The EY Future Realised Malta conference 2024 and the attractiveness survey that was unveiled to the participants was very interesting and extremely informative, as always. While such a longitudinal study can only be applauded, some of its results were of no surprise, even if these reflected the views of the industry rather than of the common citizen. There were three points raised that one should ponder seriously given our current situation in Malta.

The first is the fact that numerous times, transportation issues were given the top spot as one of the most worrying or negative aspects in Malta. At 57%, this issue takes the top spot of unattractiveness to industry. If it is such for the industry, one can only imagine what it is for the common citizen. This issue has been and is constantly being highlighted by everyone and it is simply due to two factors.

The first is lack of planning and foresight. Building new roads does not remove congestion or traffic – on the contrary it worsens it. And secondly, is that we have no other choice but to buy a car to have a means of transportation.

Unfortunately, the only solution to reduce traffic is to offer our citizens a faster, more comfortable choice, by introducing a mass rapid transport system. I say unfortunately because no one has the guts to implement this.

This government, in 2022, proposed a fallacious solution, that of an underground metro, that would cost over €6 billion, and would take 20 years to construct just 25 stations. The underground metro was probably a political ploy ‒ as many commentators had suggested, and proved to be correct, since the government has now informed us that this project is no longer worth consideration.  However, it seemed to have understood that the solution to the transportation problem was a mass rapid transport system.

This is furthermore proven as 52% of the respondents noted that a mass rapid transit system is one of the top requirements for Malta. Going around any other iterative solution, such as the prime minister has promised to unveil during or after the budget, is simply putting plaster on a gashing wound.

Any such transit system would need two elements to succeed. The first is that is has to be on the ground and thus either be a bus rapid transit or a light rail transit system. These can be constructed in less than fie years, covering all the island and with less than half the projected cost of the metro.

The second is that it needs dedicated routes and that in no way can road vehicles cross its path or have right of way on its route. Any such project without these two parameters are guaranteed to be a failure.

It is not about how much money we have but about the quality of life, which we seem to have discounted and sold in bulk

And yes, these conditions would automatically increase congestion but, Maltese drivers would finally have a choice, i.e. use the quick and comfortable transit system through various stops to reach one’s destination, or use one’s own vehicle but be ready for serious waiting time in traffic.

Eventually, this would even out as transit users would increase. The only problem here is that for this to happen, we need politicians to put our needs in front of votes or party politics. I am not holding my breath on this one.

The second point that was mentioned a number of times is that culture can eat strategy for breakfast any day of the week. That is most likely true but, what was not mentioned is that culture can change, and can also be manipulated through the unscrupulous use of behavioural economics.

As a country we seem to be accepting everything, and therefore anything goes. We have accepted as normal over time things which were not acceptable in the past. Our behaviour has changed as a country, as a people, as a nation and we would not be recognisable by ourselves 20 years ago.

Have we adapted or have we succumbed? This is for political and social commentators to respond but what is true is that we have accepted the fact that professional long-term planning in any sector of public life for the benefit of our citizens is incongruent with local politics, contractors’ benefits or the prevalence of corrupt practices.

Even Jan Peter Balkenende, during the panel discussion, clearly hinted that we have to all be honest and that in any normal country, such practices, policies or elements that devoid our legitimacy or attractiveness as a nation globally are to be uncovered and immediately denounced, investigated and removed by the authorities, and not excused, sheltered or covered up.

The survey shows that in 10 years, the ‘Stability and Transparency of Political, Legal and Regulatory Environment’ attractiveness factor eroded from 77% to just 29%. No wonder why our younger generation are leaving our shores and thus worsening the skills shortage highlighted by the E&Y survey as being the biggest risk being faced in the next three years.

The final point is about economic growth. Politicians, business gurus and accountants were all so joyous and patting themselves on the back that our economic growth is the best in Europe, with almost 5% GDP growth annually. Unfortunately that is a fallacy for the common citizen.

GDP is gross domestic product and simply reflects what the entire country does and not what the single citizen gets. All it shows is that more business was done and the results, as all can see, is that some are getting richer while everyone else is getting poorer in real terms.

True to the matter, according to the E&Y report, 51% believe that the cost of living and housing is the largest barrier to recruiting and retaining international talent. International talent are expats that are usually well paid. What does this say to our average minimum wage citizen then?

Let me make a simple real example. When my parents got married in 1968, my father was earning Lm7 (€16.30) per week. The house my parents bought, a nice spacious two-bedroom maisonette, with a dining room, living room, one large yard, one large roof, etc, cost them Lm1,000 (€2,330). In those days there were no banks so you had to be able to pay it in full or agree with the owner on strict payment terms. So my father’s salary was Lm364 annually and just on his salary, that of a lowly clerk, he would have settled his debt in three years.

Nowadays, you are lucky if you find a one-bedroom flat for €180,000. The minimum wage these days is €213.54 per week. Using standard inflation calculations, Lm7 per week would be equivalent to €227.36. So my father was on a minimum wage.  In this case, he would be earning around €11,960 per year and it would take him 15 years to pay it off just on his salary.

So, are we wealthier at this point in time or are we poorer in real terms? Compared to me, my father was much more financially better off on a minimum wage! So, it is not about GDP growth but about how such wealth is evenly distributed linked directly to the cost of living.

It is not about how much money we have but about the quality of life, which we seem to have discounted and sold in bulk, while foolishly thinking we are better off. Food for thought?

Karl Camilleri is deputy director of the Institute for Business Management and Commerce, MCAST. He is an engineer by profession with an MBA from Cranfield and a DBA from Heriot-Watt. His areas of research are transportation, behavioural economics and structural equation modelling.