Since 2013, Malta’s Labour Party has presided over one of the most rapid economic expansions in the country’s modern history. According to official figures, Malta’s GDP grew from €7.2 billion in 2013 to €22.3 billion in 2024, more than tripling the size of the economy in just over a decade. This is not just a statistical figure, but a structural economic transformation. Yet, as history shows, such success carries its own paradoxes and controversies. The Labour Party’s greatest nemesis may not be the Opposition, but the very wealth it creates.
This is not the first time Malta has experienced such a phenomenon. In the 1970s, under the leadership of Dom Mintoff, the Labour government inherited a post-colonial economy on the brink of collapse. The 1960s had been marked by mass emigration. According to historical estimates, over 140,000 Maltese left the islands between 1946 and 1979, many to Australia and Canada under British passports. While this figure is widely cited in migration literature and diaspora records, including maltamigration.com, it is not drawn directly from NSO archives and should be treated as a contextual approximation. Nonetheless, the scale of emigration underscores the economic fragility of the time and the urgency of Mintoff’s reforms. Back then, Malta’s economy was heavily dependent on British military spending, which accounted for around 15% of GDP in the early 1960s. As noted in the University of Malta’s paper The Maltese Economy Since 1960 by Professor Briguglio, this military presence also supported a significant portion of local employment. When that support began to disappear, Malta faced a crisis of joblessness, identity, and sovereignty. The looming economic vacuum underscored the urgency of structural reform and set the stage for Mintoff’s state-led transformation.
Mintoff responded with radical state-building. The presence of the state was pronounced, and the national identity – our flag and anthem – heavily indoctrinated across the islands. Technically, Mintoff instilled a sense of nationalism in the Maltese and gave us the confidence and self-esteem to progress. He rejected the 1970 EEC association agreement negotiated by Dr Borg Olivier, arguing that it offered too little in return for too many conditionalities. Instead, he pursued a policy of economic independence and social transformation. He founded Air Malta (1973) and Sea Malta (1974), established a national welfare state, introduced universal healthcare, children’s allowances, pensions, and free education for all. He built social housing across the islands, laying the foundation for Malta’s modern middle class. No government, not even the contemporary PL, can compete with Mintoff’s social progress. The results were staggering.
Between 1970 and 1980, Malta’s GDP more than tripled in nominal terms, from approximately Lm93.1 million to Lm310.3 million, equivalent to a rise from €217 million to €723 million using the official euro conversion rate of Lm1 = €2.329373 adopted in 2008. Industrial output surged, and the economy diversified beyond military dependency. Mintoff’s policies satisfied the foundational layers of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs being physiological security, safety, and stability. Once those were met, the Maltese people began to demand more, especially quality, choice, and global access. They travelled on Air Malta, experienced foreign goods, and aspired to lifestyles beyond subsistence. And when people demand it, just give it to them if you want to entertain your electorate.
Obviously, between 1987 and today, Nationalist governments introduced reforms to join the EU, and they too created wealth albeit in a more cautious pattern. In fact, they never managed to create so much wealth in such a short period of time. Fast forward to the 2010s and the Labour government under Dr Joseph Muscat and later Dr Robert Abela passed through a similar transformation under Dom Mintoff. Malta’s economy diversified, capitalising also on the Nationalist governments’ reforms, into digital services, aviation, logistics, and financial technology. Employment reached record highs. Poverty rates dropped relative to preceding decades. The country became wealthy enough that many citizens now outsource discomfort. Food is delivered to their doorstep by foreign TCN couriers. Bolt or Wolt drivers ferry them across town while their own cars remain parked. And yet, these same citizens complain about the presence of TCN workers.
This is the paradox of prosperity if you can call it this way. The very success that raises living standards also creates new tensions. Once basic needs are met, societies shift their focus to quality-of-life issues. Priorities become the environment, national identity, and aesthetics. The Labour Party’s economic success has enabled this shift, but it is now being judged by a different standard. No longer is the electorate voting for bread and butter. It is voting for values, lifestyle, and perception. The pinnacle that fuelled this, was the high inflation between 2022 and 2024. Critics point to the influx of foreign workers, especially in low-wage sectors. But this influx is demand driven. If food couriers are “too many”, why do we keep ordering from them? If Bolt drivers are “unbearable”, why do we rely on them daily? Are we truly nostalgic for the 1990s? Then pick up the phone, place your order, and go collect it yourself – just like we used to. The contradiction is glaring. People demand fewer foreign workers or “better” TCNs, while increasing their reliance on the services they provide. I had a case where a coffee was ordered through Bolt. I’m not sure whether to cry or laugh. They want the government to throw these sectors out of Malta. This is not to dismiss legitimate concerns about urban density or integration. But we must be honest. The comfort we enjoy is built on the hard labour of others. And that labour is demanded by us. If we want fewer couriers, we must order less. If we want fewer drivers, we must drive ourselves. The market is a mirror of what we are and what we want. Adam Smith would call it the invisible hand.
Mintoff faced similar contradictions. As the economy grew, so did expectations. The Maltese wanted more than survival, they wanted style, choice, and global standing. That shift in aspiration led to political change. Today, the PL faces a similar, though more distant, moment. The electorate is no longer voting for survival or to reduce utility bills. It is voting for refinement. Prof. Briguglio’s economic history paper notes that Malta’s post-independence growth was “heavily state-led” in the 1970s, with public investment driving industrialisation and social mobility. The same could be said of the 2013-2024 period, albeit through different tools, including public-private partnerships, EU funds, and regulatory innovation. But the outcome is similar. We have a society that has moved up Maslow’s pyramid and now demands esteem and self-actualisation. This is the Labour Party’s nemesis. Not fatigue. Not Opposition. But success. And certainly the PL forgot how to manage expectations. The solution is not to retreat from economic growth, but to mature with it. Malta must now invest in civic education, environmental stewardship, and cultural cohesion. It must align its economic model with its social values. And it must do so with gratitude, not grievance.
Let us recognise what the PL has built since 2013, a tripled economy, a diversified workforce, and a society wealthy enough to debate aesthetics. And let us act with maturity. If we enjoy doorstep delivery, let us respect the hands that bring it. If we ride with Bolt, let us acknowledge the drivers who make it possible. If we want fewer foreign workers, let us reduce our demand. The market responds to us. In the end, the path to a sustainable Malta is not paved with nostalgia or blame. It is paved with gratitude, responsibility, and vision. Whether through constitutional reform, economic planning, or social dialogue, we must walk that path together. Because history shows that the PL does create wealth but is a little clumsy in managing it. The PL requires more wisdom.
