Introduction

Discourse on poverty in Ireland has historically been closely associated with food poverty. Following an overview of poverty research in Ireland from a food perspective, this chapter draws on the limited published material available to examine the causes and policy drivers of contemporary food poverty. A variety of factors have emerged that may explain food poverty in Ireland, including inadequate social protection, low-pay/precarious employment, housing, household type, the cost of food and food deserts. Given that unemployment is a significant cause of poverty and increases the risk of food poverty (Carney and Maître, 2012), a review of Ireland’s welfare typology and social protection system is provided. Employment is not necessarily a route out of poverty and there is likely to be a real risk of in-work and food poverty for many in low-paid jobs, particularly given the increasing prevalence of precarious work. Many of those with illness/disability and caring responsibilities also face higher risk of food poverty, exacerbated by lack of state support and barriers to employment. Following a review of these and other explanations for food poverty, including the availability of affordable housing, the cost of food and food deserts, the conclusion summarises the key messages.

Food and poverty research in Ireland

In the 19th century, frequent famines arose due to the failure of potato crops and public disturbances were triggered by food shortages and high prices. The most devastating of these was the Great Famine between 1845 and 1849. Ireland’s fledgling welfare state emerged under British rule in the 19th and early 20th centuries. According to Kennedy (2001: 58), ‘absolute poverty persisted for decades after independence’. Earner-Byrne (2017: 25) argues that ‘semi-starvation’ was common, including in Dublin city, until at least the mid-1940s. Reflecting the economic problems post-independence, successive Irish governments adopted a conservative, cautious approach to welfare expenditure and payments remained low. An important feature of the state’s approach was to share its welfare responsibilities with non-state organisations, in particular the Catholic Church (Fahey, 1998).