been
played by the area-based partnerships, now part of the third sector, which combine statutory and
voluntary organisations at local level in the struggle against social and economic exclusion and in
the creation of enterprise and employment. These partnerships, like community-based organisations,
are important for social empowerment and they are now a powerful voice for community interests.
This paper examines the impact of non-profit organisations working at community level on
Irish politics, in particular on the politicisation of disadvantage and the growing importance of this
on the wider political agenda. Drawing on literature and policy sources, the paper also present
results from some primary research on the community sector in Ireland.
Poverty and Disadvantage its Background in Charity
A history of abject poverty in the nineteenth century in Ireland prompted and generated a
culture of private philanthropy which was very strongly influenced by religious bodies and
principles. Up until the Catholic Emancipation Act in 1829 non profit organisations were mainly
run by Protestants, Quakers and some non-religious philanthropists (IPA 1996). Catholic religious
orders only began to make a significant contribution from the early 1830s. The religious-based
organisations tended to emphasise charitable principles (Faughnan and Kelleher 1993) and the duty
of the rich to help the 'poor' and 'needy'.
Towards the end of the last century another type of voluntary activity began to emerge. This focused on the importance of self help and was very much based at local community level. The co-operative movement which was rural based was designed to counteract exploitation of poor people in the community and started to generate enterprise through voluntary and co-operative endeavour. This was followed in the 1930s by Muintir na Tire which became an important mobilising force for local communities at the time spurring them on to greater voluntary activity and constantly emphasising the theme of growth through self reliance. The organisation still operates at the basic unit of the local parish and encourages local enterprise and the development of a community identity.
The 1930s to the 1950s marked the heyday of Muintir na Tire, as a community development
organisation, but it has been overtaken, in some respects, by more recent developments. Muintir na
Tire provides an interesting example of the way in which community development and different
perspectives on disadvantage have developed. Muintir emphasised participation but charity was still
a guiding principle and one from which self help was to spring. Furthermore not only was charity
still present on Muintir's agenda, but Muintir, itself, was excluded from the wider political agenda.
Contemporary observers have recognised the importance of Muintir's contribution but have noted
that there were explicit attempts made to leave Muintir out of the political process (Crickley 1996).
Furthermore, Muintir dissociated itself from the politics of the day by stating that it did not align
itself with the major political parties. An elitism, however, was evident in the organisation as the
basic parish units tended to be controlled by property owners, professionals and the Catholic clergy.
Despite its claim, therefore, Muintir na Tire, was, in practice, political in a particular guise but this
was not guaranteed to put disadvantage to the fore as a politically viable and legitimate issue.
Not only, then, was Muintir distancing itself from explicit political action but there seemed
also to be a perception that according to policy makers charity belonged in the community and was
a method of dealing with disadvantage. As far as the politicians were concerned, therefore, the link
between charity and subsidiarity, as Catholic principles, meant their exclusion from the political
agenda. Things were to change from the early 1970s onwards, however.
Newer Perspectives on Disadvantage the Entry of Empowerment
While self help and a tradition of co-operation can be seen to influence contemporary
community action, developments in the 1970s and 1980s have been far more crucial. The Women's
and Trade Union Movements in the 1970s, for example, played a significant part in the development
of citizen involvement and community activism. What now became important guiding principles
were the right to consultation and direct democratic participation (Kelleher and Whelan 1992). The
ideology of empowerment, participation, social inclusion and voluntary action helped shift the
emphasis from charity as the basis of self help towards a focus on the rights of disadvantaged people.
From this time, campaigning and advocacy were to become increasingly important.
Self help, as consequence, was now combined with the concepts of social justice, solidarity
and empowerment. Solidarity rather than charity began to become important and the paternalistic
notion of duty towards the poor was jettisoned in favour of being in solidarity with them.
Instrumental in these more recent developments were the EU Poverty Programmes because they
placed an emphasis on the structural causes of poverty and the promotion of community
empowerment. The Poverty Programmes were aimed at greater participation of the disadvantaged;
Poverty II and III in particular focused on tackling poverty in partnership with state agencies, while
still being informed by the principles of empowerment and participation (Curtin 1996).
Welfare provision had begun to shift from the early 1960s too from the third sector to the
state and there was increasing incorporation of voluntary activity into state policy. The issue of
disadvantage, however, was to become more politicised as demands grew. Towards the end of the
1980s imbued by principles of empowerment and the increasing culture of rights, community action
took to the streets. Fed up with the lack of a structured response from the state and the failure to
tackle the needs of those who were socially disadvantaged and marginalised voluntary community
action became very vocal and proactive. Issues such as drugs, unemployment and lone parenthood,
etc, now entered common parlance and soon began to make inroads on the wider political agenda.
The Catholic Church too, in recent years, was also beginning to change its tune somewhat.
The Church, as noted earlier, had been an important provider of social services for a long time in
Ireland. It has been suggested, however, that the primary purpose of social service provision was
not to combat social inequality or reform society (Fahey 1998). In the 1960s the number of
vocations in the Catholic Church began to decline which led to a gradual knock-on effect in the
provision of social services. The Church, as a consequence, has decreased its role as a provider of
social services. Meanwhile Catholic social thinking began to change, particularly after Vatican II,
which became obvious in Ireland in the late 1960s and 1970s. Elements within the Church gradually
began to be known for their struggle for social justice. A prime example of this development would
be the Conference of Religious in Ireland (CORI), a voluntary umbrella group for religious
organisations that is actively involved in socio-economic critique and commentary (Fahey 1998).
The State's Response
Up to the 1960s, the state appeared quite content to operate almost at arm's length with
regard to many social services, leaving them in the hands of the third sector. The 1953 Health Act,
however, marked the beginning of a change in the relationship between statutory and voluntary
sectors with the introduction of Section 65 grants for not-for-profit organisations. These Section 65
grants are still a very important source of funding for many non profit organisations in the field of
social services (Mulvihill 1993, Ruddle and Donoghue 1995).
From the late 1960s the government's position began to be more explicit. Voluntary social
service councils, for example, were formed, following the establishment by the government of the
National Social Service Council in 1971, to provide an advisory and information service to voluntary
bodies. Government cutbacks in 1988, however, were to have a detrimental effect on its operations
which indicates that in certain areas, in any case, the government's approach has been somewhat
ambivalent. In other areas, though, the Government was beginning to sit up and take notice. Taking
the lead from the EU Poverty Programmes the government established the Combat Poverty Agency,
under the Combat Poverty Agency Act in 1986, during the life of EU Poverty II. This Agency acts
in an advisory capacity to the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs and develops and
supports initiatives that are aimed at combating poverty in Ireland. To this end, it is an important
support for the third sector, almost to the extent that it regards itself as part of that third sector
aligning itself quite closely with community organisations and interests.
While the Combat Poverty Agency has proved to be a very important statutory support for
the third sector, there is some feeling among those working in the area of disadvantage that this
importance does not extend outside of Dublin, where it is based. It has been suggested in interview
that community organisations based outside the capital rely more on other sources (such as
LEADER, an EU programme) and that there is a need to have an agency like Combat Poverty based
in our second city, Cork. Be that as it may, such feedback bears some testament to the success of
the Agency. Furthermore, the Agency acts as an advocate for the sector, and provides a research
resource and a forum for feedback so that issues can be identified, responded to and acted upon.
Possibly one of the most visible manifestations of community action this decade, however,
has been the development of the area-based partnerships. Set up under the Government's
Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) in 1991, the aim was to combine statutory,
voluntary and other social partners in an effort to combat social and economic exclusion and to
create enterprise and employment. The focus, as stated in the PESP, was an on 'area-based response
to long-term unemployment' and the interest was on an integrated approach. The PESP
acknowledges that the 'prime movers' in the whole process are local communities. In other words,
the PESP provides an example at policy-making and political level of the recognition of community
endeavour and of moves to capitalise on this. The area-based partnerships were envisaged as locally-based companies consisting of 'community interests, state development agency executives, health
board and local authority officials and social partner representatives' (PESP 1991: 77). The
partnership approach had been heralded by the Poverty III programme which took the view that
poverty was multi-dimensional, and was implemented during its lifetime (1990-1994).
Four years after the piloting of the 12 original area-based partnership companies, their
success led to a further 26 being approved by the Government and these were subsequently
established by 1996. The partnership companies are funded by the EU and the Irish government,
the vast majority of the funding being provided under the EU Local Urban and Regional
Development Programme, which is one of the Operational Programme of the Community Support
Framework.
What is interesting now to note is that, not only was the state becoming more active in its
approach, taking its lessons from both EU initiatives and from campaigning and advocacy at
community level, but it was now beginning to drive community development itself (Curtin 1996).
It could be said, therefore, that the politicisation of disadvantage was happening in two ways. On
the one hand, efforts by the third sector and support from the EU, had led to the voice of the third
sector being heard at political level. On the other hand, the government was strengthening the hand
of the third sector in the field of disadvantage by facilitating and establishing partnership
arrangements. Yet it is interesting too to note that several observers have remarked on the lack of
clarity surrounding the way in which communities should be represented in the policy-making
process (see Curtin, Haase and Tovey 1996). It is to this policy level that our attention now turns.
The Policy Arena the Entry of Disadvantage
By the early 1990s, then, there was a vibrant and burgeoning community sector, fuelled by
the needs and interests of the communities these organisations represented. Representation was
along geographical and interests lines and sometimes both. Not only was disadvantage seen to lie
in a particular geographical area such as, for example, inner city areas known for their high
unemployment levels and social exclusion - but was also seen to be relevant for many marginalised
communities. These were becoming increasingly vocal and increasingly angry. Issues like drug use,
unemployment, disability, lesbian and gay rights and women's equality were mobilising
communities and were issues that the third sector, in particular, had made its own. While the state
was responding and corporatist alliances were therefore beginning to form around certain issues of
disadvantage, a lot more were not being addressed and these communities of interest were now
seeking representation at policy-making level.
To this end they were helped in some way by EU funding, by the state in its support of the
Combat Poverty Agency and also through grants from the Department of Social, Community and
Family Affairs (or Social Welfare as it was up until 1997) which has emerged as of increasing
importance for the community and voluntary sector in Ireland. EU initiatives, later programmes, like
NOW and Horizon were important not only in providing what was for many groups the first
structured funding, but also in emphasising dissemination and mainstreaming. The introduction of
these concepts mirrored what many groups themselves felt was part of their agenda (although
mainstreaming can, itself, bring many problems for the organisations concerned, not least of which
is their own future viability and legitimacy). Campaigning and advocacy were being recognised
through financial support and were also being strengthened which led to wider recognition in the
public arena.
Ireland now entered an era of social partnership which has had a significant influence on
government programmes and agreement over the past decade beginning with an advisory function
in the National Economic and Social Council to which employers, trade unions, farmers and senior
civil servants belong. From 1987 and the Programme for National Recovery these social partners
have been involved in negotiating government agreements, through the PESP (1991-1993), the
Programme for Competitiveness and Work (1994-1996) and the most recent Partnership 2000 (1997-2000). Most significantly, in terms of the politicisation of disadvantage, has been the widening of
the social partnership to include the community and voluntary sector or, as one participant has put
it, 'the disadvantaged constituency' (Crowley 1996:161). The establishment of the National
Economic and Social Forum in 1993 included this third sector voice comprising different non profit
interests that had not been included to date. Prior to this third sector representation had been mainly
composed of the trade unions. Now organisations representing other issues such as women, youth,
travellers, disability, unemployment, the environment and rural development were included all with
a focus on disadvantage and social exclusion. The NESF's function is to develop economic and
social policy initiatives, particularly initiatives to combat unemployment and to provide commentary
on social and economic policy.
This recognition of and participation by community 'voices' was enhanced several years later
in Partnership 2000, which is the present national agreement published by the last government in late
1996. Third sector submissions to this agreement came from the traditional social partners, from
community organisations (most notably the Community Platform which is a network comprising
women's groups, the unemployed, lesbian and gay groups, rural organisations, travellers, disabilities
and lone parents), and from CORI. Partnership 2000 takes issue with the concept of social inclusion
and acknowledges that it is a major challenge for Irish society. It notes the importance of the role
that the third sector plays in the struggle against disadvantage (by referring to both the National Anti-Poverty Strategy and the Green Paper on Voluntary Activity which it preceded by several months).
The role of the third sector was further highlighted in that several recommendations made by both
NESC and NESF on the need to include an action programme for greater social inclusion were
adopted in Partnership 2000.
The government's National Anti-Poverty Strategy published four months later in April 1997,
represents possibly the most potent form of the third sector's role in putting disadvantage on the
political map, however. While the PESP had provided for a role for the third sector in tackling
disadvantage through the area-based partnerships, Partnership 2000 and the National Anti-Poverty
Strategy have presented further evidence of the role that the third sector can play in this whole area.
By themselves, the last two, in particular, stand testament to the input of the third sector in putting
disadvantage on the agenda.
The National Anti-Poverty Strategy focuses on disadvantage in the forms of education,
unemployment, income inadequacy, urban disadvantage and rural poverty and it sets down targets
and strategies for each of these over the next five years. The community and voluntary sectors are
explicitly acknowledged as having a role to play in combating this disadvantage and are envisaged
as being involved in a consultative and participatory fashion.
Again, what can be seen is that non profit organisations are working in several ways, on the
one hand to put the issue on the table, and on the other to play a role in maintaining that issue by
being strategically involved in combating it with state support. Poverty has therefore come a long
way from being regarded as a charitable issue. Solidarity with the poor or disadvantaged has entered
the agenda and solidarity now includes, not only the non profit sector working with the constituency
of the disadvantaged, but the government also entering in some kind of solidarity with the issue and
its constituents. The gaining of full social partner status for the 'social pillar' has thus been likened
by one participant to 'pushing at an open door' (quoted in O'Donnell and Thomas 1998: 127). In
other words, political will to facilitate this inclusion appears to be greater now than previously.
Where to Now?
Recent figures from the Revenue Commissioners on organisations that have been granted
charitable exemption for tax purposes provide further evidence of the importance of organisations
involved in combating disadvantage in a multidimensional way. Of organisations granted charitable
exemption during the last two years those that are involved in activities beneficial to the community
made up just over half. Organisations involved in the relief of poverty made up just over one in ten
of all exemptions granted (Revenue Commissioners personal communication 1998). Clearly, the
politicisation of disadvantage has also meant that a wider view of poverty is now taken as the
National Anti-Poverty Strategy bears witness - and that social marginalisation and exclusion are
foremost.
Indeed, such is the potency of community organisations that the Green Paper on Voluntary
Activity released in May 1997 has been seem by some observers as laying too great an emphasis on
their activity to the detriment of other voluntary organisations. Furthermore, the explicit links made
by the Green Paper with the National Anti-Poverty Strategy have been taken by commentators as
further evidence of the predominance of community organisations over other voluntary
organisations. It is not known, at this stage, whether this focus will be maintained in the White
Paper promised in 1999. The Green Paper does, however, provide a further indication of the process
that has put disadvantage on the political map.
As was remarked in interviews with community representatives and statutory organisations,
'community action is the fundamental first step in extreme forms of disadvantage' and clearly
community action has played a significant role in politicising the issue. Statutory representatives
and respondents from community-based organisations alike pointed over and over again to the same
examples of the way in which myriad forms of disadvantage have been put on the political agenda.
Yet although the issue has been politicised far more than in the past, government funding could be
increased, or so the sector argues. While government spokespeople and policy makers have said in
interview that organisations that are involved in self help are more likely than other organisations
to get funding, there is obviously a limited cake to be shared. Furthermore, funding problems are
not likely to disappear as Ireland will probably change in status from being a net beneficiary of EU
funds from the year 2000 on.
Growing politicisation, according to community action practitioners, occurred in the
communities and marches against drugs, unemployment, for travellers' rights etc, which all became
part of the wider fabric of disadvantage. This politicisation has formed the background to the
vocalisation of community interests, not only in geographical communities but also in communities
of interest. Networks and coalitions of different groups have developed around issues such as rural
development, lesbian and gay rights, etc. The politicisation process will undoubtedly continue and
the third sector is recognised, quite rightly, as playing an important part in politics (with a small 'p')
and as having an important influence on Politics (with a big 'P'). Although it has been said that non
profit organisations do not have a wider policy-influencing role (Ruddle and Donoghue 1995), this
may now be starting to change. With the National Anti-Poverty Strategy, Partnership 2000 and the
courting of the community sector by elected politicians, the place at the political table of community-based third sector organisations has only just begun to be taken; perhaps they would argue that it is
now time for a piece of the action. Indeed, it is only really in the past few years, despite all of the
efforts beforehand and the increasingly politicisation of disadvantage as an issue, that participation
has begun to happen (O'Donnell and Thomas 1998).
What is increasingly apparent now is the recognition that disadvantage needs to be tackled
for competitiveness and growth to occur and that disadvantage, therefore, is a political issue. What
may have been personalised before, that is the perception of poverty as an individualised thing, or
the notion that it is inevitable (which would have found expression in the saying that 'the poor are
always with us'), has changed. Political action is now seen as necessary to tackle disadvantage and
that has been the role that non profit organisations have played.
Despite the progress that has been made and the symbiotic relationship that appears to be
emerging between the non profit sector and the state there are still problematic areas and ones that
have developed out of this changing relationship between the third sector and state. O'Donnell and
Thomas (1998) note the hybrid forms of governance within and between policy spheres that are
emerging. Also although the three options postulated for social partnerships by the NESF
consultation, participation and negotiation have been almost attained (O'Donnell and Thomas
1998), the representation of certain bodies in the social pillar is itself not unproblematic as there may
well be voices of disadvantage that are still going unheard. In interviews with representatives of
community and statutory organisations this perception was confirmed, for whereas some were full
of praise for the success that had been achieved and were quick to recognise it, others still felt that
the road ahead was very long and tortuous. Indeed, although several of these holding the latter view
are members of the social pillar, they still feel that participation has not led to policy but only to
procedures.
Clearly, as with any sector, a jockeying of power within organisations and between
organisations is to be expected. These conflicts can also have repercussions on the client base where
struggles can ensue to see who is going to represent those interests, whether this is done effectively
or not. This, in turn, raises another important question for who is going to measure effectiveness and
how, indeed, is this effectiveness to be measured? It can also lead to the emergence of elites (see
Fahey 1998) who can be examples of the exercise of 'power without responsibility'. That is, they
can emulate within their own organisations bad practice found elsewhere, without recognising that
community organisations also need to examine their own organisational behaviour in order to
acknowledge and address potential or existing power struggles. The effect of this on the political
agenda can be to highlight some areas of interest over others or the interests of some elements of the
community over others. One respondent in interview felt that this could be 'dangerous' particularly
in the debate about participation and representation.
The road is still long and disadvantage, although it has been politicised to a certain extent,
needs to be maintained on that political map. Furthermore there needs to be cognisance of its
breadth and nature and the fact that it is not static. This will be a challenge for the third sector as we
head into the next millenium.
References
Curtin, Chris (1996): 'Back to the future? Communities and rural poverty', in Chris Curtin, Trutz
Haase and Hilary Tovey (eds), Poverty in Rural Ireland. A political economy perspective, Dublin:
Combat Poverty/Oak Tree Press
Crickley, Stasia (1996): 'The role of community development: the development of partnerships' in
Community Workers' Co-operative, Partnership in Action, Galway: Community Workers' Co-operative
Crowley, Niall (1996): 'Frameworks for partnership: emerging models and responses', in
Community Workers' Co-operative, Partnership in Action, Galway: Community Workers' Co-operative
Fahey, Tony (1998): 'The Catholic Church and social policy', in Sean Healy and Brigid Reynolds
(eds), Social Policy in Ireland, Dublin: CORI/Oak Tree Press
Faughnan, Pauline and Kelleher, Patricia (1993): The Voluntary Sector and the State: A Study of
Organisations in One Region. Dublin: Conference of Major Religious Superiors
Government of Ireland (1997): Sharing in Progress. National Anti-Poverty Strategy. Dublin:
Stationery Office
IPA (1996): Yearbook and Diary 1997. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration
Kelleher, Patricia and Whelan, Mary (1992): Dublin Communities in Action. Dublin: CAN/Combat
Poverty Agency
Mulvihill, Ray (1993): Voluntary-Statutory Partnerships in Community Care of the Elderly. Dublin:
National Council for the Elderly
O'Donnell, Rory and Thomas, Damian (1998): 'Partnership and policy-making', in Sean Healy and
Brigid Reynolds (eds) Social Policy in Ireland, Dublin: CORI/Oak Tree Press
Programme for Economic and Social Progress (1991): Dublin: Stationery Office
Revenue Commissioners (1998): Personal communication, April
Ruddle, Helen and Donoghue, Freda (1995): The Organisation of Volunteering. A Study of Irish Voluntary Organisations in the Social Welfare Area. Dublin: Policy Research Centre