Joan E. Moss

Employment Location and Associated Commuting Patterns for Individuals in Disadvantaged Rural Areas in Northern Ireland

Moss J. E., Jack C. G. and Wallace M. T. (2004) Employment location and associated commuting patterns for individuals in disadvantaged rural areas in Northern Ireland, Reg. Studies 38, 121–136. This paper investigates the employment commuting patterns of individuals living in disadvantaged rural areas of Northern Ireland. A survey of rural households is conducted and the data used to map the commuting patterns of individuals in employment. The analysis identifies key explanatory variables relating to observed commuting distances. These variables highlight particular constraints on employment locational choices available to rural households. The results identify a distinct interaction between rural and urban given the concentration of employment in regional and/or larger urban centres. For females, local employment tends to focus on the nearest regional town, with a heavy reliance upon public sector jobs, particularly in the areas of education and health. Male employment is concentrated in declining traditional industries and rural males travel lengthy distances to work. Mobility is undoubtedly a crucial aspect of accessing and retaining employment for working rural dwellers. From a rural development policy perspective, measures designed to enhance the mobility of rural dwellers are therefore a priority.

The economic impact of BSE: a regional perspective

A regional input-output model, detailing agriculture and its ancillary sectors, is used to quantify the effects of a BSE-induced reduction in final demand for beef on the economy of Northern Ireland, a region with heavy dependence on beef exports. The long-run regional output, income and employment effects are estimated assuming no market stabilization measures and taking account of substitution effects in final demand. Predicted net losses in regional income are 0.5% of regional GDP with job losses of up to 0.6% of regional employment. About 77% of the income losses and 87% of the job losses are in the beef sector, primarily beef production. Compensating gains due to demand substitution effects occur mainly in meat processing sectors, other than beef, and are relatively small. Adverse intra-regional distributional effects are likely due to the concentration of beef production in the more disadvantaged areas. The importance of appropriate policy responses is highlighted.

Do EU direct payments to beef producers belong in the ‘blue box’?

In the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture, so-called ‘blue box’ support measures were exempted from reduction commitments, provided they were delivered under ‘production-limiting’ programs. Although classified as ‘blue box’, the EU system of direct payments (DP) to beef farmers imposes ‘claim-limiting’ restrictions rather than ‘production-limiting’ restrictions, allowing farmers to keep additional animals over and above the number upon which they are eligible to claim DP. The present paper provides empirical evidence that EU direct payments capitalise into the market prices of male calves and young steers in Ireland. It is also likely that DP capitalises into the prices of beef cows and heifers. Given this capitalisation process, some farmers can obtain ‘capitalised’ DP on animals produced over and above the ‘claim-limiting’ restrictions, by selling these animals through auction markets. Thus, ‘capitalised’ DP probably encourages production over and above the limiting measures.