One cannot but be amazed at how, yet again, writers in the press continue to tackle the issue of stay or not-stay-at-home mothers by persisting in looking at the problem only from the viewpoints of such people as a "social" solidarity minister, a "social" scientist, a gender "equality" proponent, political interests, et suchlike. Not for once did I read into an article appearing on The Times the other day, headed (intentionally?) in a manner that presented Dolores Cristina as in direct polemic with the Church on the issue, any attempt at analysis of what the real economic issues are.

A possible first, but in any case very important, economic consideration in this issue must be the fact that by simply limiting himself to calling on the government to provide stay-at-home mothers state support, our beloved Archbishop (for whom I nurture the greatest of respect and admire his profound sense of love for the really important needs of children and families) stops short of tackling the economically-important issue of measurement. If the state is going to be pressured in rewarding those mothers who stay at home to give to their children those indispensable physical, psychological, and religious needs, then we have to get scientific about the how much, the for what, the time elements, the who qualifies, and the who-decides-who-qualifies, etc, elements.

But an equally serious economic and moral question we need to ask ourselves is why are we in a situation whereby practically all young married couples are finding it impossible not to have to work both of them, including practically immediately after their babies are born. The argument that "in every other country everywhere else this is what's done" simply cuts no ice with me.

Certainly one of the - if not "the" - main reasons here is the cost of housing. I get sick every time I read articles - including in this newspaper - by local apologists for our (compared to other EU countries) high inflation rates who do not have the guts to pinpoint the cost of housing as the, or one of the, major inputs contributing to our high domestic inflation rates. In true fatalistic fashion, it has become a trait to argue that, because of external inputs into our national inflation figures, which is a fact undoubtedly, there is next to nothing that can be done to quell its local components.

There is - but it seems most journalists are unaware of it: a specific local property index which speaks volumes of the obscene profiteering and pricing-out-of-the-air (at business school we used to call it the "pricing at what the market will bear" pricing model) practices that are going on in that sector. If many families can't make it to the end of the month, keep up with bank loans, can't rent either, they often resort to separations or the courts, push their employers/unions towards going for ever more wage-inflating increases. This in turn would mean that our export products price themselves out of markets. In addition, how on earth can we expect such families not to seek gainful employment, secure for themselves at least another full- or part-time salary and hopefully survive?

Surely the responsibility for this quagmire rests on the shoulders of policy-makers, of whatever political hue, who must not be allowed by the citizenry at large to get away with not accepting to carry such responsibility either due to their professedly free market policies or centralist socialist control but then allowing speculators, developers, estate agents, architects, so-called planners, Mepa, etc to continue revelling in whatever they are doing.

Continuing to allow sales of property in Malta to foreigners would have to rank as a first contributor to a whole series of reasons why the classified adverts columns in our newspapers regularly show prices that will stretch single-income families into the obligation of seeking slavery-for-life (or possibly 30-year) bank loans. I remain to be convinced that if the property market were to become a strictly-for-Maltese affair ripple-on beneficial effects of reduced property prices would not ensue, with this effect then finding its way into other local indices that comprise our persistently cancerous inflation growth. But it will be wrong for anyone to interpret this as the only measure that needs to be taken in this sector.

The family in Malta very badly needs thinking and decisions that are outside the box of current hackneyed approaches. By blaming the Archbishop, by speaking or writing "progressively" in a way that criticises "the Church's rhetoric about the critical role of the mother in the rearing of children" or accusing her of using "argument[s] against individualism and reinforcing normative expectations of male and female roles", by outrightly refusing any concepts of price control on property sales, or even by simply saying that stay-at-home mothers need to be "supported will not in any way either help to give our young children and youth what they really need. Or, for that matter, help in any way to make any inroads into the ever-increasing number of separation and other family cases before our courts... let alone providing better Catholics.

It will be interesting to see who will be the politicians or the party/ies that, for the coming general election, will come out with brave, innovative and also religiously-acceptable propositions on this very serious national problem.

Dr Consiglio teaches in the Department of Banking and Finance of the University of Malta.