What Latvia can learn from Ireland: Danny McCoy in Riga
A series on “The Competitiveness Agenda 2026” forum. Part 1.
We were there
At the end of October I wrote that LatWest would be attending the Irish Latvian Chamber of Commerce (ILCC) forum “The Competitiveness Agenda 2026” in Riga. On 4 November we were there. I represented LatWest, took photographs and kept notes on what the speakers said. Those notes are now becoming a short series, and this first part is about the keynote speaker, Danny McCoy.
Irish readers will know him as the Chief Executive of Ibec, a role he has held since 2009, and as a familiar voice whenever government, employers and unions sit down together. For Latvian readers it is worth adding that he began as an economist at the Central Bank of Ireland and the ESRI, and in the mid-2000s spent around five years running the European Commission’s macroeconomic forecasting network. Hearing him in Riga, speaking to a mostly Latvian audience, was a rare opportunity.
In short. McCoy’s central argument was that Ireland grew because it was predictable, legally stable and able to attract the intangible assets of global companies, and that the same qualities will decide who wins in an age of security concerns and artificial intelligence. For Latvian businesses, and for Irish companies looking at the Baltics, that raises three questions: can Latvia sell its stability, can security be treated as a competitive advantage, and where will the gains from AI end up?
What struck me most was the end of the speech. The head of Ireland’s main employers’ body warned that the gains from AI may drain away from the companies using it. More on that below.
How Ireland tripled its economy
McCoy opened with the French saying plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. He did not play down today’s uncertainty, but urged the audience to look at technology, AI included, with optimism: “we should be as optimistic as others urge us to be pessimistic.”
He then turned to the Irish experience. Over the past 12 years, he said, Ireland’s GDP has grown by 200%, in other words tripled, and no other economy in the world has managed that in the same period. He named four foundations:
- stable institutions;
- the rule of law;
- legislative flexibility;
- a place at the heart of the European project.
Most interesting was his account of how it happened. For years, many US multinationals held their patents and licences in Caribbean entities that often had little more than a registered address, yet booked enormous profits and paid almost no tax on them.
After the 2008 financial crisis, OECD countries agreed to curb these arrangements through the BEPS initiative (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting). The new rules required profits to be reported where a company has real staff and real activity. The multinationals needed a new home, and they looked to Europe.
The legal system made the choice. Common law allowed companies to work with new technologies, at that time cloud services, and to manage intangible assets: brands, patents, copyright and licences. In Europe, McCoy said, that meant a choice between three countries: Malta, the United Kingdom and Ireland.
From 2011 to 2014 the real contest was between Ireland and the UK. In 2015 Ireland took practically everything, and its GDP rose by almost 35% in a single year, exactly a year before the Brexit referendum.
One detail missing from many summaries is, in my view, the most important. McCoy pointed to the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. Even then it was clear that the UK was institutionally uncertain. Ireland was offering what matters to capital more than any tax rate: predictability.
This is where McCoy turned to Latvia. He said that Latvia, too, shows institutional consistency and has an educated society able to adapt to geopolitical change. That is no small compliment from the man who speaks for Irish business.
A note on the figures
Irish readers know that GDP is a peculiar measure here. The CSO first put 2015 growth at 7.8%, revised it to 26.3% in July 2016, and later revisions took it to 34.4%, which matches McCoy’s “almost 35%”. Paul Krugman called it “leprechaun economics”, and the name stuck.
Much of the jump came from Apple moving its intellectual property to an Irish subsidiary in early 2015, which is why Ireland has published modified gross national income, GNI*, since 2017. That year Irish GDP was 162% of GNI*, whereas across the EU GDP and national income are roughly the same. In other words, Irish GDP was about 62% higher than what actually stays in the country.
For a Latvian company sizing up the Irish market, the practical lesson is simple: look at GNI*, not GDP. GDP shows where global corporations hold their assets, not how much money Irish households have to spend.
None of this takes away from McCoy’s point; it helps explain it. Ireland did not build 35% more factories in one year. It became the place where global companies keep their intangible assets, and that is exactly what he went on to talk about.
When intellectual property is the oil
McCoy described Ireland as a “resource economy” in which intellectual property plays the role that oil plays elsewhere. His example was Botox: the world’s entire supply is made in Ireland. It is an example close to home for me. Botox is made at the Allergan plant in Westport, Co. Mayo, the county where I live and where LatWest works. It is AbbVie’s only Botox plant in the world, and its pre-tax profit reached 1.5 billion US dollars in 2022.
He then made what I think was the key point of the whole speech. Companies’ intangible value, their goodwill, brands, reputation and patents, used to be safely protected by property rights. Today the world is less predictable, and intellectual property and resources are being redistributed. So, in his view, competitiveness can no longer be measured only in productivity and costs: security and defence have become part of it.
In my view this also exposes Ireland’s own vulnerability. An economy built on intellectual property depends on the world respecting property rights. Oil has to be moved by tanker; a patent can be moved with a single legal decision.
From this came his sharpest line: Europe’s competitiveness and its security can no longer be separated; they are two sides of the same coin. Security means more than defence. It also means resilient food, financial, energy, water and cyber systems. He urged that defence spending on Europe’s eastern flank be seen as an investment in competitiveness, not just a cost.
Seen from Riga, this matters. For Latvians, security is everyday life on the EU’s border with Russia and Belarus, not a conference topic. If Europe starts treating resilience as part of competitiveness, then the experience gained living on that border becomes something Latvian businesses can sell, including to Irish partners.
McCoy was not simply upbeat about Europe. He reminded the room that Europe’s greatest asset is its huge single market and the prosperity of its people, but that businesses are held back by structurally high energy costs and heavy EU regulation in the digital, social and sustainability fields. He sees the answer in well-designed public–private partnership and a shift from restrictive bureaucracy to a flexible labour market. For Latvian firms, which feel energy prices and red tape very directly, that is not an abstract argument.
AI: who keeps the gains?
McCoy began his speech optimistic about AI, but ended with a warning, and that warning is what stayed with me most.
He argued that AI creates a problem of information asymmetry for capitalism. Markets work when buyers know what they are buying. This time, neither buyers nor the developers themselves can foresee the long-term consequences.
His second warning was more concrete. The efficiency gains from AI often do not stay in a company’s profits but flow to the owners of the platforms. As I understand it, a subscription is not expensive in itself, but competitors use the same tools, so the savings quickly turn into lower prices rather than higher profits. The lasting value builds up with the platform, which learns from users’ data, becomes harder to replace and can later set the prices. That is why, in McCoy’s view, business leaders need to talk openly with their staff about introducing it, so that people are not afraid for their pay and their jobs. His conclusion: only co-operation between employers and employees will give Europe real resilience.
The message carries weight because it comes from the head of an employers’ organisation, not a trade union leader. Ibec is the main employer voice in Irish social dialogue, so his view is practical rather than ideological. McCoy also stressed that Europe’s social model and its capacity to redistribute income will be a source of stability over the next decade. He contrasted it with growing inequality in the United States and urged Europe not to copy the US model blindly, but to build a new, balanced message of its own.
For me, this is where the Irish story and AI meet. Ireland won by becoming the place where intangible assets are held. In the age of AI those assets are algorithms, models and data. If they are “hosted” outside Europe, European companies become mere subscribers, and the gains go wherever the asset sits.
For any business, Irish or Latvian, that means one simple question before buying an AI tool: where will the value it saves end up? That is why McCoy talks about reskilling and a flexible labour market rather than job cuts.
What it means for Latvian and Irish businesses
McCoy himself compared Ireland and Latvia, and some of his parallels are worth looking at more closely.
Tax. McCoy noted that Latvia’s corporate income tax is 20%, while the effective rate for large multinationals in Ireland is 15%. One nuance is worth knowing for Irish partners: in Latvia the 20% is paid only on distributed profit, and reinvested profit is not taxed at all. Since 2026, companies owned only by individuals can also choose an alternative: 15% corporate income tax plus 6% personal income tax on dividends. For a growing company that reinvests its profits, the Latvian system is attractive, and Latvian firms should be telling their Irish partners about it.
People. Here the two countries go different ways. Ireland’s population is growing through migration. McCoy said that up to 25% of the population were not born in Ireland, and that Latvians have played a significant part in the growth of Ireland’s workforce. CSO data back him up: at the end of 2025, 2.8 million people were at work in Ireland, 19% more than in 2019, and 61% of the growth in employee numbers between 2019 and 2024 came from non-Irish nationals. McCoy acknowledged that this has created not only a tolerant and productive society, but also pressure on housing and infrastructure.
Latvia’s population is shrinking, and it does not attract immigration on anything like Ireland’s scale. It cannot solve labour shortages through migration as quickly, so productivity matters even more there than in Ireland. Where Ireland can use AI to complement a growing workforce, for Latvia it is a way to replace workers it does not have. That makes McCoy’s question about who keeps the gains from AI even more pressing for Latvia than for Ireland.
Takeaways. From this speech I noted four points for myself:
- Predictability is a product. Ireland did not win on a low tax rate alone, but by being predictable when the UK was not. Latvia should protect that advantage and sell it.
- Security is competitiveness. Resilience in energy, food, cyber security and logistics is becoming a service in demand across Europe, and Latvia knows it from the inside.
- The gains from AI should stay in the business. Before buying, work out what will stay with you. If every competitor uses the same tools, the savings quickly turn into lower prices for customers rather than higher profits. If your processes and data are tied to one platform, it can later dictate prices and terms. Lasting advantage comes only when the tool is combined with what is yours alone: your people’s creativity, your knowledge of your customers and your experience. AI is a tool that helps turn a person’s idea into reality faster and more precisely, but the idea that sets a company apart still comes from a person. So talk to your staff before you introduce it, not after.
- Don’t copy Ireland, use it. A large Latvian community already lives in Ireland and knows how business works in both countries. It is a ready-made bridge for Latvian companies entering the Irish market, and for Irish companies looking towards the Baltics, and it is exactly the kind of co-operation LatWest promotes together with the ILCC.
In the next part
Danny McCoy set out the questions that matter for Latvian business today. In the forum’s panel discussions, speakers answered them from a Latvian point of view. The next parts of this series will cover trade and economic security, investment, energy, and AI and skills.
Skarleta Lyons, LatWest
Sources














