The idea that gross domestic product (GDP) is not the only way to measure economic well-being is gaining ground in this country.

The Malta Foundation for the Wellbeing of Society, led by President Emeritus Marie-Louise Coleiro, had launched a study to measure a number of variables that are meant to constitute well-being. Two weeks ago, MEP Thomas Bajada published the results of a study he commissioned on the same subject, which he called ‘The Economy of Wellbeing’.

One can understand there is great difficulty in defining exactly what constitutes well-being, as it is something very subjective. One person’s well-being may not necessarily represent another person’s well-being. Besides, those factors that make up the well-being of an individual may not be easily measurable as they would be intangible.

This does not mean that the discussion on well-being and the economy is useless because well-being is not measurable. On the contrary, such a discussion is very useful, especially in our country, for two main reasons. First, there are some fundamental principles that underpin well-being and need to be given priority. Secondly, we require an objective debate (not a political one) on how our economy can best serve its people and not focus so much on GDP growth.

A specific economic policy, when analysed on its own, may appear to be very appropriate. On the other hand, any economic policy has its social costs and benefits as much as it has its economic costs and benefits. There are long-term implications as much as there are short-term ones. What the concept of the economy of well-being transmits is that we need to evaluate any economic policy against some fundamental principles.

An economy of well-being promotes the freedom of the individual, but that freedom cannot be exercised at the expense of the rest of society

One such principle is that the human person should be at the centre of the economy. The economy should serve the human person and not the other way round. A frenetic race to improve the gross domestic product while the mental and physical health of the population deteriorates is not an economy that serves the human person.

Equally, economic growth which benefits the few at the expense of the many is not an economy that puts the human person at its centre, as does an economy that leads to increasing income inequality.

Another important principle is the promotion of the common good tied to solidarity among the people. An economy of well-being promotes the freedom of the individual, but that freedom cannot be exercised at the expense of the rest of society. We need to have a business-friendly environment that encourages entrepreneurship, but we should abhor a businessman-friendly environment that will eventually lead to a high cost for society.

Whenever there is a market failure, the government needs to intervene to restore the balance between supply and demand so that neither side benefits disproportionately.

The third principle is the principle of subsidiarity. The government is there to be a regulator and not to be an operator in the economy and society at large.

Decision-making should be pushed downwards and not upwards. There is no benefit in the government undertaking certain activities that could be undertaken by the private sector within appropriate legal parameters.

I am sure that others will have their own opinion of what the economy of well-being should represent. This is why the debate needs to continue. We can no longer rely on an economic model that has outlived itself. It needs to evolve into something different, which truly promotes the well-being of the Maltese.