Upload
ray-ball
View
55
Download
5
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Multilingualism and Optimal Language Policy in the EU. Jan Fidrmuc Brunel University. Stylized Facts. 6,912 living languages on Earth Most countries linguistically diverse. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Multilingualism and Optimal Language Policy in the EU
Jan Fidrmuc
Brunel University
Stylized Facts
6,912 living languages on Earth Most countries linguistically diverse. A few countries monolingual -- mostly small,
remote and sparsely populated islands (e.g. Falkland islands, Saint Helena, Pitcairn), and. North Korea.
Most European countries linguistically diverse.
Most European countries: only a single official language.
Worldwide European Union
Country Languages Diversity Population Country Languages Diversity Population
P.N. Guinea 820 0.99 5.8 Germany 69 0.189 82.5
Indonesia 742 0.85 234.7 France 66 0.272 60.6
Nigeria 516 0.87 135 UK 55 0.139 60.0
India 427 0.93 1129.9 Italy 42 0.593 58.5
USA 311 0.35 301.1 Netherlands 38 0.389 16.3
Mexico 297 0.14 108.7 Sweden 32 0.167 9.0
Cameroon 280 0.94 18.1 Belgium 28 0.734 10.4
Australia 275 0.13 20.4 Greece 24 0.175 11.1
China 241 0.49 1321.8 Finland 23 0.14 5.2
D.R. Congo 216 0.95 65.8 Romania 23 0.168 21.7
Brazil 200 0.03 190 Hungary 21 0.158 10.1
Philippines 180 0.85 91.1 Spain 20 0.438 43.0
Malaysia 147 0.76 24.8 Austria 19 0.54 8.2
Canada 145 0.55 33.4 Poland 17 0.06 38.2
Sudan 134 0.59 39.4 Bulgaria 16 0.224 7.8
Chad 133 0.95 9.9 Estonia 16 0.476 1.3
Russia 129 0.28 141.4 Denmark 14 0.051 5.4
Tanzania 128 0.97 39.4 Latvia 12 0.595 2.3
Nepal 125 0.74 28.9 Slovak Rep. 12 0.307 5.4
Vanuatu 115 0.97 0.2 Lithuania 11 0.339 3.4
Myanmar 113 0.52 47.4 Slovenia 10 0.174 2.0
Viet Nam 104 0.23 85.3 Czech Rep. 9 0.069 10.2
South Korea 4 0.00 49 Portugal 8 0.022 10.5
Cuba 4 0.00 11.4 Cyprus 6 0.366 0.7
Haiti 2 0.00 8.7 Luxemburg 6 0.498 0.5
Bermuda 1 0.00 0.07 Ireland 5 0.223 4.1
North Korea 1 0.00 23.3 Malta 3 0.016 0.4
Stylized Facts
2% EU citizens multilingual 39% speak at least one foreign language 14% speak two or more foreign languages
Source: Special Eurobarometer 243: Europeans and their Languages, November-December 2005.
Except English, French, German, Spanish and Russian, most languages only spoken in their own countries
Mother’s Tongues English German French Italian Spanish Polish Dutch Russian Turkish Multiling
Austria 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Belgium 0 0 35 2 1 1 59 0 1 1
Bulgaria 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1
Cyprus 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Czech Rep. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Denmark 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Estonia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 1
Finland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
France 1 0 93 2 1 0 0 0 0 2
Germany 0 91 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 1
Greece 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hungary 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Ireland 95 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8
Italy 3 2 0 96 1 0 0 0 0 2
Latvia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 1
Lithuania 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 7 0 1
Luxemburg 1 4 6 2 1 0 1 0 0 2
Malta 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Netherlands 1 1 0 0 0 0 96 0 0 1
Poland 0 1 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 0
Portugal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Romania 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Slovak Rep. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
Slovenia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Spain 0 0 0 1 89 0 0 0 0 8
Sweden 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
UK 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
EU27 13 17 12 12 8 8 5 1 0 2
Foreign Lang English German French Italian Spanish Polish Dutch Russian Turkish 1+ 2+
Austria 45 3 6 5 2 0 0 1 1 48 17
Belgium 41 13 36 1 2 0 9 0 0 63 40
Bulgaria 16 6 4 1 1 0 0 25 1 47 14
Cyprus 50 2 4 1 1 0 0 1 0 52 8
Czech Rep. 16 19 2 0 0 2 0 15 0 50 19
Denmark 66 27 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 71 34
Estonia 25 8 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 73 28
Finland 31 5 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 37 18
France 19 5 6 3 6 0 0 0 0 34 10
Germany 38 8 8 1 2 1 0 5 0 49 14
Greece 32 6 5 2 0 0 0 2 1 41 10
Hungary 8 8 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 17 5
Ireland 4 2 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 18 4
Italy 22 2 10 1 2 0 0 0 0 34 10
Latvia 15 3 0 0 0 1 0 60 0 78 18
Lithuania 14 4 1 0 0 8 0 67 0 79 25
Luxemburg 38 84 83 3 0 0 0 0 0 97 84
Malta 65 1 5 35 1 0 0 0 0 69 35
Netherlands 76 56 19 0 3 0 3 0 0 83 60
Poland 18 9 1 1 0 0 0 12 0 35 12
Portugal 15 2 9 1 4 0 0 0 0 21 8
Romania 14 2 10 2 1 0 0 2 0 26 10
Slovak Rep. 17 18 1 0 0 2 0 19 0 62 25
Slovenia 41 21 2 9 1 0 0 0 0 75 41
Spain 16 2 6 0 9 0 0 0 0 32 9
Sweden 67 11 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 70 20
UK 6 2 9 1 2 0 0 0 0 18 6
EU27 24.4 7.9 7.9 1.3 3.1 0.4 0 3.6 0.5 39 14
All Speakers English German French Italian Spanish Polish Dutch Russian Turkish
Austria 45 99 6 5 2 0 0 1 1
Belgium 41 13 71 3 3 1 68 0 1
Bulgaria 16 6 4 1 1 0 0 25 10
Cyprus 51 2 5 1 1 0 0 1 0
Czech Rep. 16 19 2 0 0 2 0 15 0
Denmark 66 27 3 1 2 0 0 0 0
Estonia 25 8 0 0 0 0 0 68 0
Finland 31 5 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
France 20 5 99 5 7 0 0 0 0
Germany 38 99 8 1 2 2 0 8 2
Greece 32 6 5 2 0 0 0 2 1
Hungary 8 9 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
Ireland 99 2 9 0 1 1 0 0 0
Italy 25 4 10 97 3 0 0 0 0
Latvia 15 3 0 0 0 1 0 85 0
Lithuania 14 4 1 0 0 13 0 74 0
Luxemburg 39 88 89 5 1 0 1 0 0
Malta 68 1 5 35 1 0 0 0 0
Netherlands 77 57 19 0 3 0 99 0 0
Poland 18 10 1 1 0 98 0 12 0
Portugal 15 2 9 1 4 0 0 0 0
Romania 14 3 10 2 1 0 0 2 0
Slovak Rep. 17 18 1 0 0 2 0 20 0
Slovenia 41 21 2 9 1 0 0 0 0
Spain 16 2 6 1 98 0 0 0 0
Sweden 67 12 3 1 1 0 0 0 0
UK 99 2 9 1 2 0 0 0 0
EU27 37.4 24.9 19.9 13.3 11.1 8.4 4.9 4.6 0.5
English
French
German
Russian
Stylized Facts
Large differences across age cohorts Only English seems to improve its relative
standing over time
All 15-29 30-44 45-60 > 60
English 37 55 41 32 24
German 25 26 25 24 25
French 20 22 19 20 19
Italian 13 13 13 13 13
Spanish 11 13 11 10 11
Polish 8 8 8 8 8
Dutch 5 5 5 5 5
Turkish 0 1 1 0 0
Russian 5 4 5 5 4
Stylized Facts: Attitudes
67% Europeans think English is a useful language for one's personal development and career 22-25% think so of German or French 10% think no language is useful
The opinions on which languages children should learn are very similar 2% think children should learn no foreign
language
Useful Language Children Should Learn
English German French Spanish English German French Spanish
Austria 73 2 15 8 85 2 29 10
Belgium 83 9 54 6 88 7 52 10
Bulgaria 65 34 11 5 87 49 13 6
Cyprus 93 17 34 3 98 18 50 2
Czech Rep. 68 56 5 2 90 68 8 4
Denmark 92 56 7 10 94 64 12 13
Estonia 71 14 2 1 93 23 7 1
Finland 86 18 8 4 84 24 11 3
France 81 19 2 36 90 25 2 45
Germany 81 5 27 13 89 3 44 17
Greece 74 30 21 4 96 50 34 3
Hungary 57 52 3 1 83 73 4 2
Ireland 4 37 58 34 3 42 65 34
Italy 82 15 25 15 85 17 34 18
Latvia 70 17 3 1 94 28 6 1
Lithuania 85 27 4 1 91 34 6 2
Luxemburg 37 60 82 2 61 41 81 3
Malta 88 5 12 2 89 12 23 2
Netherlands 93 48 19 16 90 40 22 22
Poland 70 45 5 2 89 69 7 1
Portugal 51 5 31 6 87 8 58 7
Romania 63 18 33 7 63 18 33 7
Slovak Rep. 70 60 4 1 87 74 7 3
Slovenia 79 61 4 2 97 69 7 3
Spain 72 11 32 5 85 14 44 3
Sweden 96 39 12 21 99 37 17 30
UK 4 29 63 33 4 36 72 38
EU27 67 22 25 15 76 28 33 19
EU Multilingualism and Optimal Language Policy Outline
1. Multilingualism in the EU
2. Simple model of linguistic-policy choice
3. Cost per language per person: average cost vs cost per disenfranchised person
4. Optimal sequence of official languages
5. Political economy of a linguistic reform
EU Multilingualism
EU in 1957: 6 members and 4 languages EU in 2007: 27 members and 23 languages Some official languages are spoken by many
German (85 mn), English (62 mn), French (61mn) Some official languages are not
Maltese, Irish (0.4-0.6 mn) Some non-official languages spoken by many
Catalan (4.1 mn), Russian (4.2), Turkish (2.2 mn), Arabic (1.6 mn)
EU Multilingualism: Implications EU treaties, regulations and decisions must
be translated into all official languages Most documents are prepared in English
(62%), French (26%) or German (3%) Translation: 1.3 million pages per year (2002)
2710 translators and additional 1900 other staff Interpretation: 50-60 meetings per day with 1-
60 interpreters per meeting 962 interpreters, plus 200 other staff
EU Multilingualism: Implications Long backlog of documents to be translated Relay translations increasingly used MEPs are asked to use simple sentences
and to avoid making jokes
EU Multilingualism: Future Prospects Official status requested for Catalan, Valencian,
Galician and Basque. Future enlargements: Croatian and Turkish. Alternatives:
English only; English, French and German only; Esperanto; English (for everyone except English native speakers)
and French (for English native speakers); Those whose languages are used should compensate
the others; Self financing.
EU Multilingualism
Language policy should facilitate communication effectively and efficiently
Most nation-states implement restrictive language policy: single language typical
EU: extensive multilingualism This is effective but is it also efficient? Costs and benefits need to be considered
Costs
EU25 at ‘full speed’: € 1,045 million per year (17% of the administrative budget)
Erroneous and/or confusing translations MEPs are asked to use simple sentences and to
avoid making jokes Potential for disagreements about
interpretation of legal documents Delays in implementation of legal/regulatory
decisions
Benefits: Preventing Linguistic Disenfranchisement A person is linguistically disenfranchised
(excluded) if the EU does not use a language that they understand
Not all languages are equal: some are more popular than others Special Eurobaromenter 255: Europeans and
their Languages, 2005 Optimal language policy needs to reflect this
Model of Language Policy Choice Union with n linguistic groups
Population of group j is Nj Population of the union is N= Nj.
Public good Language-dependent Provided in a core language Subsequently translated into other languages.
Translation can be full or partial j ranges between 0 and 1
Utility from receiving in one’s own language: U(j), U’(j)>0 and U’’(j)<0
Translation is costly: Cj=cj, c>0
Model of Language Policy Choice
Individual utility from translation of under self-financing
j
jj N
cU
)(
Optimal extent of translation, j, is chosen according to
Utility from translation of under centralization
N
cnU
)1()(
and optimal extent of translation, , is chosen according to
N
cnU
)1()(' *
jj N
cU )(' *
Model of Language Policy Choice
1. If all groups are equally sized, full sharing is preferred by all (except the core-language group):
N
cn
N
nc
N
c
j
)1(
2. Optimal extent of translation regime depends on group size: full sharing results in over-provision of translation for small groups and under-provision for large groups.
3. Groups of below-average size prefer full-sharing while above-average ones prefer self-financing.
Data on Language Proficiency Eurobaromenter 54: Special survey on
languages, 2000. Candidate Countries Eurobarometer, 2001. Special Eurobaromenter 255: Europeans and
their Languages, 2005 Respondents asked about mother’s tongue
and other languages that they speak well Nationally representative surveys
we can extrapolate to get the number of speakers of different languages in EU countries
Not All Languages Equal
Native(1)
All(2)
All (G/VG)(3)
Multiplier(3)/(1)
English 62.4 238.0 182.6 2.93
German 85.3 147.9 121.7 1.43
French 60.7 128.0 97.2 1.60
Italian 57.7 71.6 64.8 1.12
Spanish 39.7 67.2 54.1 1.36
Polish 39.2 41.9 40.9 1.04
Romanian 21.0 22.5 22.2 1.06
Dutch 21.9 25.2 24.0 1.10
Russian 4.2 35.3 22.4 5.33
Disenfranchisement
People are disenfranchised if the EU does not use a language that they understand.
Only preventing disenfranchisement considered
National pride, patriotism and international recognition are ignored.
Disenfranchisement (EB 2000-01)
EU15 AC10 EU25
English only 45% 79% 50%
English-French 30% 77% 38%
English-German 32% 65% 37%
English-French-German 19% 64% 26%
Disenfranchisement corrected for proficiency (EB 2005)
English 63 English-German 49
German 75 English-French 51
French 80 English-French-German 38
Italian 87
Spanish 89
Polish 92
Dutch 95
Russian 95
Cost per Language
Total cost: € 686 million in EU15, € 1,045 million in EU25.
Average cost per language per year: € 68.6 million in EU15 and € 55 million in EU25.
Average cost per person: € 1.8 in EU15 and € 2.30 in EU25.
There are important differences across languages.
Average Cost per Person/Language Pop Cost Pop Cost German 90.1 0.6 Hungarian 10.1 5.4 French 64.5 0.9 Swedish 8.9 6.2 English 62.3 0.9 Slovak 5.4 10.2 Italian 57.6 1.0 Danish 5.3 10.4 Spanish 39.4 1.4 Finish 5.1 10.8 Polish 38.6 1.4 Lithuanian 3.6 15.3 Dutch 21.9 2.5 Latvian 2.4 22.9 Greek 11.3 4.9 Slovene 2.0 27.5 Portuguese 10.8 5.1 Estonian 1.4 39.3 Czech 10.3 5.3 Maltese 0.4 137.5
Cost per Disenfranchised Person Average cost misleading
Calculation assumes that all speakers of non-official languages are disenfranchised
Alternative: cost per language (€ 55 million) divided by the number of those who would be disenfranchised if their language was left out
Alternative scenarios: from English only to English-French-German
Static analysis, bargaining or sequencing not taken into account
Cost per Disenfranchised Person
Total
Population Disenfranchised Population
(millions) Cost per person disenfranchised
(EUR) E EF EG EFG E EF EG EFG
English 62.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
French 64.5 37.5 0 36.6 0 1.5 0 1.5 0 German 90.1 42.1 40.3 0 0 1.3 1.4 0 0 Italian 57.6 35.1 27.7 34.0 27.1 1.6 2.0 1.6 1.9
Polish 38.6 30.9 30.1 25.9 25.5 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.2 Spanish 39.4 25.2 22.5 24.8 22.1 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.5 Hungarian 10.1 8.6 8.5 7.6 7.5 6.4 6.5 7.3 7.3
Portuguese 10.8 7.0 6.4 6.9 6.3 7.8 8.6 8.0 8.8 Greek 11.3 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.7 9.4 9.4 9.5 9.7
Czech 10.3 7.8 7.8 5.6 5.5 7.0 7.1 9.9 10.0
Cost per Disenfranchised Person
Total
Population Disenfranchised Population
(millions) Cost per person disenfranchised
(EUR) E EF EG EFG E EF EG EFG
Slovak 5.4 4.7 4.6 3.9 3.8 11.7 11.8 14.1 14.3 Dutch 21.9 8.4 4.3 5.6 3.3 6.5 12.9 9.8 16.9 Lithuanian 3.6 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.5 19.1 19.3 21.2 21.7 Finnish 5.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.8 27.7 27.7 29.1 30.0 Latvian 2.4 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 29.8 30.2 33.7 34.2 Swedish 8.9 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 29.4 30.9 32.5 34.3 Estonian 1.4 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 56.9 56.9 63.4 63.7 Danish 5.3 1.3 1.3 0.9 0.9 41.5 43.2 64.9 64.9 Slovene 2.0 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.5 58.5 59.8 98.2 102.2 Maltese 0.4 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 808.8 808.8 808.8 831.3
Optimal Sets of Official Languages Selecting the optimal set of official languages
How many? Which ones?
The optimal set of official languages should maximize welfare (facilitate communication) and minimize cost
For every m (1m23), we find the set of m languages that minimizes disenfranchisement ( minimizes welfare loss)
Optimal Sets of Official Languages: All Respondents
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10a 10b 10c
EN1 + GE
2 + FR
3 + IT
4 + SP
5 + PL
6 + RO
7 + HU
8 + PT
9 + CZ
9 + GR
9 + RU
62.6 49.337.8
29.5 22.4 16.4
12.9
10.9 9.2 7.7 7.7 7.7
11 12 13 14a 14b 15 16a 16b 17 18a 18b 19
10a+ GR
11 + BG
12 + NL
13 + FI
13 +
SW
14a+
SW
15 + LT
15 + SK
15a+ SK
17 + LV
17 + DK
18a+ DK
6.2 5.0 4.0 3.3 3.3 2.7 2.2 2.2 1.7 1.3 1.3 1
Optimal Sets of Official Languages: Respondents under 301 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11a 11b
EN1 + FR
2 + GE
3 + IT
4 + SP
5 + PL
6 + RO
7 + HU
8 + PT
9 + CZ
10 + GR
10 + BG
44.6 34.525.8
19.9 14.4 10.4 7.8 6.3 5.1 3.9 3.1 3.1
12 13 14a 14b 14c 14d 14e 18
11a+ BG
12 + NL
13 + RU
13 + FI
13 + SK
13 + LT
13 + LV
13 + FI/SK/LT/LV
2.3 1.8 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.7
Optimal Sets of Official Languages Selecting the optimal m:
Marginal benefits lowering disenfranchisement Marginal costs monetary and non-monetary
Costs and benefits not expressed in the same unit
23 (or more) official languages inefficient High costs and large negative externalities
1-3 languages excessive disenfranchisement 63% with English only 38% with English-French-German
Optimal Sets of Official Languages
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Optimal Sets of Official Languages 6 languages: good intermediate solution
Modest disenfranchisement: 16% Adding further languages brings only limited gains However, political constraints crucial
Political Economy of Language-policy Reform At present, linguistic policies decided by
unanimity Small countries benefit from cross-
subsidization of translation costs by large countries
Two possible scenarios for reform: 1. Reform designed so as to compensate losers2. Decision-making rule changes qualified
majority voting (QMV) instead of unanimity
Political Economy of Language-policy Reform Centralization:
Under-provision of translation for large countries Over-provision for small countries
Majority of EU population would benefit from moving from centralization to self-financing
Majority of EU countries would oppose such reform
Reducing the number of official languages: similar case
Political Economy of Language-policy Reform
Countries with majority of population proficient in core languages
Countries better off under self-financing
E EF EG EFG
Countries
UK, IRL, F, BE, LUX, D, AT, IT, ES, PL
UK, IRL, D, NL, FIN, S, DK, SLO, CY, MT
UK, IRL, D, F, BE, LUX, IT, NL, FIN, S, DK, SLO, CY, MT
UK, IRL, D, AT, NL, LUX, FIN, S, DK, SLO, CY, MT
UK, IRL, D, AT, F, BE, LUX, IT, NL, FIN, S, DK, SLO, CY, MT
Population (%) 78 50 62 63 74 Groups (%) 30 40 50 40 50 Countries (%) 40 40 46 48 60
Language-policy Reform with Compensation of Losers Decentralization: countries get control over
funds earmarked for linguistic services Giving countries discretion makes them
internalize the costs of the linguistic regime EU budget unchanged but funds spent in a
way that maximizes aggregate welfare Countries can keep the rents that they are
currently enjoying politically feasible
Language-policy Reform under QMV Alternative QMV scenarios:1. Nice Treaty (min 14 states, 255/345 votes,
62% of EU population)2. Lisbon Treaty (55% states, 65% pop)
Language-policy Reform under QMV
Acceptable Disenfranchisement
Nice Treaty QMV Lisbon Treaty QMV
All Respondents
10 11 11
20 10 10
30 9 10
40 9 8
50 7 5
Respondents under 30
10 9 9
20 7 5
30 7 5
40 5 3
50 4 2
Language-policy Reform under QMV Six-language scenario not possible at present
and under present (NT) rules Not even when assuming that relatively high
disenfranchisement rate is tolerable May be feasible in the future or if QMV rules
change
Conclusions
Six-language scenario (EGFISP): 16% disenfranchisement (10% for under 30s)
The same set results if we only consider native speakers (i.e. if only pride is being considered) Includes languages of all ‘large countries’
Adding more languages : gains small and typically limited to a single country
Conclusions
Political constraints likely to be crucial In a generation of two (or if voting procedures
change), linguistic regime with 3-6 official languages will be possible
Linguistic reform will change incentives for acquiring linguistic skills. If reform undertaken, adjustment will be temporary Linguistic dynamics will be influenced by today’s
choice Challenge of future enlargements (especially
Turkish)
Further Questions
1 Which languages should be used where? EP, EU institutions, legal texts
Different rules may be necessary for different areas or institutions
2 What happens to the remaining languages? Savings up to €55 mn per language Kept by the EU? …or transferred to member countries as
compensation?
Language and Communicative Benefits Language serves three functions:
1. Medium of exchange (communicate with others)2. Store of value (to store useful information in
written/recorded form)3. Tool of discrimination (exclude others by using a
language that they do not understand) Economics of Languages literature focuses
mainly on the first two functions: Communicative/economic benefits of speaking a
language
Communicative Benefits
Communicative benefits of languages similar to other aspects of human capital
Costly investment Monetary cost, time & effort, foregone earnings
Positive return Ability to communicate and engage in economic
transactions with others Spillover:
Return accrues also to the other party who has not learned your language
Communicative Benefits
Formal modelling:
1. Selten and Pool (1991) Seminal contribution Multiple languages, including artificial languages Communicative benefits depend on the number
of people with whom one can communicate Costs vary across individuals and langauges
2. Gabszewicz, Ginsburgh and Weber (2005) Simpler model: two languages/countries only
Communicative Benefits: Model Gabszewicz, Ginsburgh and Weber (2005) Two countries: i and j with Ni and Nj citizens Heterogenous learning cost, θ, uniformly
distributed over [0,1] in each country Learning another language is costly:
Ci(θ)=ciθ and Cj(θ)=cjθ; ci≠ cj
Communicative benefits proportional to number of people with whom one can communicate
Communicative Benefits: Model Utility of unilingual citizen of i:
B(Ni+αjNj)=Ni+αjNj
Utility of bilingual citizen of i:B(Ni+Nj)-ciθ =Ni+Nj-ciθ
Condition for learning language j:Nj-ciθ ≥ αjNj
Highest-θ individual in i who learns j:Nj-ciθ = αjNj
θ(αj)=min[(1-αj)Nj/ci, 1]
Communicative Benefits: Model θ is uniformly distributed over [0,1] share
of country i population who learn language j: θ(αj)=αi
For country j θ(αi)=αj
Define cost-adjusted communicative benefit of country i citizen from learning j: bij = Nj/ci
Equilibrium given by: αi = min[(1-αj)bij,1]
αj = min[(1- αi)bji,1]
Communicative Benefits: Model Interior equilibrium:
αi = (1-αj)bij
αj = (1- αi)bji
Solutionαi* = [bij(1-bji)]/[1-bijbji]
αj* = [bji(1-bij)]/[1-bijbji]
Unique interior equilibrium exists when bji,bji<1 (stable equilibrium)
or bji,bji>1 (unstable equilibrium)
Communicative Benefits: Comparative Statics The fraction of those learning the other
language is decreasing in the learning cost of the other
language; increasing in the learning cost of own language; increasing in the population of the other country; decreasing in own population size.
These predictions that can be tested empirically
αi
bij
1
α*i
α*j bji 1
αj
Figure 1. bij, bji < 1. Stable interior
equilibrium. No corner equilibria.
αi
bij
1
α*i
α*j 1 bji
αj
Figure 2. bij, bji > 1. Unstable interior
equilibrium. Two corner equilibria (1,0) and (0,1).
Communicative Benefits: Empirical Analysis Ginsburgh, Ortuño-Ortín and Weber
(forthcoming): Aggregate data proficiency in English, French,
German and Spanish in EU15 countries
log(αi)=β₀+β1log(Ni)+β2log(Nj)+β3log(dij)+uij
where dij is linguistic distance between languages i and j
Own population: negative effect (except French) Other country's population: positive effect Linguistic distance (proxy for the cost of
learning): negative effect
English French German SpanishAll four
Population speaking language i (β1) -0.153∗(0.021)
0.355∗(0.138)
-0.361∗(0.072)
0.032(0.168)
-0.058(0.069)
Population speaking language j (β2) 0.625∗(0.057)
Distance between i and j (β3) -0.408∗(0.082)
-0.512(0.416)
-1.362∗(0.214)
-0.560(0.385)
-0.954∗(0.200)
Intercept(β0) 0.733∗(0.016)
0.193(0.121)
0.586∗(0.077)
0.091(0.109)
0.080(0.100)
French speaking population (β0F ) -0.112(0.062)
German speaking population (β0G) -0.233∗(0.061)
Spanish speaking population (β0S) -0.514∗(0.050)
R2 0.919 0.599 0.910 0.232 0.758
No. of observations 11 12 11 12 46
Communicative Benefits: Empirical Analysis
Communicative Benefits: Empirical Analysis Individual data: Special Eurobarometer 243: Females learn languages more often than
males Propensity to learn foreign languages falls
with age – but increases again for retirees Right-wing people more likely to speak
English, left-wing people more likely to speak French
Communicative Benefits: Empirical Analysis Education, being self-employed, managerial
or white-collar worker, living in urban area and being tall increase propensity to learn languages
Large differences across countries: positive correlation between the country-specific
intercepts and linguistic proximity: 0.43 for English, 0.54 for French and 0.33 for German.
English French German Italian
Female 0.236*** (0.059) 0.457*** (0.084) -0.045 (0.073) 0.368*** (0.162)
Age -0.065*** (0.009) 0.005 (0.013) -0.048*** (0.010) 0.007 (0.023)
Age sqrd 0.0003*** (0.0001) 0.0001 (0.0001) 0.0005*** (0.0001) -0.0001 (0.0002)
Married -0.065*** (0.047) -0.048 (0.072) -0.039 (0.057) -0.361*** (0.131)
Left-Right 0.031*** (0.010) -0.033** (0.015) 0.017 (0.012) -0.031 (0.025)
Sec. education 1.272*** (0.085) 1.014*** (0.118) 0.874 (0.104) 0.888*** (0.224)
Tert. Education 2.321*** (0.088) 1.831*** (0.126) 1.492*** (0.108) 1.377*** (0.248)
Still student 2.758*** (0.123) 2.437*** (0.187) 1.493*** (0.163) 1.394*** (0.343)
Self-employed 0.460*** (0.086) 0.507*** (0.130) 0.300*** (0.119) 0.347 (0.243)
Manager 1.118*** (0.073) 0.578*** (0.115) 0.725*** (0.094) 0.607*** (0.207)
White collar 0.520*** (0.071) 0.210* (0.116) 0.402*** (0.096) 0.108 (0.224)
House person 0.059 (0.096) -0.117 (0.149) 0.259** (0.130) -0.512* (0.294)
Unemployed 0.128 (0.103) 0.089 (0.180) 0.032 (0.144) 0.024 (0.307)
Retired 0.177** (0.090) 0.190 (0.135) 0.235** (0.107) 0.184 (0.256)
Height 0.022*** (0.003) 0.013*** (0.005) 0.003 (0.004) 0.008 (0.009)
BMI -0.091*** (0.026) 0.014 (0.057) -0.032** (0.015) -0.052* (0.031)
BMI sqrd 0.001*** (0.000) -0.001 (0.001) 0.0003 (0.0002) 0.0005 (0.0004)
Small/medium town 0.305*** (0.050) 0.296*** (0.077) 0.101* (0.062) 0.172 (0.140)
Large town 0.730*** (0.055) 0.376*** (0.084) 0.184*** (0.068) 0.183 (0.141)
Spanish Russian Dutch
Female 0.202 (0.151) 0.102 (0.095) -0.365 (0.268)
Age 0.011 (0.022) 0.153*** (0.016) 0.022 (0.037)
Age sqrd -0.0002 (0.0002) -0.0014*** (0.0002) -0.0003 (0.0004)
Married -0.293*** (0.122) 0.096 (0.076) -0.264 (0.216)
Left-Right 0.007 (0.028) 0.023 (0.015) 0.067 (0.052)
Sec. education 0.313* (0.180) 0.788*** (0.137) 0.459 (0.350)
Tert. Education 0.692*** (0.196) 1.430*** (0.145) 0.988*** (0.364)
Still student 1.363*** (0.289) 1.205*** (0.240) 1.281** (0.541)
Self-employed 0.947*** (0.215) -0.130 (0.144) 0.231 (0.414)
Manager 0.575*** (0.211) 0.355*** (0.121) 0.072 (0.373)
White collar 0.086 (0.221) -0.052 (0.117) 0.253 (0.323)
House person 0.386 (0.242) -0.190 (0.194) 0.608 (0.414)
Unemployed 0.234 (0.301) -0.042 (0.161) 0.651 (0.401)
Retired 0.581*** (0.233) -0.246* (0.130) 0.228 (0.430)
Height 0.003 (0.008) 0.006 (0.005) -0.023 (0.015)
BMI -0.071* (0.040) -0.044** (0.018) 0.016 (0.048)
BMI sqrd 0.0004 (0.0007) 0.0007*** (0.0002) -0.0003 (0.0005)
Small/medium town 0.104 (0.135) 0.135* (0.081) 0.148 (0.220)
Large town 0.381*** (0.137) 0.190** (0.088) 0.515** (0.248)
Languages and Discrimination Speakers of foreign languages are excluded
from communication Example: Cockney rhyming slang
Can be recognized by their speech/accent Can be subject to discrimination
Bigotry: taste for discrimination Price discrimination: eg foreigners pay higher
prices than locals Cost-motivated discrimination
Languages and Discrimination Lang (1986): model of wage discrimination
based on language White employers White or black workers who speak different
languages Employer who hires blacks them needs to be
compensated for the cost of learning blacks’ language or for hiring bilingual supervisors
Wage discrimination occurs without bigotry or employers having a taste for discrimination
Languages and Discrimination Puzzle: different languages/dialects persist
despite strong incentives for harmonization Akerlof and Kranton (2000): model of
identity People behavior shaped by identity-specific
social norms (race, ethnicity, gender) Deviation are punished by social sanctions
Languages and Discrimination Berman (2000): model of religious sect
membership (Ultra-Othodox Jews) Costly observable behavior demonstrates
commitment This eliminates free-riding on club goods (eg
community support networks and insurance) Native language skills group identification
Favorable treatment from group members Avoidance of discrimination or predation Language skills acquired easily in childhood and
costly in adult life free-riding difficult
Returns to Linguistic Skills
Linguistic skills make transactions easier and less costly
Implications for labor-market returns, trade flows, investment, migration, growth, etc.
Alesina and La Ferrara (2005 JEL): linguistically diverse countries grow more slowly
Exception: developed countries Slower growth may be due to inter-ethnic conflict
rather than linguistic diversity
Labor Market Returns
Similar to return to other aspects of human capital such as education
Most studies consider immigrants Immigrants who speak the destination-country
language earn up to 20% more than immigrants who do not (Chiswick and Miller, 2002, JPopE; Chiswick and Miller, 2007, IZA DP 2664)
Labor Market Returns
Ginsburgh and Prieto-Rodriguez (2006): returns to language use for European workers (not immigrants)
2001 wave of the European Community Household Panel (ECHP)
Survey asked about languages that respondents use at their workplace (up to 2)
Returns to English, French, German, Italian and Spanish in A, DK, FIN, F, D, GR, IT, P, ES
Labor Market Returns
Relative scarcity of languages: linguistic disenfranchisement rate
0 if the respondent does not use the language at work
Labor-market return dependent on how many other people speak the language in the same country
instrumented with lagged disenfranchisement rate (2000)
Labor Market Returns
Return to speaking English Lowest: 5% in Denmark Highest: 39% in Spain
Return to speaking French: up to 49% (in Spain)
Return to speaking German up to 60% (also in Spain)
Returns to using languages in the workplace (Ginsburgh and Prieto-Rodriguez)
Austria Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Italy Portugal Spain
English 0.15 0.05 0.20 0.29 0.23 0.15 0.18 0.31 0.39
French 0.25 0.18 0.50 0.00 0.42 0.24 0.21 0.34 0.49
German 0.00 0.17 0.47 0.46 0.00 0.24 0.28 0.46 0.60
Italian 0.26 0.18 0.50 0.48 0.49 0.25 0.00 0.47 0.60
Spanish 0.28 0.18 0.50 0.43 0.49 0.26 0.28 0.45 0.00
Dutch 0.28 0.19 0.50 0.51 0.49 0.26 0.29 0.47 0.61
Languages and Migration
Parsons, Skeldon, Walmsley and Winters (2007, World Bank Policy Research Paper 4165): data on migration flow
Over half of global migration flows is between countries sharing a common language (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Portuguese or Spanish)
Over a quarter of global migration flows is between English-speaking countries
Languages and Trade
Fidrmuc and Fidrmuc (2009): Gravity-model of trade flows Control for probability that two randomly
chosen people from two different countries are able to communicate in the same language
Both native and non-native speakers considered
Effect on trade strongly significant and large
Results: EU 15
Variable` (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
OLS 2SLS OLS 2SLS OLS 2SLS
Intercept 15.175 *** 15.049 *** 15.415 *** 9.652 *** 14.573 *** 13.925 ***
GDP 0.897 *** 0.904 *** 0.885 *** 0.888 *** 1.007 *** 1.013 ***
Distance -0.748 *** -0.741 *** -0.761 *** -0.345 ** -0.754 *** -0.710 ***
Contiguity 0.471 *** 0.463 *** 0.491 *** 0.566 *** 0.478 *** 0.427 ***
Official languages
English 0.543 *** 0.449 *** 0.570 *** 0.558 ** 0.786 *** 0.492 ***
German 0.581 *** 0.587 *** 0.853 *** -0.137 0.336 *** -0.197 *
French 0.186 ** 0.196 ** 0.101 -11.652 *** -0.033 -0.474 ***
Swedish 0.279 *** 0.310 *** 0.235 ** 0.442 ** 0.218 ** 0.362 ***
Dutch -0.263 *** -0.242 *** -0.340 *** -1.188 *** -0.287 *** -0.149 **
Proficiency
English 1.152 *** 1.449 *** 1.074 *** 2.015 ***
French 0.080 19.552 ***
German -0.408 *** 1.271
Cumulativea 0.396 *** 1.349 ***
N 1470 1470 1470 1470 1470 1470
Adjusted R2 0.974 0.974 0.974 0.906 0.973 0.971
Results: NMS/AC
Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
OLS 2SLS OLS 2SLS OLS 2SLS
Intercept 19.372 *** 18.866 *** 17.119 *** 11.993 *** 19.176 *** 18.581 ***
GDP 0.573 *** 0.576 ** 0.566 *** 0.561 ** 0.574 ** 0.576 **
Distance -1.024 *** -1.007 *** -0.817 *** -0.314 -1.001 *** -0.967 ***
Former Fed. 2.292 *** 2.306 *** 1.478 *** 0.765 *** 2.299 *** 2.317 ***
Contiguity 0.531 *** 0.519 *** 0.650 *** 0.861 *** 0.538 *** 0.533 ***
Proficiency
English 5.074 *** 10.566 *** 5.182 *** 8.667 ***
German 13.381 * 82.753 ***
Russian 3.748 *** 7.330 ***
Cumulative 4.978 *** 9.442 ***
N 1254 1254 1254 1254 1254 1254
Adjusted R2 0.850 0.847 0.858 0.844 0.850 0.848
Results: All Countries
Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
OLS 2SLS OLS 2SLS OLS 2SLS
Official languages
English 0.715 *** 0.886 *** 0.739 *** 0.638 *** 0.802 *** 0.888 ***
German 0.571 *** 0.567 *** 0.910 *** 7.400 *** 0.337 *** 0.490 ***
French 0.056 0.041 0.230 -4.529 *** -0.160 -0.028
Greek 2.333 *** 2.322 *** 2.316 *** 2.289 *** 2.333 *** 2.324 ***
Swedish 0.162 *** 0.144 ** 0.134 ** -0.128 0.162 ** 0.147 **
Dutch -0.622 *** -0.621 *** -0.638 *** -1.827 *** -0.614 *** -0.619 ***
Proficiency
English 0.664 *** 0.139 0.569 *** 1.525 **
French -0.315 6.387 **
German -0.470 *** -9.597 ***
Russian 1.603 *** 2.147 ***
Cumulativea 0.386 *** 0.128
N 5634 5634 5634 5634 5634 5634
Adjusted R2 0.930 0.930 0.931 0.904 0.930 0.930
Languages and Trade
Increasing English proficiency in all EU15 countries by 10 percentage points (keeping UK and Irish proficiency levels constant) 15% increase in intra-EU15 trade
Bringing all countries to level of English proficiency of the Netherlands 70% increase in EU15 trade by 70%.
Conclusions
Communicative benefits an important determinant of language learning
Choice to learn another language reflects rational consideration (costs and benefits)
Language skills have positive returns Individual level (labor-market returns) Aggregate level (trade)
Social returns: language helps shape ethnic identity