The Value of Non-dominant Languages

François Grin, full professor of economics at the School of Translation and Interpretation (ETI) of the University of Geneva, visiting professor at the University of Italian Switzerland in Lugano and Deputy director of the Education Research Unit (SRED) of the Geneva Department of Education

« Non-dominant languages are economically valuable; however, establishing this requires going beyond seductive, but sometimes misleading analogies. »

Language in general, sometimes specific languages, or, alternatively linguistic diversity, are often presented as carriers of economic value, usually under labels such as «asset», form of «wealth», or some similar economic term, which implies that languages are «goods» in a quasi-economic sense.

The paper begins by critically assessing this notion in three successive stages. I will first discuss the standard «private value» approach, which typically indicates a low market value for non-dominant languages; I then address a wide-spread, but ultimately misleading analogy, namely that of « language as currency, pointing out its logical inconsistencies. Third, I sift through competing paradigms that have been formulated specifically in order to justify public policy support in favour of small languages. Three of them will be treated relatively briefly, because they are arguably relatively less robust. These are:

• that of languages (including small ones) as repositories of specific form of experience that may have productive value;
• that of languages as tools of economic development;
• that of languages as possible channels for regional economic stimulation.

I then move on to a fourth paradigm, which banks on public economics and explores the implications of treating language as a public good. In many ways, this seems to offer most robust approach to establish whether, and to what extent, non-dominant languages can be seen as real carriers of value in an economic sense.

Discussing this fourth paradigm requires an exploration of some basic notions of public economics, as well as a foray into the notion of «hyper-public good», which, though useful, can be criticised as inadequate for a comprehensive perspective on language valuation, particularly in the case of non-dominant languages.