Page 19 - Housing & Poverty In Malta With A Focus On The Southern Harbour Region

Kalkara and Fgura, that are not as badly afflicted by social depravity as the former seem
to be. This statement can only be made at the level of averages as individual-level data or
statistics that give an indication of the second, third, and fourth moments of the data,
which would help us understand its distribution, are not publicly available.
Notwithstanding these contrasts between localities, the labour market income of this
Region’s population is still below average, although this could be masking even greater
disparities in particular localities as already mentioned. In dealing with the Southern
Harbour Region in its totality, therefore, we have to be aware that we are averaging the
outcomes of distinct and complex social units and we are losing the deep insight that
comes with granularity to generalisations that we must necessarily make in the absence
of the required data. Because of this, the usual caveat pertaining to the use of averages,
namely that averaging may distort the overview of the whole picture in that the relevance
of observations deviating significantly from the mean is diluted, applies.

In view of the fact that the Southern Harbour Region includes some acutely destitute
areas, it is no wonder that households endeavouring to climb up the so-called social
pyramid begin this endeavour by trying to leave the area, thus generating internal
24
migratory patterns in the process . According to the Household Budgetary survey, 52.7%
of the Southern Harbour Region population falls within the LM 0 – 6000 income bracket.
Similar statistics for the Northern Harbour Region, the South Eastern Region, the Western
Region, the Northern Region, and Gozo & Comino show that 45.9%, 40.9%, 35.4%, 37.6%
and 47% of the populations thereof, respectively, fall within the LM 0 – 6000 income
25
bracket . What is more, the Southern Harbour Region has the highest percentage
population – 20.5% –earning between LM 0 and LM 3,000. Similar statistics for the other
regions suggest that 13.5%, 11.9%, 9.4%, 10.7% and 12.5% of the regional populations
thereof, listed in the same order as per their earlier designation, fall within the same
26
income bracket . The difference between the South Harbour Region’s population eking
out LM 0 – LM 3,000 and that of the next-highest region is statistically significant.
Meanwhile, annual incomes falling short of LM 4,915 and LM 2,900 are considered to be
below both the relative and absolute poverty lines respectively. On the basis of
extrapolated trends, this situation is only expected to get worse over time as wages
remain stagnant and the cost of living increases thereby squeezing social groups that are
at risk of poverty even further.

A pertinent question to be asked here is whether poverty provides sufficient reason to
ascribe vacant housing in this region to this phenomenon. For one thing, there is nothing
in the whole of epistemology that tells us that explanations should be monocausal; and
for another, the phenomenon in question does not necessarily result in a decline in the
number of households per dwelling available. Had destitution been the only factor
affecting vacant housing, it might have been the case that the region being analysed could

24 When using the term internal migration, in this context, I am taking the Maltese Islands as the benchmark
unit, rather than the Southern Harbour Region. This means that internal migration is occurring within the
Maltese Islands rather than within the southern Harbour Region.
25 Statistics extracted from the NSO’s Household Budgetary Survey 2000 page 68.
26 Ibid.

Page 18