error
Subscriptions are not available for this site while you are logged into your current account.
close
Skip to main content
Submit RFP

      Cities are complex, and Dublin is no exception. How the city and its environs are planned, led and managed is a key challenge in securing a positive future over the next 15 years. Our research considers the issues of managing Dublin in terms of leadership and democratic institutions, planning and funding. 

      Just over half (52 percent) of businesses feel this pillar is very important, with only 30 percent stating the city does well here. With no absolute or clear priority, respondents cite effective and stable leadership (32 percent) strategic, consultative planning (29 percent) and sustainable long term funding (26 percent) as areas for focus.

      With no specific lead issue in this area, it might be considered that the city is coping reasonably well with the myriad of issues confronting it. However, there’s strong evidence that Dublin does not yet benefit from the optimum governance and leadership model. 

      For example, only 8 percent of public spending occurs at the local government level, compared to an EU average of over 23 percent.

      With limited devolved power from national government, Dublin largely depends on the decisions of national government for major decisions about its future. Meanwhile limited local government has relatively modest powers when compared with similar cities in other countries. 

      Governance & leadership indicators

      What should be prioritised vs how well it is performing

      Managing Dublin

      What matters


      Finding the best leadership and governance models for managing a rapidly changing city is an important process. Despite major changes to local government in the Greater Dublin area in recent decades, Ireland remains one of the most centralised countries in western Europe, with local authorities focused on delivering key local services.

      Whilst this may have served the state well, avoiding duplication, and potential waste and centralising the development of recent major infrastructure, it does beg the question about what is best for Dublin now. This is particularly the case when research and other indicators show dissatisfaction, for example on infrastructure delivery.

      For our research respondents, the issue of effective, stable leadership was the top priority of just under a third (32 percent) of those sampled when asked about their governance and leadership priorities, just ahead of strategic, consultative planning. 

      When asked about their attitudes to the prospects of a directly elected mayor, 37 percent said it would be positive for their business in the long run, significantly behind suggestions such as an orbital LUAS route to mirror the M50 (78 percent) or greater emphasis on pedestrianisation or public transport (59 percent).

      Meanwhile our respondents rank robust democratic institutions for Dublin as the least important governance priority (only 14 percent rank it as their number one issue) however, one in three feel that Dublin does well in this area, perhaps providing a rationale for relatively modest appetite change.

      This is despite for example the ever-present risk of geopolitical, weather or pandemic related shocks, where the resilience of a major city such as Dublin may require significant local political leadership working in tandem with national government.

      Microphones at event

      Making it happen


      Ultimately the decision around what form of leadership and governance applies to Dublin is a matter for Dáil Éireann. Our perspective recognises that there is no absolute panacea.

      Suggestions for reinforcing the strength of the Dublin’s local democratic institutions include:

      • Dublin is governed by four separate local authorities (Dublin City, Fingal, South Dublin, and Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown), each with its own chief executive and council. A single figure could be mandated to encourage further inter-municipal coordination across the greater Dublin area, leading to continued enhanced  cohesion in decision-making in areas such as transport, housing, and planning.
      • Local government in Ireland has fewer powers compared to most other EU states and many powers lie with national government departments or appointed officials (e.g., chief executives). Whilst a directly elected mayor is the model for many other cities, with limited powers and without clarity on its role or authority,, this approach could frustrate public expectations without delivering results. A clear decision on the governance and funding model would bring much needed clarity.
      • With electoral habits showing a clear pattern of voting decline, there is value in continuing strengthen the connection between Dublin’s leadership and its residents. Possibilities include participatory budgeting which allows residents to vote on how a portion of the budget is spent, citizen/city assemblies to deliberate on key local issues, building on Ireland’s successful national examples and digital democracy platforms using online tools for consultations, petitions, and public feedback.

      back to top

      Strategic & consultative planning

      What matters


      Credible planning for Dublin requires urgency. All stakeholders, including government, have recognised that the current approach does not work. The competitive edge secured by other areas of state policy, is being eroded by bottlenecks, inertia, processes and protocols that are no longer fit for purpose.

      Inevitably, Dublin is paying a high opportunity cost resulting from infrastructure delays that diminish other areas of city performance, including many covered in this report.

      Our Dublin 2040 research shows that the area of strategic consultative planning is the second highest governance priority after effective and stable leadership, with 29 percent of respondents giving it their highest ranking. Meanwhile over half (53 percent) believe Dublin is doing poorly on this indicator.

      According to Paul O’Neill, Co-Head of Infrastructure at KPMG, “Dublin is competing, especially for the mega projects, against other more attractive overseas markets that not only offer more attractive forms of contracting, but provide clearly-defined programmes of priority projects that the market can plan and mobilise for.

      It is crucial that we agree what are the critical cross-sectorial infrastructure projects we want to see delivered in Dublin in the next 15 years and plan accordingly. 

      Woman listening to man

      Making it happen


      By aligning our priorities and streamlining processes, we can overcome current obstacles and unlock Dublin’s full potential. However, it’s imperative that we adopt a strategic, forward-thinking approach. Our suggested actions include:

      • Assign certain projects including airports, ports, hospitals and rail the status of critical national infrastructure together with implementing more immediate measures to provide for a more streamlined planning process that can limit the risk of third-party objections.
      • Provide multi-annual funding to provide certainty. Infrastructure delivery will always span multiple election cycles. To progress enablers we need to derisk infrastructure funding and prioritisation from changes in the political regime of the day.
      • Actively promote our planned 10+ year infrastructure spending programme, both domestically and international and consider bid funding mechanisms to ensure maximum interest. 

      back to top

      Sustainable long term funding

      What matters


      In Ireland, a relatively small portion of public spending occurs at the local government level, compared to elsewhere in the EU. The topic of long-term city funding for Dublin was rated as the number one priority for 26 percent of our survey respondents.

      Local authorities in Ireland, including those in Dublin, are funded through a combination of central government grants, local property tax (LPT), commercial rates, and charges for services.

      The Local Government Fund (LGF) plays a key role, with income coming from LPT and payments from the Exchequer. In 2023, central government grants accounted for 42 percent of local authority funding and 34 percent of Dublin City Councils revenue come from "own source" income.

      This reliance on government grants can lead to challenges, such as limited policy autonomy in areas like housing and homelessness, where local authorities are heavily focused on service delivery rather than policy formulation.

      This level of central government control minimises the autonomy of cities such as Dublin when compared to their equivalents elsewhere. 

      Government buildings Dublin

      Making it happen


      Ensuring sustainable long-term funding for Dublin requires a strategic, multi-faceted approach that balances public investment, and private sector engagement. Some suggestions include:

      • Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) that structure long-term infrastructure projects through historically successful PPPs to share cost and risk with the private sector.
      • Long-term budget planning that align city budgets with 10–20year strategic plans (e.g., Dublin City Development Plan, Climate Action Plan).
      • Build public engagement and trust via the use digital dashboards and open data to show how funds are spent and include citizens in budgeting decisions (participatory budgeting) to increase buy-in and prioritise funding. 

      back to top