Language education and economic efficiency

Economic efficiency, displayed in Figure 2.7, can be categorized as internal and external and provides analytical tools for the assessment of education policies in terms of their utility inside as well as outside the educational system (Grin, 1999). Internal efficiency refers to the

self-sustaining, or even profitable, nature of the educational system itself and measures whether the resources invested in different internal activities result in system-internal gains. An example of this can be seen in initiatives to provide better schooling and thus raise the socio-economic status of certain groups who in turn will invest some of their income in financing their children’s education. External efficiency, on the other hand, shows the profitability of the educational system as part of the larger economy of a given administrative unit. The above-mentioned investment in improving public education can be considered externally efficient if it leads to higher wages, an increase in GDP or contributes to the productivity of the economy in any other way.

Figure 2.7 Schematic representation of economic efficiency, based on Grin (2003)

When it comes to language education, which corresponds to approximately 10% of Swiss public spending on education (cf. Grin, 2003, 2005; Grin and Sfreddo, 1997), it is clear that economic efficiency is a central issue. Research investigating the market value of language skills has shown that they constitute a highly profitable investment, both from a societal and an individual perspective. For instance, Grin (2009) estimates that were speakers of multiple languages in Switzerland to lose this ability, it would cost the Swiss economy 10% of GDP.

Similarly, in an earlier study he (1999) calculates that foreign language skills can increase Swiss men’s revenue by 10.28 to 18.08%, depending on respondents’ mother tongue and the foreign language in question. (In the case of women such skills often increased the rate of employment, thus resulting in even higher revenue differentials.) Therefore, it seems that public investment in foreign language teaching in Switzerland benefits individuals as well as the whole economy.

Although this type of analysis might appear at first glance, and quite understandably, to have little bearing on learners’ motivation, it is also worth noting that the concept of investment and even that of efficiency are far from alien to L2 motivation theory. Language learning motivation by definition implies a certain investment on the part of the learner, both in the form of learning effort and time but also other, often costly, resources. The learning process can thus be considered efficient if there are sufficient returns on this investment, that is, if certain learning goals are achieved. By contrast, language economics calculates efficiency at a level higher up in the educational structure of a given economy.

The second difference is that, as I mentioned before, language economics research, for the most part, focuses on market-related costs and benefits as these are easier to measure reliably and, as a result, provide a more appropriate basis for statistical analysis. At the same time, successful language learning also requires another type of investment, often treated as symbolic and associated with an ethnographic conceptualization of human capital (e.g. Bourdieu 1986).

However, individuals’ engagement in the learning process nonetheless entails serious costs, involving both financial and non-material resources. Indeed, this investment of one’s time and personal resources as well as some of the advantages to which they lead are far from symbolic and can be assigned economic value.

On the one hand, the costs of learning a language, such as incurred by course fees, material or other expenses, are closely related to the individual market value of the skills gained. In this case, it is relatively easy to compare investments and rates of return, as learners undoubtedly often do so. On the other hand, learners’ time and energy constitute less easily calculable assets.

While more difficult to gauge statistically, they are nonetheless important when it comes to the efficiency of the learning process. In addition, these types of resources are central to the theme of motivation and learning success and therefore offer important links between economics and motivation theory.

Norton (2013) writes at length about the concept of engagement, or investment, referring to the actual time and energy that learners dedicate to learning a language, which may vary from one situation to another. She notes that engagement does not necessarily reflect one’s level of motivation (ibid.), as the resources and the effort that one is willing to commit to language learning are determined by a host of social factors and one’s relationship to target language speakers. Moreover, Norton (2013) emphasizes the relationship between engagement and learner identity and argues that efficient language learning takes place as an aspect of successful

identity creation. These statements capture some of the most important characteristics of learners’ personal investment into language learning and thus describe the mechanics at play at the lowest level of language education. They are especially interesting as they pinpoint the importance of social and individual factors in determining the outcome of the learning process at the level of the learner, which, ultimately, affects the efficiency of the entire system.

There are two powerful conclusions to draw from this. First, contextual factors, motivational dynamics and learner identity appear to have a significant impact on the efficiency of a given educational system, by influencing individual’s language learning success. Therefore, they can be considered as important elements to account for in a top-down analysis. Second, from a bottom-up perspective, concepts of economic theory, especially that of efficiency, can help provide a more in-depth view of the dynamics of language learning. In a larger sense, this means that interdisciplinary studies that bring together approaches from these two fields can be instrumental in building functioning bridges between policy making and implementation, thus increasing the potential and impact of developments in both fields.