Most young Northern Irish people know that a major factor of the Troubles was economic discrimination against the Catholic community, and that nowadays both of our neighbour states are noticeably wealthier than us, but also that the North was one of the most industrialised places in the world in the early 20th century. Were Protestants in the North still wealthy compared to their equivalents in Britain and the South when the conflict began in the 1960s, or was the North seen as a backwater even then?
I’ve taken this from a much longer answer I gave on the backdrop to The Troubles that I wrote here.
In regard to the economic situation for the North’s Catholic community, it was fairly grim but not uniquely so.
Life for Catholics in Northern Ireland during the era before everything started WAS marked by poor living conditions and high unemployment.
In this however they were not unique. Protestant’s in the north also shared poor living conditions and high unemployment. Economically the Catholics were not significantly worse off in general as the province was in decline.
Where the difference between the two communities lay was in the political system which was designed to operate against them.
While both communities suffered from the economic downtown post World War Two, studies in the 1970’s and 1980’s did confirm a systematic campaign of discrimination within Northern Ireland towards its Catholic minority.
Catholics were three times more likely to be unemployed; and disproportionality represented in the poorest paid, least skilled and most vulnerable jobs.
The instigator of change within the North’s Catholic community was less to do with poverty and more to do with education; in the post-war environment the number of college and university educated Catholics from Northern Ireland grew, and their economic, social and, eventually, political expectations, also grew. As Moloney says, ’No other factor was more responsible for causing the Troubles’ (p45).
The need for economic reform, however, was felt on both sides of the divide. When Lord Beaverbrook, the hard line defender of Unionism, finally retired as leader in 1963, he was replaced by Terrence O’Neill, who brought a modernising zeal to the job. This was built upon economic pragmatism as opposed to any ideological shift; traditional industries like shipbuilding were in decline and O’Neill knew the much needed outside investment could only be secured if investors saw a stable, working province.
It was O’Neill’s economically driven attempts at reform that alarmed the likes of Paisley. O’Neill was ultimately a technocrat, whose pragmatism ran head long into the fearful demagoguery of the then street preacher.
So while there was an economic backdrop to the Troubles its impact was greater in the Protestant community than the Catholic one (as it led to the rise of Paisley).
A much more detailed explanation (and sources) to this is found in the main answer. Any questions, please ask.