For an empire that has spent its 89-year history avoiding domestic plant closures, this moment is a sobering wake-up call. It is visual proof that even the largest industrial giants can be brought to their knees when structural rigidities collide with a hyper-competitive global marketplace.

Volkswagen’s arrival at this unprecedented crisis point is the result of a compounding failure to adapt, driven by both fierce external market forces and suffocating internal constraints.

Externally, the European automotive sector is facing a relentless onslaught. The transition to electric vehicles (EVs) has stalled domestically due to high energy costs and shifting consumer subsidies, leaving massive factory overcapacities. Concurrently, agile and heavily-subsidised Chinese competitors like BYD are producing high-tech, low-cost EVs that heavily undercut European alternatives. Combined with weak European consumer demand and shifting global trade dynamics, the traditional VW business model has rapidly become unsustainable.

Internally, management has historically been paralysed by structural gridlock. Backed by the unique “Volkswagen Act”, Germany’s powerful metalworkers’ union (IG Metall), influential works councils, and the regional government of Lower Saxony hold a combined blocking stake in corporate decisions. For decades, this set-up effectively barred management from adjusting headcount, optimising capacity, or closing inefficient facilities. While agile global competitors streamlined operations, Volkswagen remained tethered to legacy cost structures. With structural margins collapsing, the reality has finally broken through: entitlement to an uncompetitive status quo cannot survive market realities.

The crisis at Volkswagen is not a localised German problem; it is a macro-economic symptom that directly concerns the European Union as a whole and small, open economies like Malta. Europe cannot afford to operate under the illusion that its historical prosperity guarantees its future. When the industrial motor of the EU stalls, the ripple effects degrade supply chains, depress demand, and erode the collective economic leverage of the entire single market.

For Malta, a nation heavily reliant on foreign direct investment, both in the manufacturing and services sector, the lesson is acute. Small island states possess no natural margin for error; our only shield in the global economy is absolute, nimble competitiveness. However, looking at the trajectory of labour dynamics within the European Union highlights a stark reality regarding structural pricing and competitiveness across member states.

According to the latest standardised data from Eurostat (as per above), the average hourly labour cost across the Euro Area average climbed to €38.21 in 2025. However as shown above this means that while the average hourly labour cost has increased by 49% in the Euro Area between 2008 to 2024, in Malta the average hourly labour cost has increased by 68% during the same period.
With the labour market in Malta driven by acute labour shortages and a tight labour market, the operational wage baseline has trended steadily upwards. Rapidly increasing labour costs per hour, when decoupled from parallel leaps in productivity, present a direct threat to the country’s economic attractiveness. If it becomes significantly more expensive to employ a worker in Malta while productivity remains flat, international capital will simply look elsewhere.

Economic security cannot be legislated by decree, nor can it be built on a foundation of entitlement. Entitlement teaches us to demand the fruits of prosperity without maintaining the efficiency required to grow them. It fosters a dangerous complacency, convincing workforce representatives and policymakers alike that legacy success acts as a permanent shield against global competition.

Ultimately, our future can only be secured by unrelenting competitiveness. To survive in a world that moves at breakneck speed, Malta and the wider EU, must ruthlessly focus on innovation, fiscal discipline, productivity growth, and structural flexibility. We must foster an environment where productivity justifies wages. As the Volkswagen situation teaches us, no corporate giant is too big to fail, and no nation is too stable to decline. Ultimately, we all need to earn our place in the global economy every single day.

The post Our future can only be secured by competitiveness first appeared on The Malta Business Weekly.

Over recent years, Malta has demonstrated a highly favourable shift in its fiscal metrics, characterised by declining general government deficit ratios, which are officially projected to reach 1.6% of gross domestic product in 2026. This significant fiscal consolidation marks a positive departure from the fiscal strains of previous years, allowing Malta to achieve an early exit from the European Council’s Excessive Deficit Procedure.

Alongside this improving deficit ratio, Malta’s public debt dynamics have remained strong and sustainable, with the debt-to-GDP ratio stabilising at 46.4% in 2025 and projected to decrease further to 45.8% in 2026. This performance stands in sharp, favourable contrast to the broader Euro area averages, where national deficits regularly exceed the 3% reference value and public debt levels hover near 90% of gross domestic product. Malta’s improving debt-to-GDP ratio is primarily underpinned by two simultaneous economic forces: a strong expansion in total tax revenue and substantial denominator growth driven by resilient nominal economic activity.

However, beneath these highly favourable headline statistics, the Malta Fiscal Advisory Council’s report raises crucial long-term analytical warnings regarding the sustainability and structural composition of Malta’s public finances. Over the past two decades, Malta’s fiscal revenue architecture has undergone a profound structural shift, becoming increasingly and disproportionately reliant on current taxes on income and wealth. This specific category of direct taxation, which incorporates both personal and corporate income tax streams, has rapidly climbed from representing approximately 25% of total fiscal revenue in the year 2000 to over 43% across the 2024 and 2025 periods. From an international comparative perspective, Malta now ranks among the economies with the absolute highest concentration of revenue derived from direct taxes, significantly exceeding both the European Union 27 average of 28%t and the Euro area average of 27%. This unique revenue concentration exposes public accounts to acute cyclical and structural vulnerabilities, as the State’s fiscal balance sheet has become heavily exposed to highly mobile, volatile, and internationally dependent economic variables.

Crucially, a granular examination reveals that this remarkable revenue outperformance is heavily driven by a marked surge in corporate income tax receipts, which accounted for approximately 41.7% of total current taxes on income and wealth by 2024. It is highly likely that this massive increase in corporate tax yields is heavily driven by international tax units and foreign-owned companies operating within Malta’s jurisdiction, attracted by the country’s highly competitive and favourable corporate tax framework. This influx of corporate tax windfall revenue has served as the primary financial catalyst enabling the government to fund, sustain, and continuously expand its public sector expenditure. Rather than executing expenditure restraint or strict cost-control measures, the public administration has utilised these abundant foreign corporate cash inflows to support an ever-increasing baseline of permanent recurrent public expenditure. This expanded government spending has, in turn, stimulated broad-based domestic demand, funded widespread public employment expansions, and increased local economic activity. This elevated level of public sector activity and direct spending has naturally exerted a strong upward knock-on effect on the domestic labour market, resulting in substantial wage growth and heightened employment rates that have directly generated an indirect increase in personal income tax collections as well. Consequently, Malta’s overall fiscal equilibrium has established a self-reinforcing, upward loop where foreign corporate windfalls fund expanded domestic public spending, which subsequently boosts local personal income tax yields and also boost economic growth.

Table 1: Consolidated Fund Performance Summary (January-May)

When tracking the cumulative performance of the Consolidated Fund for the period from January to May 2024, 2025 and 2026, one sees that the actual cash figures validate these deep structural observations, showing that total recurrent revenue expanded by a remarkable 17.2% in 2026 to reach over €3.52 billion during the first five months of 2026, compared with the same period in 2025. In perfect alignment with the revenue concentration thesis, more than half of this entire year-on-year revenue growth stemmed directly from a massive 21.7% surge in income tax collections, which provided an additional €261.4 million to the treasury. Simultaneously, however, expenditure pressures have accelerated at an equal pace, with total expenditure climbing by 17.4% to reach €3.70 billion, driven by a 13.1% rise in recurrent outlays and a massive 75.4% surge in capital expenditure related to energy infrastructure and EU fund absorption. Because this expenditure growth slightly outstripped even the buoyant revenue collections, the cash-based Consolidated Fund deficit widened by 21.9% to reach €177.9 million by May, while total central government debt rose to €11.84 billion. This operational reality illustrates that the ongoing fiscal regime remains entirely tethered to high revenue buoyancy to sustain its structural expansions.

Table 2: Central Government Debt Trajectory

Ultimately, when evaluated from a long-term strategic and risk-management perspective, anchoring the permanent structural solvency of the Maltese state to this specific fiscal arrangement introduces profound vulnerabilities. Expecting that Malta’s favourable corporate income tax regime for foreign-owned companies will remain unchanged and fully operational on a perpetual basis, constitutes an extraordinarily risky and unsustainable assumption for medium-term or longer term planning. Should external political and regulatory transformations or competitive pressures disrupt these international corporate income tax inflows, the financial foundation supporting Malta’s elevated public recurrent expenditure baseline could contract rapidly, leaving permanent spending commitments unmatched by local revenue streams and triggering severe structural imbalances in public accounts.

The post Malta’s fiscal trajectory first appeared on The Malta Business Weekly.

The standout indicator for business-to-consumer (B2C) operations is the robust acceleration of private consumption expenditure, which is projected to grow by 4.2% in 2026 (up from 3.3% in 2025) and maintain a robust ~4% annualised trajectory through 2028. This domestic spending engine is heavily underpinned by expansionary fiscal policy, specifically the widening of income tax brackets for parents announced in the 2026 Budget. This measure directly inflates household real disposable income by 4.9% in 2026.

This means that retail, fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG), entertainment, and local service providers can expect steady domestic demand. Although consumers are expected to save a portion of their tax windfall – pushing the household saving ratio to 20.7% in 2026 – overall purchasing power remains insulated against the severe stagflationary trends observed in the wider Eurozone.

Gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) is supposedly going to bounce back dramatically to 6% growth in 2026, rebounding from a slight contraction (-0.1%) in 2025. This surge is public-led, driven by massive EU-financed outlays under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), coupled with strategic national infrastructure like the second Malta-Sicily electricity interconnector. Private sector injections are reinforced by targeted Budget 2026 tax incentives designed to catalyse corporate investment. However, this growth rate is highly front-loaded, with GFCF growth projected to drop sharply to 1.4% in 2027 as RRF projects face their mandatory 2026 completion deadlines.

B2B suppliers, construction firms, and tech infrastructure partners should maximise order books in 2026. For general businesses, utilising current fiscal incentives to invest in automation and clean energy is vital to offset the medium-term drop in public investment and combat persistent operational cost increases.

The primary operational risk for Maltese firms remains the acute labour shortage. Total employment growth is cooling down from 3.9% in 2025 to 2.7% in 2026, and eventually to 2.3% by 2028. Concurrently, the unemployment rate is projected to linger around a historically low 2.8% to 2.9% across the forecast horizon. Because the unemployment rate is persistently below the structural Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU), estimated at 3.1%, labour market tightness will continue to drive aggressive wage demands. Compensation per employee is forecast to increase by 4.4% in 2026 and 4.5% in 2027, leading Unit Labour Costs (ULC) to rise by 3.4% and 3.5% respectively.

Faced with these figures, Maltese businesses have effectively hit a structural ceiling for labour-driven scaling. Relying on endless headcount growth or importing foreign talent to absorb operational inefficiencies is no longer a viable corporate strategy. To protect operating margins from a severe wage-cost spiral, Maltese enterprises have no option but to invest heavily in streamlining their internal processes and deploying advanced digital solutions wherever possible.

This shift necessitates an immediate transition away from manual, labour-heavy workflows toward automated systems, enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms, and cloud-based AI tools. Businesses must systematically audit their internal supply chains, CRM mechanisms, and administrative workflows to eliminate redundancies. In this high-wage environment, digital transformation is no longer a luxury or a long-term goal, it is an immediate operational necessity. Capital expenditure must be aggressively redirected away from expanding headcounts and toward enhancing the output per employee through technology, ensuring that revenue growth is decoupled from labour dependency.

As labour cost pressures will remain elevated and structurally irreversible, Maltese businesses must treat process re-engineering and digitalisation as their primary defensive strategy. By shifting capital from headcount expansion to operational automation, companies can compress administrative overheads, boost productivity, and insulate their bottom lines from mandatory wage adjustments.

Headline HICP inflation is projected to nudge upward slightly to 2.5% in 2026 and 2027, before easing to 2.2% in 2028. This trajectory is deeply influenced by the escalation of the Middle East conflict, generating significant upward pressure on imported goods and processed food prices via disrupted trade channels. Crucially, the Maltese government has reiterated its ironclad commitment to maintaining stable retail energy tariffs, effectively shielding local firms from global spikes in oil and natural gas prices (with technical assumptions placing oil at $96.9/barrel in 2026).

While local utility expenses are safely predictable due to government subsidies (costing public finances 0.8% of GDP in 2026), international freight, raw materials, and components will demand robust supply-chain hedging and dynamic vendor management to protect corporate profitability.

The Central Bank has explicitly modelled alternative outcomes based on the progression of the Middle East conflict. Given the extreme sensitivity of global shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz, business leaders should stress-test their operations against the CBM’s Severe Scenario. If the conflict intensifies further, oil could surge to $166/barrel and gas to €111/MWh. For Malta, the resulting contraction in Eurozone demand would pull domestic GDP growth down sharply to 3.1% in 2027 while driving local HICP inflation up to a painful 3.4% due to severe indirect spillovers from trading partners.

In conclusion, Maltese businesses should utilise the current stable baseline of 2026 to build cash buffers, review alternative non-Middle Eastern logistics networks, and optimise operational efficiencies. Maintaining financial flexibility today is the best insurance against the volatile macroeconomic scenarios of tomorrow.

The post Business resilience first appeared on The Malta Business Weekly.

Compiled via the Short-Term Quarterly Economic Forecasting Model (STEMM), official figures project Malta’s real GDP to expand by 3.7% in 2026. This aligns perfectly with projections from the IMF and the Central Bank of Malta. However, underlying drivers have mutated significantly. Output in 2026 is driven entirely by domestic demand (+3.8 pps), while net exports act as a drag, subtracting 0.1 pps . This dynamic reflects a deteriorating international climate triggered by military conflict in the Middle East from late February 2026, which closed the Strait of Hormuz and disrupted global shipping lanes.

While Malta’s direct trade exposure to the Gulf region is minor—representing 2.5% of goods exports (€84.6 million) and 0.7% of imports in 2025 —secondary transmission channels are pronounced Surging transport costs, freight shocks (reflected in a 20%+ increase in the Baltic Dry Index), and supply chain disruptions penalize primary trading partners. Growth projections for major Eurozone markets, particularly Germany (which commands 20% of Malta’s total export demand), have been sharply downgraded, compressing external demand for Maltese goods and service.

While validating headline GDP, the Council highlights explicit concerns regarding the balance of domestic expansion, noting strong tension between projected investment and consumption patterns.

• Private Consumption (+3.9%): Highly resilient, backed by a tight labour market, public-sector collective agreements, and revised parental tax brackets.

• Gross Fixed Capital Formation (+6.5%): MFIN expects a major turnaround from recent investment contractions, driven by an ambitious nominal public investment target of €900 million (+18.6% nominal increase) and robust private sector expansion (+7.0%).

• Government Consumption (+5.7% Real / +8.0% Nominal): Elevated, led by a 4.1 pps expansion in employee compensation, though decelerating slightly from 2025.

The Council cautions against institutional over-optimism. Over the past three fiscal years, actual public investment consistently fell short of targets by an average of €200 million annually, hitting a rigid delivery ceiling of roughly €750 million per year. This reflects deep capacity constraints and execution challenges across advanced infrastructure programs. Conversely, notable upside risks reside in general government consumption. State models assume intermediate consumption growth will fall to 4.1%, contradicting the 16.2% average annualized growth seen over the past three years. Given relentless demand pressures across state medical systems and public service contract indexing, the Council expects government consumption to exceed estimates, offsetting underperforming capital outlays.

Malta’s 2026 data reveals a deeply embedded structural contradiction—a core friction in the current economic architecture. This friction is best understood through cost-driven pricing pressures, full employment tightness, and the business cycle output gap.

Headline HICP inflation is projected to reach 2.9% in 2026, a 0.7 percentage point upward revision from autumn baselines . Crucially, this spike is not an excess demand byproduct; it is purely cost-driven and structural, reflecting global import pipeline shocks. Rising freight metrics (the Baltic Dry Index jumping over 20%) and a 50% spike in international agricultural fertilizer costs have driven up production cost bases globally. Core inflation tracks closely at 2.8%, proving that import pipeline pressures flow steadily into local services and consumer goods Malta’s headline rate would be much higher without state intervention as government maintains strict price caps on domestic energy utilities and retail fuel via open-ended fiscal subsidies. While this shields household budgets, it shifts a heavy financial burden onto the state balance sheet, generating an accumulating fiscal liability demanding future consolidation.

Simultaneously, the labour market runs exceptionally hot, featuring historic highs in labour utilisation and negligible slack. Full-time equivalent employment is forecast to expand by 3.6% in 2026, absorbing a net 12,326 workers into the economy  and holding national unemployment at an ultra-low 3.2%. Because the domestic labour supply is fully utilised, this relentless demand has triggered robust wage acceleration (+4.4% nominal compensation per employee). Furthermore, since local headcount cannot expand organically, further expansion relies entirely on foreign inward migration, worsening spatial and infrastructural strains.

The core of the MFAC report is a detailed critique of Malta’s long-term reliance on factor accumulation—specifically demographic expansion—to fuel GDP growth. Over the last decade, real GDP growth averaged an exceptional 6.5%, driving a successful real convergence that brought GDP per capita to approximately €35,000 in 2025. However, a decomposition of this growth shows that it was disproportionately driven by labour supply increases rather than structural efficiency. Between 2015 and 2025, expanding labour force participation accounted for 2.0 pps of real GDP growth, while raw population growth contributed 2.8 pps. In sharp contrast, labour productivity per hour worked contributed a modest and highly volatile average of only 1.6 pps.

Because Malta’s labour force participation rate (82.6%) now significantly exceeds the EU average (75.7%), the historical cushion of activating underrepresented demographics has largely been exhausted. To sustain a baseline growth rate of roughly 4.0% under the current structural model, Malta would require an unsustainable net influx of 14,000 new workers every year . To avert the resulting capacity constraints, the Council outlines two explicit, binding recommendations.

Recommendation No. 1: Transitioning to Productivity-Led Growth. Malta must break its structural dependence on demographic expansion. In several high-growth periods (including 2016, 2018, and 2019), labour productivity growth actually turned negative, proving that economic expansion was achieved by adding raw hours rather than generating efficiency gains. The Council emphasizes that future policy must pivot entirely toward maximizing output per hour worked. This requires a comprehensive strategy across education and training to resolve deep skills mismatches in the local economy. It also requires targeted labour market strategies that encourage job mobility away from low-margin, labour-intensive activities and toward high-value-added sectors.

Recommendation No. 2: Scaling Up Productive Investment & Capital Intensity. A primary driver of labour productivity is capital intensity—the volume of advanced technology, equipment, and modern infrastructure backing each worker. Malta’s aggregate capital intensity remains low relative to peer EU economies, limiting its capacity for structural efficiency. The Council advises a clear reallocation of capital away from short-term consumption expenditure and into productive investment. While Malta performs well in software and database acquisition, its domestic investment in Research and Development (R&D) is critically low, standing at an investment-to-GDP ratio of just 0.3% . Policy efforts must prioritise :

• Broadening fiscal incentives, such as accelerated tax depreciation and investment tax credits, to support the rapid adoption of digital technologies, automation, and cybersecurity.
• Encouraging the private sector to leverage advanced AI-related technologies to optimize production and service delivery streams.
•  Mobilising public capital to execute the ‘twin transitions’ of deep economy-wide digitalization and environmental sustainability.
• Optimising the quality and composition of public expenditure to crowd-in high-value private investment, thereby easing structural bottlenecks without generating fiscal waste.

The Malta Fiscal Advisory Council’s 2026 assessment confirms that while the nation’s immediate economic momentum is secure, its long-term resilience cannot rely on population growth. Transitioning from factor accumulation to a high-efficiency, capital-intensive economy is no longer optional; it is a structural necessity. By channeling public and private capital into R&D, structural digitalization, and targeted human capital development, Malta can protect its competitive edge, preserve its fiscal sustainability, and build a highly resilient economy capable of thriving through future global shocks.

The post The needed paradigm shift first appeared on The Malta Business Weekly.

Fast forward to 2024, for the same period of January to April, Malta received 889,682 tourists with a real average spend per tourist (adjusted for inflation to 2019 level) of €626.33.

In 2025, for the same period, Malta received 1,044,657 tourists with a real average spend per tourist (adjusted for inflation to 2019 level) of €642.99. This means that compared to 2024, real average spend per tourist increased by 2.7% though still below the 2019 levels for the same period.

This year, for the same period of January to April, Malta received 1,215,966 tourists with a real average spend per tourist (adjusted for inflation to 2019 level) of €616.89.

This means that so far, from January to April, while tourist arrivals are 16% higher than for the same period in 2025, the real average spend per tourist is actually 4% lower than the average spend for the same period in 2025 and still obviously below the 2019 level.

This means we are overall moving in the wrong direction. We are increasing tourist arrivals at breakneck speed, but the average real spend per tourist is falling. The Malta Vision 2050 document, published earlier this year, emphasises moving away from volume-driven tourism. In this document, the strategic focus is redirected entirely toward attracting high-value visitors who seek distinctive, upscale cultural, historical, and culinary experiences, aiming to increase the real spend per tourist rather than just stacking up visitor arrivals. However, the numbers so far show that we have moved away from this rather than toward it.

A proper analysis would however need to understand the context. The context is one whereby a lot of our tourist source markets are suffering from inflationary pressures mainly due to rising energy and fuel costs. Thus, it was widely expected that tourists this year would spend less. This is more evident as the actual nominal spend per tourist (not adjusted for inflation) in January to April of this year was lower than January to April 2025 (€756.39 vs €770.30). Some insights as to why this is happening can also be drawn from the composition of inbound tourists, whereby one shift that is most evident is that for the period January to April 2024 tourists from Poland made 9% of all tourists, while this shot to 15% for the period January to April 2026.

At this point, it is very likely that we will get some 4.5 to 4.6 million tourists this year, versus the 4 million we got in 2025.

The data exposes a stark disconnect between policy and reality: while the Malta Vision 2050 calls for a strategic pivot toward high-value, sustainable tourism, so far we remain firmly caught in a high-volume, low-yield trap. Shifting a massive 16% more visitors into the first four months of 2026, only to see real average spend drop by 4%, proves that Malta is running faster just to stand still.  While external inflationary pressures in core European markets and a shifting demographic mix – characterised by the rapid growth of lower-cost markets such as Poland – help explain why consumer spending is tightening, these factors should not be used as excuses to have us move away from the trajectory and targets set in Vision 2050.

Welcoming an unprecedented 1.2 million tourists in just four months at a lower real yield per capita isn’t a victory; it is a strain on infrastructure. With Malta likely to surpass an estimated 4.5 million arrivals by the end of the year, the pressure on the industry to transition from chasing raw totals to enforcing stricter quality baselines becomes larger.

The post Moving in the wrong direction first appeared on The Malta Business Weekly.

For years, Malta’s economic headline numbers have been the envy of Europe, with recent figures showing a robust real GDP expansion of 3.9% in the first quarter of 2026. Yet, beneath these buoyant percentages lies an economic growth model that has reached its physical and social thresholds. Our growth has relied heavily on sheer volume from foreign labour to mass tourism.

The immediate challenge ahead is a profound economic transformation. We must pivot from an economy driven by quantity to one powered by quality, productivity, and competitiveness. The challenge is that this transformation needs to take place whilst ensuring that economic growth remains strong to ensure growing government revenue which is needed to counterbalance the ever growing public expenditure.

True competitiveness means empowering our workforce through digital innovation, upskilling, and supporting high-value niches like biotech, advanced financial services, and the green economy. Crucially, this economic evolution must occur hand-in-hand with improving everyone’s daily quality of life.

While we restructure internally, our external anchor, the European Union, is experiencing an existential crisis. Squeezed between an increasingly volatile, tariff-prone, and unpredictable ally in the United States and an aggressive, heavily subsidised economic competitor in China, Europe finds itself virtually alone on the global stage.

To survive this economic chokehold, Brussels is pushing to evolve rapidly into a tighter federal union. While a unified European front sounds ideal on paper, a “one-size-fits-all” federal Europe could have severe, negative repercussions for a small island nation like Malta.  For decades, Malta’s fiscal autonomy, specifically our competitive corporate tax framework, has been a cornerstone in attracting foreign direct investment (FDI). A federal shift toward harmonised tax rates across the block could dismantle this vital economic lever overnight. In a highly centralised federal union, policy decisions inherently favor the industrial heartlands of mainland Europe. Malta’s unique geographic realities as a disconnected, peripheral island could easily be sidelined. Moreover, stricter EU-wide environmental mandates and transport regulations (like maritime taxation) could fail to account for our total reliance on shipping, unfairly driving up the cost of importing essential goods and exporting our products.

In the last days, whilst the nation was focused on the last days of the election, finance ministers from the EU’s six biggest ‌economies (E6) agreed among themselves to support more centralised capital markets supervision, in a breakthrough crucial for deeper integration of Europe’s fragmented capital markets. The push for financial market players to be supervised at a European Union rather than national level is part of the EU’s ​plan to redirect trillions of its citizens’ savings, now idling in bank deposits, into more productive investment in ​Europe. This means that supervision of significant market infrastructure would be gradually transferred to the European Securities ​and Markets Authority in Paris. The issue of handing over local powers to supervise trading platforms, central counterparties and central securities depositories to the EU has been difficult because of vested national interests and opposition from Ireland and Luxembourg. To get the legislation moving forward, these 6 EU member states need to find the support of nine other countries. In this case, the law can only advance if it secures the backing of at least 15 countries representing 65% of the EU’s population.

Compounding the pressure from Brussels is a deeply volatile international scenario that guarantees constant, unexpected shocks, which could result in persistently high interest rates due to global inflationary pressures. Such inflationary pressures are likely to trigger shifts in consumer behaviour across Europe. This would mean that tourists could become more budget-conscious and staying for shorter periods.

To say that the newly elected government has its hands full would be an understatement. Navigating a changing EU, transforming our domestic economic engine, and shielding our shores from global financial headwinds is no easy task. However, the administration will also need to handle all these challenges while also facing the reality of the costly electoral promises made during the heat of the campaign, from tax cuts to increased handouts.

Balancing fiscal discipline and bankrolling all campaign pledges while steering Malta through all the outlined challenges will be a tall order. It is time to look ahead, adapt swiftly, and ensure our nation manages to withstand these challenges effectively.

The post Beyond the ballot box first appeared on The Malta Business Weekly.

Yet, such strong economic growth comes with its challenges. For instance, Malta today faces two systemic challenges: housing unaffordability and chronic traffic congestion.

To understand why a nation that is much wealthier today, than some 10 or 15 years ago, struggles with such fundamental issues, one would have to look past traditional supply-and-demand metrics and view the problem through the lens of behavioural economics – the study of how psychological biases, status, and human habits override rational economic decisions.

Traditional economics suggests that when an economy grows, everyone’s purchasing power should scale accordingly. However, the prevalent economic growth model adopted in Malta has left many low-to-middle-income earners, particularly youths, priced out of the housing market.

Malta’s economic growth required a massive influx of foreign workers to sustain momentum, coupled with a massive growth in tourists’ numbers. This caused an abrupt population spike, triggering specific behavioral shifts among investors and landlords.

Maltese investors have long exhibited a cultural bias toward brick-and-mortar investments, viewing property as the only “safe” asset class. When the population grew, a herding mentality took over. Capital flooded into the buy-to-let market and short-term tourist rentals (like Airbnb) because landlords chased immediate, high-yield gains from foreign workers and tourists. Landlords looked at the highest-paying segment of the market – foreign tech and finance executives – and mistakenly treated this premium demand as the baseline for the entire market. As a result, the development of affordable, traditional family homes was abandoned in favour of smaller, high-density apartments aimed at transient workers. While average domestic wages grew steadily, they could not compete with the compounded momentum of capital, creating an environment where a young couple on average incomes can barely access a fraction of the market without substantial parental support. The psychological security historically attached to Maltese homeownership has transformed into an anxiety-inducing financial barrier. Add to this reality is that any fiscal incentive to help make housing more affordable will likely make housing more expensive, as this will likely result in a short-term demand boost.

If housing is an issue born of rapid population growth, gridlock is another issue born of population growth coupled with psychological paralysis. Ahead of general elections, political parties frequently float grand promises of mass transport solutions. From a behavioural economics standpoint, none of these multi-billion-euro systems will ever be feasible or self-sustaining unless any government actively introduces pain points (disincentives) for private car use.

After all, Malta already made its scheduled bus service completely free for residents. Yet, the roads remain paralysed. Why? Commuters prefer the immediate comfort, privacy, and perceived autonomy of their air-conditioned car today, even if they know it means sitting in gridlock. They heavily discount the long-term societal costs (pollution, wasted time, respiratory illnesses) because the immediate alternative (waiting for a bus in the summer heat) feels like a loss. Moreover, in Malta, the private vehicle is deeply tied to social status. Decades of outdated urban planning have conditioned the collective psyche to view public transport as a low-status alternative. All the research in the world indicate that human beings are far more motivated by avoiding a loss than acquiring a gain. Offering “free mass transport” is a gain, and clearly, it is not enough to break old habits. To trigger a genuine modal shift, private car use must be made inconvenient or expensive through disincentives like implementing strict parking management, reducing free street parking, introducing congestion charges in heavily choked urban cores or repurposing car lanes exclusively into bus and active-mobility lanes, deliberately tipping the time-advantage in favour of public transit. Without these uncomfortable “stick” measures, any new mass transit infrastructure will become a financial white elephant, under-utilised while drivers remain frozen in traffic.

In the meantime, while a comprehensive mass transit network remains a distant reality, a high-frequency, tech-driven shared ride ecosystem could offer the immediate intervention Malta desperately needs. However, for this to work, it must be backed by aggressive fiscal incentives – such as corporate tax rebates for shared employee commutes or direct subsidies that make ridesharing cheaper than running a private car. By pairing these financial carrots with the on-demand convenience and air-conditioned privacy of a personal vehicle, dynamic ridesharing can directly challenge the status of private car ownership, allowing drivers to surrender the hassle of parking while instantly cutting the single-occupancy vehicles paralysing the roads.

Going forward, Malta must urgently pivot toward an economic transformation where growth is driven not by the unsustainable scaling of physical inputs – such as importing more labour and pouring more concrete – but by maximising value-added output per worker: true productivity. This structural shift can only be realised by aggressively injecting digital investment into existing economic sectors and strategically attracting new, high-value-added industries that require a smaller physical footprint but yield higher economic returns. However, executing this transition is exceptionally delicate. Given Malta’s currently high government expenditure, policymakers face the added pressure of financing and managing this massive economic overhaul with precision, ensuring that the transition does not inadvertently trigger lower economic growth or disrupt near-term stability. Balancing the withdrawal of old growth drivers while simultaneously nurturing high-tech productivity, all without denting economic momentum, represents one of the most formidable economic challenges the island has ever faced.

Malta’s current predicament serves as a stark reminder that an economy is not a collection of isolated columns on a spreadsheet, but a massive, deeply interlinked ecosystem. You cannot aggressively expand the labour market without instantly shocking the housing market. You cannot fix the housing shortage by simply pouring more concrete without worsening urban density and strain on utilities. You certainly cannot fix the traffic crisis by building more infrastructure if you leave the psychological incentives of driving untouched. True economic stewardship requires managing the invisible threads that connect behavioral and cultural attitudes with wealth and environmental limits. If a country only manages the numbers that go up, it will eventually be crushed by the unintended consequences that follow. To avoid this requires stepping from our comfort zone of instant gratification and short-term measures to one based on discipline and longer-term mindset.

Ultimately the mindset and policy decisions that brought us strong economic growth, will not be what is now needed to achieve sustainable economic growth. That is the basic underlying common theme of Vision 2050, which should become a true action programme.

The post What got us here won’t save us first appeared on The Malta Business Weekly.

This evolving situation was laid bare at the International Charlemagne Prize ceremony in Aachen, Germany. The prestigious award was presented to former European Central Bank President and Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, recognised for his historic stewardship of the Euro. However, rather than delivering a celebratory retrospective speech, Draghi used the global podium to issue a chilling, clear-eyed deconstruction of post-Cold War Europe. He warned that the continent has arrived at a point of profound vulnerability, summarising the shift with the haunting observation that, for the first time in living memory, Europeans are truly alone together. The international framework that once guaranteed Europe’s security through the United States and fueled our growth through open trade with China has shattered.

Draghi argued that Europe’s traditional approach to governance, that of treating the Union as a post-political, purely administrative space governed by static rules and complex bureaucracy, is fundamentally obsolete. For decades, Brussels attempted to neutralise raw politics through market integration, but this reliance on external forces has left the continent dangerously exposed. Europe dismantled its external trade barriers and embraced global supply chains yet catastrophically failed to complete its internal market. Draghi correctly points out that Europe is now left with fractured capital markets, disconnected energy networks, and an economy heavily dependent on foreign demand. This structural failure is amplified by a widening chasm in innovation, particularly in Artificial Intelligence. Draghi warned that because AI advances exponentially with usage, early leaders will secure permanent advantages, and Europe is currently failing to mobilise the massive, coordinated capital required to compete.

To prevent systemic decline, Draghi called for a radical transition to “pragmatic federalism”. He urged European leaders to abandon the paralysing requirement for absolute consensus and the abuse of national vetoes, arguing that sluggish compromise is often more damaging than outright inaction. His solution demands an overhaul of institutional architecture, replacing an outdated EU budget focused on subsidies with a streamlined fund dedicated to joint sovereignty, innovation and defense. Crucially, Draghi reiterated that the sheer scale of this transition can only be financed through the issuance of common European debt, leveraging the collective financial might of the bloc to underwrite massive pan-European infrastructure.

Yet, the Aachen ceremony did not just reveal a unified path forward; it exposed the deep ideological rifts that shape today’s Europe. Standing at the same podium to deliver the eulogy, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz enthusiastically agreed with Draghi’s grim diagnosis but directly attacked his proposed cure. Merz agreed that Europe behaves like a twentieth-century bureaucracy unsuited for twenty-first-century challenges, endorsing a total modernisation of the EU budget away from traditional regional and agricultural subsidies toward raw military power and economic competitiveness.

However, Merz drew an unyielding line regarding how to fund this new era. He explicitly rejected the concept of joint European borrowing, stating that Germany cannot follow the path of new EU debt for constitutional reasons, and warning that excessive indebtedness threatens national sovereignty while limiting the capacity to act. Furthermore, Merz’s stance implicitly defended Germany’s export-driven economic model, clashing with Draghi’s view that an obsession with chasing external trade deals has allowed European nations to evade the painful internal reforms required to build a self-sufficient single market.

Notwithstanding any macro-fiscal disagreement on the underlying funding mechanisms, the strategic consensus on the imperative to transition toward a model of “pragmatic federalism” is rapidly gaining institutional momentum. Europe is increasingly realising that deeper integration is the sole mechanism viable to safeguard its economic hegemony and geopolitical relevance in a fragmented global economy. Down this hyper-integrated route, Malta—as the smallest EU member state—faces asymmetric vulnerability, particularly regarding its fiscal sovereignty. This shift could imperil vital competitive instruments like our current six-sevenths tax imputation system. This specific mechanism has historically generated robust corporate income tax yield, allowing Malta to offset structural deficits and maintain ever-expanding public expenditure within a sustainable macroeconomic remit. Whilst the domestic run-up to the general election features an escalatory cycle of expansionary promises that will inevitably bloat public recurrent expenditure, this evolving macroeconomic backdrop constitutes a binding constraint risk that cannot be ignored.

The post The reality that awaits us first appeared on The Malta Business Weekly.

Let us start with the facts. Below please find a quick overview of the trajectory of government finances between 2022 to 2025. One can see that on one hand government revenue increased by 43.7% between 2022 to 2025, while government expenditure increased by 31.8% for the same period.

Going forward one major unknown is how much Malta will need to spend in fuel and energy subsidies. In the height of the Ukraine war, between 2022 and 2023, Malta spent some €300-€400 million annually in such subsidies. Then come all the proposals flying around on a daily basis. A quick preliminary cursory estimate of the proposals put forward by each of the major political parties would cost the public purse something between €300 to €400 million annually in reduced tax revenue or increased government expenditure, if all are implemented at once.

If Malta’s economy is to experience a forecasted real GDP growth of 3.7% and assuming an average 3% inflation rate over the three years, Malta would hit a nominal GDP of €26.2b in 2026, €28b in 2027 and almost €29.9b in 2028. If this economic growth materialises as predicted, to remain within the 3% limit of annual deficit-to-GDP Malta could have annual deficits ranging from €800 to €900 million between 2026 to 2028. Assuming the 2025 baseline deficit of €545 million – achieved when energy and fuel subsidies had fallen to approximately €150 million – our so-called annual “war chest”, provided the projected GDP growth materialises, would amount to roughly €250-350 million per year. Which is why in my humble opinion, considering the instability and the unknown of the impact of the likely increased expenditure in fuel and energy subsidies in 2026, all the proposals flying around make some difficult reading. As I said above, all this is dependant that the forecasted economic growth for 2026 to 2028 will materialise as forecasted. As I write this I am reading the latest Moody’s credit rating report for Malta, which has reduced the 2026 economic growth forecast from 4% to 3.5% due to capacity constraints in tourism, labour shortages and geopolitical risks.

Besides the various eye-catching proposals by both parties, that impact government revenue and expenditure, there are also various proposals being put forward that will impact the labour market. These vary from extended maternity leave, paternity leave and also other rights in relation to flexible and remote working. I am not against such shifts, however, I am afraid that this could easily end up in a situation whereby we are putting the “cart before the horse”.

The below graph depicts the real labour productivity of Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Malta and the EU average for the past years. You can see that Ireland stands in a league of its own, while Denmark is also on a strong upward trajectory, whereas both Sweden and the EU average have largely flatlined. Malta’s labour productivity trajectory has dipped in 2020 being the pandemic year, recovered a bit in subsequent years (but still not to pre-pandemic levels) and labour productivity is dipping down again in 2024 and 2025.

The challenge is clear. To be able to enjoy the benefits of an evolved labour market, we need first to boost our labour productivity by transforming our economy into growing further new high value-added economic sectors and by investing heavily in having present economic sectors become much more efficient by the use of technology. If we do not revert our present labour productivity trajectory and instead push through costly labour “reforms” we end up creating much more problems than the ones we are trying to address.

The data presented in this article serves as a stark validation of the Malta Chamber’s position in its open letter, issued on 2 May, to the leaders of Malta’s main political parties. By grounding its stance in hard facts and economic reality, the Malta Chamber has proven to be the leading balanced voice of reason in a landscape currently dominated by political posturing. Malta’s so called “war chest” is not infinite and Malta’s real labour productivity is dipping. It is within this context that the Malta Chamber rightly argues that implementing costly electoral proposals and labour reforms before boosting labour productivity does not serve the country’s common good.

The post The ‘war chest’ and productivity first appeared on The Malta Business Weekly.

My proposal or set of proposals are less costly and more targeted.

As many of you know, I work a lot with family businesses. Family businesses remind me of the infamous speech given by late Sergio Marchionne at the Confindustria Young Entrepreneurs Conference in Santa Margherita Ligure, Italy, on June 9, 2012. In this speech, he famously discussed the balance between “the epoch of rights” and the “sense of duty”. In a family business the “right” to a salary or a position is often secondary to the “duty” of ensuring the business survives for the next generation.

The family business owners are frequently the first to arrive, the last to leave, and the ones who forgo their own “rights” during lean times to protect their employees. Marchionne’s warning that “if we live of only rights, we will die of rights” resonates deeply with family business entrepreneurs because they know that a business cannot be sustained by what it demands from the market, but by the sacrifices and commitment it pours into the business. It is this background and reality I see on a daily basis through various family businesses, that inspires my proposal.

The transition of the ownership of the family business and assets used in the family business, from one generation to the next, often poses a significant financial threat, particularly when substantial fiscal burdens are involved. Recognising this, government has extended a pivotal fiscal incentive, even in the 2026 Budget, allowing for the transfer of business ownership and related property at a significantly reduced stamp duty rate of 1.5%.

This measure aims to bypass the standard 5% duty that typically applies to the transfer of immovable property and the 2% or 5% duty (trading company vs property company) on marketable securities (shares), ensuring that capital remains within the business to fuel growth rather than being diverted to the taxman during a sensitive transition.

Where a business is transferred during the owner’s lifetime (Inter Vivos), the law provides a pathway to this reduced rate under the Duty on Donations of Marketable Securities and Immovable Property used for Business (Exemption) Order.

The 1.5% rate is not universal; it is a targeted incentive for intra-family succession. Qualifying recipients include Spouses and partners in a civil union and descendants in the direct line (children, grandchildren) and their spouses.

With regards qualifying assets for the 1.5% rate, there are two primary asset classes that benefit from this stamp duty reduction i.e. the shares in the family-owned business and the real estate used specifically for the business (e.g., a factory, retail outlet, or office). To qualify, the property must have been used by the business for at least three years preceding the transfer.

To prevent abuse of the system, the law mandates that the recipient must not sell or transfer the family business or property for at least three years following the donation. In the case of property, it must continue to be used for the business for a minimum of three years post-transfer.

Based on all the above, my proposal is made of a number of fine tunings to ensure that family businesses are preserved in the critical juncture of succession. Moreover, whilst I personally preach and advise family businesses to prepare and plan for succession at an early stage, I am aware that there will always be cases whereby succession needs to happen because the unexpected has happened, like the unexpected, sometimes early, death of a family business owner and leader.  Ultimately there is an element of family business continuity that is a public good, regardless of the specific degree of kinship or minor administrative delays. Thus, the goal of my proposals is to ensure that when coming to the legitimate family business transfer there is an established safety net rate for scenarios that currently fall through the cracks.

Currently, if no ‘inter vivos’ succession transfer has taken place and, hence, a ‘causa mortis’ type of family business transfer has to be done, this would not qualify for  the reduced 1.5% stamp duty, but the standard 5% stamp duty rate would apply. My proposal is to have a safety net rate which is higher than the reduced 1,5% stamp duty rate for ‘inter vivos’ transfers and lower than the 5% standard rate. This, in my opinion, would spare  family businesses passing through a tragic situation from being ‘punished’ unnecessarily, without taking away from the more favourable reduced rate of duty for family businesses to plan ahead and go for an ‘inter vivos’ type of succession which, in the end, can bring more benefit to the family business and its future prospects.

Throughout Europe, tax relief for causa mortis (upon death) family business transfers is designed to prevent the fragmentation of small and medium enterprises and ensure operational continuity. Most jurisdictions recognise that high inheritance taxes or stamp duties can drain a company’s working capital, potentially forcing a liquidation or sale to external investors. For instance, Germany offers a robust “business succession” exemption where heirs can receive up to 100% relief from inheritance tax if they continue the business for seven years and maintain specific payroll levels. Similarly, the Netherlands utilises the Bedrijfsopvolgingsregeling (BOR), which provides substantial exemptions—often exceeding 80% of the business value—to ensure that tax liabilities do not jeopardise the company’s liquidity. The United Kingdom recently updated its Business Property Relief (BPR) to provide 100% relief on the first £2.5 million of combined business and agricultural assets, with a 50% relief thereafter. These measures collectively yield significant positive effects: they encourage long-term investment, protect local employment, and foster generational stability. By lowering the fiscal barrier to succession, European states effectively incentivise the survival of the family-owned model, which serves as a cornerstone for economic resilience and social cohesion across the continent. These reliefs ensure that the successor’s focus remains on strategic growth rather than servicing a sudden, massive tax debt during an already difficult period of transition.

Another issue that should also be addressed relates to the transfer of immovable property from the family business to a family member. As a practical example, let’s assume that a family business acquires a new warehouse but as part of the succession plan inter vivos, the owner chooses to pass that warehouse to one of his descendants. Should he choose to transfer the warehouse out of the business and to a family member, such a transfer would be subject to the full 5% duty because they missed the 3-year “pre-transfer usage” window by a few months. My proposal is to at least allow for a pro-rata reduction. If the property was used for less than 3 years but more than 1 year, the duty should be capped at a lower rate of 2.5%, provided the heirs commit to using it for the business for the subsequent 5 years.

In conclusion, the survival of a family business is important as these businesses are the bedrock of our economy, fuelled by family business owners who are fully committed to their business, often sacrificing everything to ensure the security of their employees and the future of their kin. By refining our tax laws to include this reduced duty safety net, we can ensure that we do not dismantle decades of hard work, by supporting the actively trading family businesses who pour their commitment into our community, ensuring that when the torch of leadership is passed, it is not extinguished by a tax burden, but remains a guiding light for the next generation.

The post My proposal first appeared on The Malta Business Weekly.