Least of all should the impression be given that it is somehow possible to have all the gain without any of the pain. We all know, for instance, that virtually all public sector expenditures are in the nature of fixed charges to revenue in the form of wages, social benefits and other handouts, subsidies and debt-servicing costs, leaving relatively few discretionary items of expenditure. This probably explains why we hear many calls for cuts in Government spending, but no specific proposals on where and how much to cut. Likewise, the rigidities which pervade the labour market and work practices have become so fundamentally ingrained in the behavioural patterns of society that they have assumed the status of acquired rights. A number of institutions remain characterised by outdated cultures and practices, while a sizeable part of the population remains stubbornly dependent on subsidies and artificial protection. Under such circumstances it is clear – and recent electoral experience has underscored the fact – that the quest for competitiveness cannot, and indeed should not, be attempted by the Government alone. The change in culture and behaviour that this requires can only be successfully undertaken through the joint efforts of all the interested parties. Faced with similar circumstances, other countries have successfully injected a new dynamism into their economies on the strength of a broad consensus on reform measures among the political and social forces.
Are we doomed to end up like the ancient civilisation dwelling on Easter island, which prospered for hundreds of years, living off a tree whose reproductive cycle exceeded the life-time of an individual, and for which reason no one had ever bothered to replant as existing trees died off? The second question probably provides a clue towards understanding the issue surrounding the first. If a section of society makes a sacrifice to reform, the benefits derived in the process may accrue to the rest of society in a greater proportion than to the people making the sacrifice. The obvious solution to this dilemma would be for all sectors of society to share in the costs and benefits of reform in an equitable manner. And this is where Government and all the other social partners have a crucial role to play. It is to take the lead in agreeing on a programme of reforms and carrying their respective constituencies with them. The Malta Council for Economic and Social Development could, I believe, provide a congenial forum for this purpose. But try we must because the challenge is a formidable one and we should not labour under any illusion that it can be wished away. This is not a time for carrying on as usual. Nor is it a time for behaving as though the universal laws of economics or current world realities do not apply to us.