Much has been said about the Maltese economic model and the need for it to change. Still it seems to me that little thought has been given to what is exactly being understood when referring to “the model”. Some seem to believe that reference to it means simply the economy as it has developed since 2013.

This just does not make sense. As of that year, the economy continued to be managed according to a pre-existing model, one that had already been followed in previous years. Only, it was run at levels of higher (business) confidence, with the relaxation of certain limiting conditions in a situation of accelerating economic growth. Some developments that occurred were inherent in the logic undepinning the model by which the economy could remain competitive internationally.

The features of this model were, still are: membership of the EU as foundation; with the service sectors as pillars (tourism; financial and maritime services; internet gaming); and construction and land speculation as the sink through which liquid funds generated by economic growth could get recycled.

For it to be meaningful, any change in the economic model must focus on these aspects.

***

PUBLIC SENTIMENT

How is public sentiment formatted and directed? Does it occur via the statements made by political and Church leaders? Is it done on the back of press and TV edtorials and news items? Or is it all a social media issue?

Really and truly all these factors influence how people shape their thinking and conclusions about affairs. However it is likely that what counts most is personal experience: like one’s own experience at work, on the road, at home; as well as what one is told by persons to whom one is close, unless it is what one knows directly about them.

In the end, public sentiment is formatted by the undercurrents of such experiences as they blend with the institutionalised or media messages that reach individual citizens. It is useless to preach something institutionally when on the basis of their personal experience, people are approving contrary messages reaching them from various other sources.

***

TREES

The target set for this country to enhance its green “spaces” is one that deserves the highest priority. As I recall, the first initiatives on this basis were taken by the Labour government of the 1970’s which launched an afforestation strategy. Thousands of trees were imported from Libya and Italy and planted in places where wooded areas could be developed. Many did not do well as in those days since the upkeep of such developments was still primitive. But it was a start.

Today, though some very worthwhile programmes are ongoing, too often one is told about how trees that have endured for many years must be uprooted and discarded. Not infrequently the reasons given for this sound reasonable and acceptable. Still from tthe environmental perspective, their removal  is a negative.

So we get the assurance that the take out of trees will be compensated for by the planting of new ones. Perhaps the time has come for data to be published on a quarterly basis to update us about how many trees have been removed during the previous three months and how many have been planted instead (as a matter of fact not by way of statements saying this will be done).