These are not inspiring days for students aspiring to achievement in the social sciences. This might be thought to be an opportune time for social scientists to be in the forefront with analyses of alternative relationships Malta may have with the EU, the Mediterranean region and the rest of the world. In fact, quite a number of technical studies have been undertaken. Very obviously, what one expert reports another can rend asunder. But consider the way that is translated over here by taking just a few examples.
The Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association (MHRA) commissioned studies on the likely impact of EU membership on the tourist sector from three experts in their field. When they submitted their reports to the association the conclusions were dismissed as false by the no side.
To disagree with how a study is drawn up, with its conclusions, or with both is in the nature of things. It happens all the time in academia, let alone in business and politics, where penetration depends on differentiation. In Malta, though, disagreeing with the substance is far from enough. One goes on to attack the person who accepted any commission to do a professional job.
Take a different example. The Labour Party, having rejected the MHRA reports, commissioned and published a comparative evaluation of EU membership and of close relations without membership, which the party feels would better suit Malta's particular circumstances. The Labour leader said he would not reveal who were the compilers of that evaluation. They were, he declared, established experts in their field. But their name would not be published for fear of reprisal.
By this stage promising students of economics might conclude that the subject is a more dismal science than it was made out to be when Malthus gloomily predicted that population would always grow faster than food, dooming mankind to poverty and hardship. One wonders, then, how the squeamish among them must be feeling if they have digested the third of various other examples on offer.
A foreign academic professor of economics who also heads a research company was commissioned to study the implications of membership. He sounded the views of a broad spectrum of individuals and representatives of the political parties and private sector institutions. He collected data. He fed the data into an established econometric model tuned to take into account Malta's particular set-up, and submitted his analysis in a 160-page report. He communicated its main points in a public presentation. In brief, the study suggested higher overall GDP growth under the membership scenario after taking into account areas that would lose out, like the agricultural sector.
The yes lobby swiftly used the professor's conclusions as proof, and not simply evidence, that EU membership was the best road forward. Initially, there was silence from the no side, which suggested it was digesting the report. Then the shadow spokesman on finance spoke out, and dismissed the study as superficial. He also observed with evident heavy meaning that during his meetings with individuals and representatives in Malta the professorial economist was accompanied by a member of the yes movement, albeit, in a professional capacity.
One may fairly claim that a study is superficial, provided that one demonstrates where and why. But to strengthen one's criticism with reference to who went along in a professional role with the expert compiler of the study is something aspiring students may not find it easy to comprehend. Particularly in the context of the local situation where politicians and politically-committed individuals simultaneously have professional roles. I was one such fairly notable example in my last decade as an MP.
Others abound, in education, banking, investment services, law practice, business, tourism, and industry. Were their professional work to be dismissed as being tainted because they also wear a political hat they would claim with good reason they were facing unjust treatment because of their beliefs.
If every study is deemed vitiated and every professional charged with bad intentions, if there is genuine fear that experts who do not please one side or the other could be subject to reprisal, students of economics and related areas would do well to review the wisdom of their selection of the expertise they wish to acquire. They might end up on the jobless register, whatever Malta's relationship with the EU and the rest of the world might be.