TRUTZ HAASE

Social & Economic Consultant

Key Profile for Dublin Inner City

This Sub-County Profile draws out the significant trends from a vast amount of available data. It is kept deliberately short, such as to draw attention to only the most important of observations. In some instances, the profile refers to a wider set of data spanning the four census waves from 1991 to 2006. For space reasons, this data could not be fully included in the GAMMA baseline reports, but is included in digital format on the disk accompanying the report.

Administrative Arrangements

The Dublin Inner City Partnership covers the entire Dublin Inner City except for two EDs, Ushers D and Ushers E, which are included in the Canals Partnership area. The Partnership area is administratively divided into four quadrants: the North West Inner City (NWIC), the North East Inner City (NEIC), the South West Inner City (SWIC) and the South East Inner City (SEIC). As the emphasis of this profile is on the Dublin Inner City Partnership and the four sub-areas within it, the ‘total’ figures quoted below relate to the overall Partnership area. However, the figures for Dublin Inner City only marginally divert from these and can be taken from the tables included on the accompanying disk.

Absolute and Relative Deprivation

  • Overall, the Dublin Region is the second most affluent region of Ireland, but Dublin City is the most disadvantaged local authority area within the region, making it the tenth most disadvantaged county in Ireland as a whole. The relative position of Dublin City has marginally deteriorated over the past fifteen years from a score of -2.2 in 1991 to -2.5 in 2006, but in terms of ranking, it has improved its position from the 30th to the 25th position in relative affluence.
  • Dublin’s Inner City has undergone a much greater transformation over the past fifteen years. In 1991, the area was one of the designated disadvantaged areas of Dublin City, with a relative deprivation score of -13.6. By 2006, this score has risen to -4.6, close to the score for Dublin City as a whole. Dublin Inner City occupies a special position in that it is the only one of the originally designated Partnership areas which no longer features amongst the most deprived areas, at least not if measured at ED level. However, as demonstrated in the report Divided City (Haase & Byrne, 2007), the Dublin Inner City Partnership area contains significant clusters of high deprivation which are masked by the extreme influx of largely affluent people in the wake of the inner city’s gentrification and the Partnership area’s position with regard to spatial deprivation can no longer be meaningfully assessed on the basis of ED level census/deprivation data alone.
  • Although the gentrification has affected all parts of the Inner City, the underlying differences in the relative affluence and deprivation between the city’s four quadrants have been sustained over time. The more affluent parts are generally situated on the Southside of the city, whilst the Northside tends to be slightly more disadvantaged. In terms of their relative deprivation scores, the four quadrants score as follows: NWIC (-6.3), NEIC (-8.5), SWIC (-3.7) and SEIC (2.5).
  • The most disadvantaged EDs in Dublin Inner City are Wood Quay A (-20.9) and Inns Quay C (-20.0), which are the only two EDs falling into the ‘very disadvantaged’ category. There are 10 EDs in the ‘disadvantage’ category, including Ushers C (-19.8), Ballybough A (-19.1), Mountjoy A (-16.5) and Merchants Quay C (-16.2).

Population

  • Ireland has experienced a population growth of 20.3% over the past fifteen years and the Dublin Region has grown by 15.8%. Dublin City’s population, by contrast, has grown by only 5.8% over the same period, the fourth lowest population growth experienced by any county.
  • The remarkable exception, however, to the generally sluggish growth of Dublin City has been Dublin’s Inner City. After a long-lasting decline over the previous thirty years during which Dublin’s Inner City lost half of its population, the Dublin Inner City’s fortunes have now been reversed and it grew by exactly half (49.4%) of its 1991 population, when it was at its lowest.
  • The fastest growing EDs within Dublin Inner City are North City (372.2%), Arran Quay C (303.3%), Royal Exchange A (216.0%), Ushers A (194.8%) and Rotunda A (154.3%), all of which grew by more than two and a half times their 1991 population.
  • There are very few EDs within Dublin Inner City which have experienced any population losses over the past fifteen years. These exceptions are Ushers D (-11.6%), Merchants Quay D (-3.9%), Arran Quay E (-2.6%), North Dock A (-1.8%) and Ushers E (-0.6%). There is a possibility that, within Dublin Inner City, current population losses are a temporary phenomenon in advance of the impending redevelopment of an area.

Demographic Characteristics

  • There has been a continuous decline in the age dependency rate (the proportion of population under 15 years of age or over 64 as part of the total population) throughout Ireland over the past 15 years, from 38.1% in 1991 to 31.4% in 2006. A slightly smaller decline applies to Dublin City (32.7% to 27.7%), albeit from an already lower starting point. After Galway City, Dublin Inner City has the second lowest age dependency rate.
  • Dublin Inner City’s rate is again much lower at 19.7%, indicating just how much the resident population is concentrated amongst the core working age cohorts. There are only small differences between the four quadrants, ranging from a low of 19.0% in the SEIC area to 20.2% in the NWIC area.
  • At ED level, there are some greater differences in the demographic profiles, with age dependency rates exceeding thirty per cent in three EDs, the highest of which are Merchants Quay F (31.8%), Ushers F (31.4%) and Ushers E (31.3%). This contrasts with age dependency rates of about one third of those rates in Royal Exchange A (9.6%), North City (9.8%), Arran Quay C (12.0%) and Mansion House B (13.3%).
  • The proportion of lone parents (as a proportion of all households with dependent children) in Ireland has exactly doubled over the past 15 years, growing from 10.7% in 1991 to 21.3% nationally in 2006. There are marked differences between urban and rural areas, and lone parent rates in the major cities are again up to twice the national average. Dublin City had a rate of 35.8% in 2006; i.e. more than one-third of families with dependent children are headed by a single parent. After Limerick City (39.1%), this is the second highest proportion for any county.
  • In Dublin Inner City exactly every second household with dependent children (50.0%) is headed by a single parent. In other words, since 2006 the single parent family has become the dominant family type within the whole of Dublin Inner City.
  • There are some differences between the four quadrants: The highest rate pertains in the NEIC (55.0%), followed by the NWIC (50.0%) and SWIC (49.3%). The rate in the SEIC is slightly lower at 41.1%.
  • There are vast differences with regard to individual areas within Dublin Inner City and single parent families tend to be concentrated in those EDs which also have significant levels of local authority housing within them. Lone parent rates exceed two-thirds of families in four EDs, Merchant Quay A (74.4%), Mountjoy A (71.5%), Ushers E (68.7%) and Merchants Quay F (66.9%). Lone parent rates exceed 50 per cent in 19 out of 41 EDs.

Education

  • There has been a continuous improvement in the level of education amongst adults over the past 15 years throughout Ireland. In 1991, 36.7% of the adult population had primary education only. This dropped to half that level (18.9%) in 2006, thus indicating a strong cohort effect. The rate for Dublin City has fallen from 39.7% in 1991 to 22.0% in 2006. This is a reduction of 17.7 percentage points (compared to -17.8 percentage points nationally), resulting in 2006 levels remaining about three percentage points above those applying for Ireland as a whole.
  • The changes for Dublin Inner City, by contrast, have been much more dramatic, involving a drop from 49.8% in 1991 to 20.3% in 2006, a reduction by 29.5 percentage points within only 15 years. No other data captures the process of gentrification more than the educational achievement of the inner city’s adult population.
  • There are almost no differences with regard to the four quadrants within Dublin Inner City, ranging from a low of 19.1% in the SEIC to a high of 21.1% in the NEIC.
  • At local level, the EDs with the highest proportions of the adult population with primary education only are: Wood Quay A (33.6%), Ushers C (32.0%), Merchants Quay C (30.6%), Pembroke East A (29.5%) and Ballybough A (29.5%). Nevertheless, these are low proportions when compared with the most disadvantaged EDs of the other original Partnership areas of Dublin City. But one has to remember that these are averages for EDs and that much higher proportions pertain within subsections of almost every ED which are masked by the influx of large number of new people with higher levels of education over the past 15 years.
  • The reverse applies with regard to third level education, which has more than doubled over the past 15 years. In 1991, 13.0% of the national adult population had completed third level education. This grew to 30.5% in 2006. The proportion of Dublin City’s population with third level education has grown from 13.7% to 35.8%, a growth which is nearly five percentage points above that which has occurred nationally (22.1% compared to 17.4%).
  • Again, the remarkable story is that of Dublin Inner City, where the proportion of adults with third level education has catapulted from 11.0% in 1991 to 43.1% in 2006, indicative of the rapid gentrification of Dublin Inner City. There are some greater differences in this respect with regard to the four quadrants. By far the highest percentage pertains in SEIC (49.8%), followed by SWIC (44.1%) and NWIC (42.6%). The lowest proportion is in the NEIC (37.9%).
  • At ED level, contrasts are significant. In Mansion House B, three out of four adult persons (75.5%) have a third level education. This contrasts with Ballybough A, where the proportion is 23.4%, Ushers C (24.4%) and Wood Quay A (24.8%). However, due to the arrival of new highly educated residents in effectively every part of Dublin Inner City, there is no ED where not at least one-fifth of the adult population has completed third-level education.

Social Class Composition

  • The changes in social class composition experienced throughout Ireland over the past 15 years largely parallel those in educational achievement, with a gradual increase in the number of professionals and an even greater decline in the proportion of semi- and unskilled manual workers. At the national level, the proportion of professionals in all classes rose from 25.2% in 1991 to 32.9% in 2006, whilst the proportion of the semi- and unskilled classes declined from 28.2% to 18.6% over the same period.
  • In Dublin City, the proportion in the professional classes (30.4%) and the proportion in the lower skilled professions (20.2%) are in the middle field of class composition amongst all counties. The composition of Dublin Inner City is slightly below this, comprising 26.0% professionals and 24.8% semi- and unskilled manual workers, with the quadrants mirroring their respective educational characteristics.
  • At local level, the highest class composition is found in Pembroke West A (46.5% professionals, 11.9% semi- and unskilled manual classes) and Mansion House B (41.1%, 8.6%). These shares are about twenty percentage points lower than those pertaining in Terenure D (66.5%, 3.1%) or Terenure C (67.1%, 3.7%), the areas of highest class composition within Dublin City as a whole.
  • The lowest class composition in Dublin Inner City is found in Mountjoy B (13.5%, 40.1%), Inns Quay C (15.9%, 36.3%), Merchant Quay A (16.6%, 36.5%), Mountjoy A (15.3%, 33.4%) and Ushers C (17.6%, 37.5%).

Unemployment

  • Unemployment rates throughout Ireland have broadly halved over the past 15 years. Female unemployment rates have tended to be slightly below male unemployment rates, but have not fallen at the same pace due to the increasing levels of female labour force participation (i.e. reflecting the trend of increased female participation in the labour force with more women registering their unemployed status). The male unemployment rate fell from 18.4% in 1991 to 8.8% in 2006, whilst the female unemployment rate fell from 14.1% to 8.1%.
  • Male unemployment rates for Dublin City have fallen at an even faster rate than the nationally prevailing ones between 1991 and 2006 (-12.6% male / -8.4% female compared to -9.6% male / -6.0% female nationally), but rates remained above the national rates in 2006 at 12.1% male unemployment and 9.0% female unemployment.
  • The rates for Dublin Inner City are 14.1% and 10.8% respectively. Unemployment rates are considerably lower in the SEIC (7.6%, 6.3%) and about twice those rates in the other three quadrants.
  • Unemployment rates in individual EDs reach levels well above those for Dublin Inner City as a whole and are highest in Ballybough A (23.3%, 19.0%), Inns Quay C (19.4%, 21.2%) and Mountjoy A (20.9%, 19.4%), followed by Merchants Quay F (23.7%, 15.4%) and Ushers C (21.0%, 17.5%).

Housing

  • There has been a 2.3 percentage point decline in the proportion of local authority housing in Ireland over the past 15 years, from 9.8% in 1991 to 7.5% in 2006. The proportion in the Dublin Region has declined by 4.6 percentage points, from 14.1% to 9.5%. Dublin City has seen a decline of 4.7 percentage points, albeit from an even higher base (17.2% to 12.5%). Dublin City has the fourth highest level of local authority rented housing for any county, but is exceeded by Limerick City (13.2%), Waterford City (13.9%) and Cork City (15.8%).
  • Dublin Inner City has seen a massive drop of 12.6 percentage points in its share of local authority housing in only fifteen years, from 33.0% in 1991 to 20.4% in 2006. The share is lowest in the NWIC (16.0%) and around 21 per cent in the other three quadrants.
  • At ED level, the highest concentrations of local authority housing are found in Royal Exchange B (52.0%), Merchants Quay A (45.7%), Ushers E (45.6%), Mansion House A (43.5%) and Mountjoy A (42.7%). The decline in the share of local authority housing in Dublin Inner City is the result of a combination of the decline in the absolute number of social housing units, and the large number of private housing units created in the countless infill developments.

New Measures of Deprivation in the Republic of Ireland

An Inter-temporal and Spatial Analysis of data from the
Census of Population, 1991, 1996, 2002 and 2006
Trutz Haase & Jonathan Pratschke, February 2008

This section provides a brief summary of the new Measures of Deprivation for the Republic of Ireland, drawing on recent data from the 2006 Census of Population. Building on the innovative and powerful approach to the construction of deprivation indices developed in our previous research (Haase & Pratschke, 2005), the new Measures of Deprivation provide an up-to-date analysis of the changes in deprivation that have occurred in each local area over the past fifteen years[1].

How is the new deprivation index constructed?

Most deprivation indices are based on a factor analytical approach which reduces a larger number of indicator variables to a smaller number of underlying dimensions or factors. This approach is taken a step further in the Measures of Deprivation developed by Haase & Pratschke: rather than allowing the definition of the underlying dimensions of deprivation to be determined by data-driven techniques, the authors develop a prior conceptualisation of these dimensions. Based on earlier deprivation indices for Ireland, as well as analyses from other countries, three dimensions of affluence/disadvantage are identified: Demographic Profile, Social Class Composition and Labour Market Situation.

Demographic Profile is first and foremost a measure of rural affluence/deprivation. Whilst long-term adverse labour market conditions tend to manifest themselves in urban areas in the form of unemployment blackspots, in rural areas, by contrast, the result is typically agricultural underemployment and/or emigration. Emigration from deprived rural areas is also, and increasingly, the result of a mismatch between education and skill levels, on the one hand, and available job opportunities, on the other. Emigration is socially selective, being concentrated amongst core working-age cohorts and those with further education, leaving the communities concerned with a disproportionate concentration of economically-dependent individuals as well as those with lower levels of education. Sustained emigration leads to an erosion of the local labour force, a decreased attractiveness for commercial and industrial investment and, ultimately, a decline in the availability of services.

Demographic Profile is measured by five indicators:

  • the percentage increase in population over the previous five years
  • the percentage of population aged under 15 or over 64 years of age
  • the percentage of population with a primary school education only
  • the percentage of population with a third level education
  • the percentage of households with children aged under 15 years and headed by a single parent

Social Class Composition is of equal relevance to both urban and rural areas. Social class background has a considerable impact in many areas of life, including educational achievements, health, housing, crime and economic status. Furthermore, social class is relatively stable over time and constitutes a key factor in the inter-generational transmission of economic, cultural and social assets. Areas with a weak social class profile tend to have higher unemployment rates, are more vulnerable to the effects of economic restructuring and recession and are more likely to experience low pay, poor working conditions as well as poor housing and social environments.

Social Class Composition is measured by five indicators:

  • the percentage of population with a primary school education only
  • the percentage of population with a third level education
  • the percentage of households headed by professionals or managerial and technical employees, including farmers with 100 acres or more
  • the percentage of households headed by semi-skilled or unskilled manual workers, including farmers with less than 30 acres
  • the mean number of persons per room

Labour Market Situation is predominantly, but not exclusively, an urban measure. Unemployment and long-term unemployment remain the principal causes of disadvantage at national level and are responsible for the most concentrated forms of multiple disadvantage found in urban areas. In addition to the economic hardship that results from the lack of paid employment, young people living in areas with particularly high unemployment rates frequently lack positive role models. A further expression of social and economic hardship in urban unemployment blackspots is the large proportion of young families headed by a single parent.