It is probably habitual that at this time of the year we look at some odd statistic, which may be something exceptional, but which, in any case, has some relevance to our daily lives. This is probably borne from the fact that, at this time of year, one seeks to demonstrate good will and avoid polemics.
For this week's contribution I picked up two pieces of data from The Economist, which was itself quoting the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
The first relates to what The Economist described as "bank density", while the second relates to tax revenue as a percentage of gross domestic product. The Economist makes a comparison among several countries. I shall use that data to draw up a comparison with the Maltese situation.
Bank density
The data on bank density draws up a relationship between the number of bank branches and the area of the country, and again the number of branches and the population.
This data is relevant in that it gives an indication of the level of access that the population has to banking (or financial as banks would like to describe them today) services. Admittedly, the World Bank data relates to 2003-04 and as such may be slightly out of date; however, a comparison with Malta would still be useful. Moreover, the data provided by The Economist refers essentially to emerging markets, rather than the major economies such as Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, etc.
Singapore has 636 branches per 1,000 square kilometres. This is way ahead of any of the other emerging economies and is proof of this country's success in becoming the main international financial centre in Southeast Asia. Countries like Russia and Peru have less than one. South Korea, another Asian tiger, has 65. Among the new EU member states, the Czech Republic has 15 while Hungary has 32 and Poland has 10.
An impressive performer is India. In spite of the size of the country, it still manages to have around 23 bank branches per 1,000 square kilometres.
In relation to population, Singapore has just nine bank branches per 100,000 people. South Korea manages 13.
Among the new EU member states, the Czech Republic has 11 bank branches per 100,000 people, Hungary has 28 (nearly as many as the United States) while Poland has eight. China has just one bank branch per 100,000 people, while Russia has two.
And Malta? In order to create a like for like comparison, in terms of area, we need to make an extrapolation.
On this basis, Malta accommodates something like 350 bank branches per 1,000 square kilometres. In terms of population we have 28 branches per 100,000 persons.
Tax revenue
The data on tax revenue is equally interesting. Sweden is the country that collects most tax revenue relative to the size of its gross domestic product from among the richest nations of the world. Even in this case, the data relates to 2003 and 2004.
The Swedish government takes up 50 per cent of the gross domestic product in tax revenue.
Within the older member states of the EU, the tax take is generally higher than countries outside the EU. The only exception is Ireland; otherwise in Japan, the United States, Australia and Canada, the tax take is less than the older EU member states. The eurozone average is 40 per cent.
The Scandinavian countries are those that have the highest level of tax in relation to their GDP. Within this group there is also Belgium.
In Malta, the government collects the equivalent of 38.4 per cent of the country's GDP in tax revenue, both direct and indirect tax revenue. This places us nearly at par with the eurozone average and with the Netherlands as an individual country. Italy is just above 40 per cent and the UK is just below the 38 per cent mark.
Data like this may seem like gossip. However, it helps us to form an opinion as to where Malta stands when compared to the rest of the world. Everyone envies the Scandinavian countries that look after their citizens from the cradle to the grave.
But they also pay a high economic price for it.
On the other hand, everyone envies the US because it is seen as a land of opportunity where one can earn good money. But they pay a high social price for it.
We seem to be somewhere in between and the resultant way of life is what it is. And there is no doubt that citizens from other countries, including the richest countries in the world, do envy our way of life.
So it is not as bad as we may sometimes think it is. Happy New Year to The Times readers.