What has happened in the United States in the recent months, even weeks, in relation to companies going bust, companies hiding losses, chief executive officers making lots of money on stock options, bonuses and salaries while shareholders lose their investment, must be seen to have an impact also on our little economy. The impact should be at two levels.

At the first level, there is the impact that such events are likely to have on the international economy and on its ability to speed up economic recovery and consequently on the level of demand for our exporters of goods and services. This is an important issue but not relevant to this week's contribution.

At a second level, the impact may not be so strongly felt and therefore we run the risk of ignoring it. However, it is equally important because it provides a great deal of food for thought and would provide important lessons to the private sector, the government and even the trade unions and the employees they represent. I am referring to the impact on corporate governance.

The US answer was new legislation to have stronger penalties against CEOs who certify false financial statements, destroy company documents and deceive investors. But is the issue one of a lack of law or of one of breaking the law?

The chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States, Alan Greenspan, described the efforts by the managements of a number of companies to hide losses and boost share prices as "corporate malfeasance". He then went further by claiming that all this was spurred by an "infectious greed" that gripped the so-called corporate America.

Do we suffer from this infectious greed in Malta? If we do, whether to a small or large extent, is it affecting our economy and our ability to generate more wealth? Do we have enough safeguards in our legislation against the effects of this infectious greed?

I believe we do and the lesson that we should be learning from the events in the US should not necessarily be more stringent legislation (although if we do need it we should not be afraid to introduce it), but the need for a better compliance with the letter and spirit of the law.

In certain ways, the spirit of the law is not always fully respected in this country as hired help become our bosses. This is a problem that is not restricted solely to the management of an organisation, but has seeped down and across all levels.

Sometimes we forget that companies are owned by shareholders (irrespective of whether such companies are quoted on the stock exchange or not) and that countries function thanks to taxpaying citizens, thereby rendering them shareholders.

Yet, what happens in a company or in the country very often reflects a situation where the persons employed because of their skills and capabilities, to serve the interests of their stakeholders, end up serving their own interests. Up to an extent the servants have ended up lording it over their masters.

This is why I claimed that the lesson from America should not be seen to apply just to the private sector and the way businesses are managed but to government and employees as well. I am sure we have all experienced the situation where one requires a service from a government department.

The reaction that one gets from a clerk or worse still from a messenger, is to wait in the queue, possibly take a number and make sure to have all the documents ready when one approaches the window. The citizens that pay their wages are at times treated as nothing better than servants.

Businesses at times do not do much better. A customer is treated as nothing more than a nuisance or an interference in the daily routine, rather than the person that justifies the existence of that business.

Moreover, most employers (especially those still involved in the running of their own business) would tell you that they are often viewed as superfluous by some of their employees, to be manipulated or coerced and even fleeced through unreasonable wage claims.

It is becoming very evident that there is not a sufficient commonality between the interests of those who have a stake in an organisation and those who are employees of that organisation. This may not be so tragic if the success of the employee is strictly tied to the success of that organisation.

However, all too often this is not the case. The fact that the monetary reward of an employee is not tied to how successful that organisation is, may induce that employee to have priorities at work that do not feature the success of the employer.

This is the lesson that we should get from the events in the US. The news that a CEO would have made millions while a company he was responsible for went bust, would have made the headlines.

However, that for us is neither here nor there. What is important for us is the issue as to whether even in this country, those who have been employed to do a good job (irrespective of their grade), are ending up nesting their egg while the organisation they work for goes down the drain.