The Right Time and Place? Agricultural Development, Poverty, and Irish Place-Based Policy 1891–1909

Figure 1: CDB investment 1891 - 1909 at DED-level. 

Place-based policies are back in vogue across Europe. Faced with widening regional inequality and increasing political fragmentation, these policies are used to tackle poverty by directing public investment into struggling regions.¹ Yet economists have long been sceptical of place-based approaches, with critics judging them at best ineffective, and at worst damaging, especially when they distort the location of economic activity.² 

I revisit this debate using the example of an early place-based policy, the Congested Districts Board of Ireland 1891–1909. This policy was designed to address poverty and economic underdevelopment in the west of Ireland by implementing a range of schemes that aligned with local economic context and need. In this rural part of Ireland, the policy focused primarily on agricultural development, but also invested in skills, local infrastructure, and industry. Yet it has been viewed critically by many historians as a largely ineffective agency and part of the campaign to ‘Kill Home Rule with Kindness’.³ Using newly digitised and geo-coded data, and modern econometric techniques, I find that the policy significantly reduced rural poverty, improved living standards, and modernised agriculture in the poorest parts of Ireland.

Those ‘Left Behind’
Irish socio-economic conditions changed dramatically over the second half of the nineteenth century, with living standards converging with many of Ireland’s international peers. That said, many, predominantly western areas, continued to be ensnared by local development traps and were increasingly left behind. 

In these areas, farming was the main industry, yet most farms were tiny, fragmented, and poorly drained. In some areas, crop rotation – an innovation thousands of years old – was still not widely practiced, while livestock was poorly bred and prone to disease. Although many people emigrated from these areas, those that were left behind often relied on seasonal agricultural work in Britain or on remittances from family members abroad to make ends meet.

These were the areas that the government deemed ‘congested’, not because they were densely populated, but because too many people lived on poor quality land.

A Policy Dismissed?
The Congested Districts Board was established in 1891 to tackle these problems and was granted extensive powers to develop agriculture, fisheries, home industries, and any other project that might improve living conditions. Eligible regions were determined using land value thresholds, ensuring that only those most destitute areas received support. The Board also recruited a cross-section of Irish and British elites with expertise in economic development, allowing it to tailor schemes to local economic conditions and geographical constraints. Consequently, around 70% of the Board’s budget was devoted to agricultural development and reorganisation schemes.

To assess the impact of this policy, I digitised and geo-coded every unique CDB investment between 1891 and 1909, drawn from the Board’s annual reports. This data was initially linked to the District Electoral Division level, meaning it could readily be aggregated to various other geographies and data, including Poor Law Union (PLU) statistics on poverty, public health, as well as agricultural production.

My main finding is clear: the Congested Districts Board significantly reduced poverty.

Across various modelling specifications, higher CDB investment was associated with lower poverty scores at a PLU level. Matching PLUs that received investment to a comparable set of PLUs, I find that a one standard deviation increase in investment reduced poverty by about 0.22 standard deviations. Put more intuitively, the programme lifted roughly three people out of poverty for every £1 spent. 

So why did the policy work?
The answer lies in the CDB’s focus on agricultural modernisation and restructuring. The evidence suggests that the policy accelerated the transition from tillage-based to pasture-based agriculture. Chiefly, there was a:

1. Decline in subsistence crops – CDB investment significantly reduced oat and grass output, stable crops of poorer households.
2. Rise in livestock –the number of cattle, swine, and poultry increased per holding.⁴ 
3. Increase in agricultural capital – using higher resolution data at the District Electoral Division data, DEDs that received investment experienced a 26% increase in the number of farmstead and out-office buildings.

What Broader Lessons Emerge for Today’s Policymakers?
First, the results challenge the view that place-based policies are inherently ineffective. Under the right conditions, they can produce meaningful improvements in living standards.

Second, design matters enormously. The CDB worked not because it poured money into poor regions, but because it aligned interventions with local economic context. The Board sought to understand why people were poor, prioritised bread-and-butter issues, and delivered projects that were accessible to the population. It was not about bringing the Sheffield Steelworks to the west, it was a strategic intervention that intended to better equip individuals with the means to escape poverty.

Rethinking the Verdict of History
The Congested Districts Board was far from perfect. Its resources were limited relative to the scale of poverty it faced, and not all its initiatives succeeded. But this new quantitative evidence suggests it did help weaken local development traps and improve the lives of some of the poorest communities in Ireland at the time.
At a time when policymakers are once again grappling with regional inequality, this natural experiment of history offers a useful lesson. Place-based policy is not a silver bullet – but when it is well informed and targeted to local conditions, it can make a real difference.

Author's contact details: Tiarnán Heaney (QUB) [email protected]

Tiarnán got a special commendation at the 2025 Annual Conference 

¹ V. Tselios and A. Rodrígiez-Pose, ‘Can decentralisation help address poverty and social exclusion in Europe?’, Territory, Politics, Governance, 12:8 (2024), 1134-57.
² E.L. Glaeser and J.D. Gottlieb, ‘The Economics of Place-Making Policies’, Harvard Institute of Economic Research, Discussion Paper, no. 2166 (2008).
³ See C. Breathnach, The Congested Districts Board, 1891-1923 (Dublin, 2005) and E. O’Halpin, The Decline of the Union: British Government in Ireland 1892-1920 (Dublin, 1987).
⁴ The number of horses reared for leisure purposes declined significantly in treated areas, likely owning to the CDB’s purchase of large estates and the subsequent decline of the landlord class.