MAP - Language Policies - pdf

Running head: LANGUAGE POLICIES OF MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS 1

How the language policies of multinational corporations

may affect language learning decisions in other institutions

At a TED (Technology, Education, and Design) presentation in 2009, it was noted that

over two billion people were then studying English around the globe (Walker, 2009). It was also

stated that this was not 'pushed' on people, but that it was 'pulled' from those studying English,

because learning the language offered them more economic opportunity and participation in a

global community. Therefore, it was argued, the spread of the English language was enabling a

better tool for helping people to solve the world's problems. The presentation claimed that the

desire to learn English around the globe was a 'mania,' but that it was a skill that could only be

beneficial for those learning it and beneficial for the world in general.

In the field of sociolinguistics, there has been significant opposition to the idea that the

spread of English is only beneficial to those learning the language (e.g., Blommaert, 2010;

Canagarajah, 1999; Edge, 2006; Fairclough, 2006; Gray, 2002; Holborow, 1999; Pennycook,

2001; Phillipson, 2009). There have been some who believe that the language is pushed along

Kachru's (1985) concentric circles of global English, from 'inner-circle' countries to 'outer-circle'

countries as part of a 'center-periphery,' imperialistic, 'neoliberalist' project by governments such

as those of the United States and the United Kingdom (e.g., Edge, 2006; Fairclough, 2006;

Holborow, 2012b; Phillipson, 2009). This argument seems to complement a greater debate

within the social sciences of a neoliberalist project to dominate the world politico-economically

(e.g., Harvey, 2005; Peck, Theodore, & Brenner, 2010).

That the English language has actually been pushed in such an imperialistic way has been

the source of much debate within the sociolinguistic community. There are those who have at

least qualified the linguistic imperialism argument, stating that in acquiring English as a skill


people being oppressed are better able to confront those oppressing them (e.g., Crystal, 2003;

Pennycook, 2001). Other scholars have rejected the 'center-periphery' argument in favor of a

'polycentric' account of influence, stating that there is no imperialistic project to spread English

globally because there are no dominate institutions that would have the means and/or will to do

so (e.g., Blommaert, 2010; Gray, 2002). As such, the role the language policies of multinational

corporations (MNCs) play in determining language learning decisions does not seem to have

been given a great amount of attention relative to other influences. Though, within the greater

social sciences debate regarding dominant institutions, multinational corporations have been

subjected to much more scrutiny and many now consider the MNC to be 'the' dominant player on

the international scene (e.g., Bakan, 2004; Curtis, 2002; Nace, 2003).

This paper examines to what extent the language policies of multinational corporations

influence those formulating language policies within other institutions at various levels. The

language policies created within multinational corporations may create misconceptions as to the

value of languages such as English in the formulation of language learning decisions and

initiatives in other institutions. Language learning decisions, in this paper, are defined as

decisions that governments, corporations, transnational organizations, and educational

institutions make with regards to what language or languages will be encouraged or discouraged

within those domains.

Tsui and Tollefson (2007) stated that individual reactions to globalization have been

“shaped, and even determined, by the linguistic practices and preferences of multinational

corporations, transnational organizations, and international aid agencies” (p. 18). Therefore,

language learners and regional/national language policy administrators may perceive that by

acquiring English as a skill, learners will have gained a worthwhile form of Bourdieu's (1991)

theorized 'linguistic capital' to help ensure their economic security. But when, for example,


Chinese and Korean 'study mothers' suffer heavy psychological burdens by migrating with their

children to other countries in the hopes of providing these children with better English education,

there needs to be a more critical look at what is influencing their perceptions and motivations

(Chew, 2010).

As to who can actually use English to enhance their lives economically or otherwise is in

question. Some scholars have contended that the practical usefulness of the language is

decreasing relative to population and that this parallels the increasingly polarized economic

realities between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' (e.g. Holborow, 1999). If, then, English is

actually decreasing in economic value for the majority, why is it that more learners go to

extremes in order to acquire it and regional/national educational institutions make increasingly

larger investments to provide it?

The first section of this paper deals with the concept of neoliberalism, the usage of which

seems a distraction from the influences MNCs exert on language learning decisions in other

institutions. The second section then goes on to describe how the MNC has become the

dominant global institution today, and has the means to directly or indirectly 'push' English. The

third section then looks at how language policies made by these powerful MNCs are proliferated

and filtered throughout society as a perceived international standard. The fourth section then

shows how this perception of English as an international standard can lead to misconceptions as

to the social welfare value of the language and counterproductive language policies within

regional/local institutions. Finally, the paper ends with a discussion of possible responses to the

influence of multinational corporations on language learning decisions and education in general.

Reassessing 'Neoliberalism' as a Concept

In social science fields outside of sociolinguistics, the concept of neoliberalism is being

reassessed as to its usefulness (e.g., Barnett, Clarke, Cloke, & Malpass, 2008; Boas & Gans-


Morse, 2009; Garland & Harper, 2012; Ferguson, 2010). In fact, the term seems to have no

register at all in the field of economics, which is surprising since it has been proclaimed as at

least part economic theory (Boas & Gans-Morse, 2009). Many of the issues surrounding the

formulation and effects of English language policies outside of Anglophone countries are of an

international and apparently economic nature. It therefore seems reasonable to incorporate

political and economic theory into the study and approach the topic from a more interdisciplinary

standpoint as much as possible. Indeed, sociolinguists have called for a more interdisciplinary

approach that looks to encompass a 'grand economic narrative' in their research (e.g., Holobrow,

2012).

Many sociolinguists have decided, as have many populists and political theorists on the

left, to use the term 'neoliberalism' in describing a right-wing politico-economic movement (e.g.,

Fairclough, 2006; Klein, 2007; Phillipson, 2009). However, neoliberalism is a term that is “often

undefined … employed unevenly across ideological divides … and is used to characterize an

excessively broad variety of phenomena” among a variety of social science fields (Boas & Gans-

Morse, 2009, p. 137). Its use is therefore problematic, as the sources that try and define the term

replace and try to combine already defined and distinct ideas such as economic liberalism,

neoconservatism, and state capitalism (e.g., Harvey, 2005; Peck, et al., 2010). Using the term

neoliberalism as a way to try and encompass all these ideas embeds an ambiguous and confusing

range of politico-economic understanding in the reader. As well, neoliberalism is almost always

used in the pejorative (Boas & Gans-Morse, 2009). Rather than being intended for an audience

that needs to be convinced of a point of view, it is most often used to condemn others. Few

would consider themselves 'neoliberalists,' per se.

Economic liberalism and neoconservative political theory are distinct and contradictory in

significant ways. Their most significant difference seems to be how 'morality' and


accompanying modes of governing are viewed (e.g., Brown, 2012; Curtis, 2007). Economic

liberalism is 'amoral' and 'apolitical' in the sense that an individual can do whatever they please

so long as they observe property rights regulated by a very limited government.

Neoconservatism, on the other hand, is 'moral' and 'political' in the sense that the individual must

conform to a social order determined by a very interventionist government. State capitalism

requires the dominance of state-owned corporations within the economy, which doesn't exist in

the United States and the United Kingdom, and so could not co-exist with economic liberalism

because of the inherent theoretical differences (e.g., Bremmer, 2012).

Fairclough (2001) claimed that the government of George W. Bush used 'interdiscursively

hybrid' discourse that melded military/security discourse with political economic discourse in

identifying an overall neoliberalist 'free market interventionist' global strategy. In making such a

claim, the survival instincts of politicians may be overlooked. The major political parties in the

United States and the United Kingdom spend significant amounts of money on public relation

firms to manage their image with their constituents (e.g., Miller, 2008).

Economic liberalists and neoconservatives comprise parts of two theoretically differing

factions within right-wing politics, 'fiscal conservatives' and 'national security conservatives,' that

an administration would have to cater to (e.g., Babington, 2012; Obenhaus, 2009). While each

has an agenda that may not conflict with the other and may even provide mutual support in

limited circumstances and within limited timeframes, long-term cooperation, if possible, is the

result of much difficult political management. These two ideological forces are opposites like

those of Berlin's (1969) 'negative liberty' and 'positive liberty' straining against one another.

Economic liberalism rests in the realm of 'negative liberty,' meaning freedom from

interference. Economic liberalist history begins with the rise of neoclassical economics, which

emphasized rational, utility-maximizing individuals/economic actors that had complete or near


complete access to all relevant information in making choices – a human being called 'homo

economicus' (e.g, Bishop, 2004; Weintraub, 2007). Hayek (1944) then emphasized that the

market itself was the most rational actor within an economy. Friedman (1962) took this further,

declaring that the only thing necessary was to control the money supply and that there need not

be a 'level playing field' between actors in a market.

Many Nobel-winning economists rejected or put into serious doubt neoclassical notions

of homo economicus as any depiction of a real human being (e.g., Krugman, 2004; Sen, 1999;

Stiglitz, 2007). Despite this, mainstream economics moved towards 'new classical' economic

theory positing the individual/economic actor as 'thoroughly rational' through the adoption of

'rational expectations' theory and 'rational choice' theory (e.g. Becker, 1976; Muth, 1961; Hoover,

2008). By the late 1970s, and in the wake of economic recession, VAL (Values, Attitudes, and

Lifestyles) psychographic data showed that a majority of middle class swing voters in both the

United States and the United Kingdom had consciously decided that they were more self-

interested and amenable to economic liberalist ideas, though were not disposed to admit it

(Curtis, 2002). The Thatcher and Reagan election campaigns used the VAL data to effectively

garner the swing votes, appealing to an 'amoral' and 'apolitical' economically liberal voter.

Neoconservatism, as opposed to economic liberalism, rests in the realm of 'positive

liberty,' meaning freedom to 'destiny' or 'self-mastery.' It's based on what one thinks is 'noble' or

how society 'should be.' For the neoconservatives, this means constructing a myth or 'noble lie'

based on a nostalgic past. The goal being to create a community which unites under a fairly

strict moral code based on 'classic values,' which seem to be a mixture of classical philosophy,

Christian religion, and what could be called traditional values from the pre-war period (e.g.,

Smith, 2008).

Many of the founders of American neoconservatism were previously social liberals, but


had become disillusioned with the US stance on the Soviet Union. Their main objective was to

fight Communism or anything that did not fit with the 'American way of life.' In recent history,

it has been to fight terrorism in the Middle East or elsewhere. Whatever foreign policy is

supported, though, serves to unite a 'political' populace in addressing what it saw as an 'amoral'

and 'nihilistic' free market consumerist society on the domestic front (e.g., Curtis, 2004; Smith,

2008). From the neoconservatives point of view, economic liberalism, with its idea of 'homo

economicus,' poses a threat to the moral well-being of the nation.

The current financial crisis and most of the economic problems that have developed over

the past 30 years or so in relation to economic liberalism are clearly problems with capitalism

itself. The resulting environment has been one that has positioned at least three economic tool

kits to work from: neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxist (e.g., Flanders, 2012). Some Marxists,

though, point out that neoliberalism may be used as a kind of substitute for the problems of

capitalism, creating a picture that seems to exclude capitalism itself from scrutiny (Garland, &

Harper, 2012). As such, it seems the term has made it harder to point out that capitalism is one

economic reality, not 'the' economic reality.

Emphasizing the term neoliberalism as an apparent substitute for so many ideas limits

one's ability to effectively address the problems it is supposedly responsible for. Neoliberalism

as a term is contested, as is its range of speech acts, and this therefore “short circuits debate over

the term's meaning and proper application” (Boas & Gans-Morse, 2009, p. 155). For

sociolinguists and others to use the term to clump together the different ideas of economic

liberalism and neoconservatism, a vague image of an unrealized agent of power is created.

Neoconservatives have held power, and have a discourse that enables popular support for

that power, but neoconservative history shows that such power is fragile (e.g., Curtis, 2004;

Jackson, 2006). Hayek (1978) also believed that conservative social traditions and superstitions


could keep the masses content, but not in the political way that neoconservatives wish to push

their myth. While the neoconservatives strive for a politicized population, economic liberalists

do not trust such 'political' notions. For the multinational corporation, the provider of right-wing

material support, economic liberalism is the logical of the two ideologies to work from. This is

then the discourse that will dominate multinational corporations. The MNC, which becomes the

agent of a self-promoting economic liberalist discourse, has both real material and ideological

power, and in terms of pushing a language, has been the dominant influence.

The Multinational Corporation as the Dominant Global Institution

To understand how the language policies of the MNCs can cause language learning

decisions at the regional/national level to be misconstrued in terms of social welfare, it is

necessary to understand the material power of the multinational corporation as 'the' dominant

global institution and how this power can affect society. The MNC has been the greatest

beneficiary of neoclassical/new classical economic theory and the economic liberalist movement

(e.g., Nace, 2003; Curtis 2002). From this free market discursive defence, two factors have

significantly strengthened MNCs: their recognition under the law; and their subsequent influence

on governments and other transnational organization. This strength has grown to the point where

the policies of multinational corporations, such as language of operation, are duplicated

throughout society's other institutions as standards to adhere to.

The birth of the modern corporation started in the mid-1800s in Great Britain and the

United States through the introduction of 'limited liability' and the argument that a corporation

was a legal 'person' (e.g., Bakan, 2004; Nace, 2003). The corporation has since been defined as a

‘person’ under the law, with “its existence being constantly maintained by the succession of new

individuals in the place of those who die, or are removed” (Penner, 2001). It has become, in

effect, immortal with all the rights of a person, but devoid of such human qualities such as


empathy or sympathy. The individuals that work for the corporation have one primary objective

mandated: to earn as much money as possible for the shareholders. All other concerns could, per

the corporation’s legal obligations, be externalized (e.g., Bakan, 2004; Nace, 2003).

Toffler (1980) claimed that since the 19th century, industry has had at its core a mentality

of standardization, specialization, synchronization, maximization, concentration, and

centralization in an effort to achieve the greatest efficiencies. While these were discovered to be

both disruptive to human psychology and an over-simplification of 'efficiency', significant

changes to the basic system have yet to fully materialize. There is, then, a dislocation between

producer and stakeholders at large, leading to greater externalization within multinational

corporations. MNCs, as externalizing machines, weaken the ability of government to regulate

them, as governments must ultimately deal with the negative externalities.

Friedman (1970) states that corporations are not and should not be concerned with social

responsibility, as they are simply legal structures with clear mandates to serve their shareholders.

Social responsibility, he concludes, is up for the individuals within corporations to be concerned

with on an individual level. But, many CEOs themselves have complained that they are

restrained from acting as they feel they should due to the structure of the corporation (e.g.,

Bakan, 2004). As well, humans frequently create an illusion that what they feel forced to be part

of is actually best for society in order to keep their sense of dignity and self-worth (e.g., Fromm,

1969).

British Petroleum (BP), a large MNC, has consistently been under investigation because

of environmental disaster, worker safety violations, and corruption charges (e.g., Gaviria &

Smith, 2010). BP's reaction to governments' investigations and punishment is one of mostly

indifference. BP is also one of the British Council's Partners (British Council, 2012). If the

relationship between BP and the British Council is part of a project that is not one of social


responsibility, it is probably one narrowly defined according to BP's specific interest in making

money. But BP does not act anomalously in its activities according to how corporations are

structured (e.g., Bakan, 2004; Nace, 2003).

A 19-year study concluded that “large firms operating in dynamic, munificent

environments were the most likely of the firms studied to behave illegally, and firms with poor

performance were not prone to commit wrongdoing” (Baucus & Near, 1991, p. 1). To give an

example of what this means in dollars for one year, U.S. corporate fines were over $4.5 billion

for 2004 (Weinberg, 2004). As unsettling as these figures may be, the fact that corporations are

made to pay fines might suggest that states are in a position of power over corporations, and not

corrupted by any undue influence. But the evidence shows that corporations are, from a strategic

standpoint, dictating how their governments will treat them (e.g., Bonneau, 2011).

Today, there are close to 150 corporations controlling around 25 percent of global

revenue (Coghlan & MacKenzie, 2011). As the MNC's existence is technically allowed by the

state through charter, it is in its interest to seek to maintain control over governments (e.g., Nace,

2003). A 2011 article in the Guardian stated that there were nearly 13,000 registered lobbyists in

Washington spending $3.5 billion in 2010 (Harris, 2011). According to the Center for

Responsive Politics (2012), the biggest spenders are MNCs, or organizations representing

MNCs. Further, a working paper found that “the market value of an extra dollar spent on prior

period lobbying is roughly $200” (Hill, M. D., Kelly, G. W., & Van Ness, R. A., 2009, p. 3).

Lobbying has made it immensely difficult for corporate charters to be revoked or for

corporations to be effectively regulated (e.g., Bakan, 2004; Nace, 2003).

The MNC's lobbying efforts, either directly or through governments, then extend to other

international/transnational organizations/institutions in ways that increase their power and

profitability. The World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the


World Bank, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) are

examples of organizations that MNCs generally lobby with significant effect through their home

governments (e.g., CorpWatch, 1999; CorpWatch, 2000; Stiglitz, 2002). The corporate influence

on many governments and transnational institutions is material. It is this material power which

enables MNCs' language practices processes to influence target markets' language policies and

educational policies to fit that of the multinational corporation.

Corporate Language Practices and Processes

According to Phillipson (2008; 2009), there are two dimensions with regards to corporate

structuring of, and influence on, language policies. One that is political, where language policy

is general in formation. The other economic, where the actual language planning changes

depending on the context. Phillipson explains that both in a synergetic fashion lead to 'linguistic

capital dispossession' within the target markets, and that this is done via corporate agendas to

serve overall nationalistic goals. This is an idea that Phillipson has modified based on Harvey's

(2005) 'accumulation by dispossession.' But the idea that corporations are actually minions to

some greater project intent on linguistic capital dispossession seems questionable.

Looking at the operations of Siemens AG may provide an example of how MNCs deal

with in-house language policies. At over 350,000 employees, over $100 billion in assets, over

$70 billion in annual revenues, and operating in 190 countries, Siemens is an industrial giant

(Siemens, 2009; 2010). Siemens also shows little inherent difference from BP in terms of social

responsibility, and calculates breaking the law into their business decisions as standard practice

(New York Times, 2007). While not opposed to 'doing ill' as a large MNC, its language practices

and processes seem to follow a logical, profit-driven framework neither mandated from any

government nor with any particular intent towards those affected except efficiency in deriving

profits.


In its Czech Republic facilities, Siemens' in-house language policies reflect the socio-

cultural situations that exist while satisfying the flow of information along the greater hierarchy.

Manufacturing activities are conducted in Czech, while management communicates in either

German or English. The situation is monitored and language lessons in Czech, German, and

English are given where found necessary. At the global level, Siemens uses English as an in-

house language according to its perceived efficiency (Nekvapil & Nekula, 2006).

Blommaert (2010) supported the view that there is a 'polycentric' situation with regards to

how and why language policies are developed the way the are. Blommaert compared Siemens

use of language in an advertisement with that of a mainland Chinese company. From the

analysis, Blommaert deduced that “In the Siemens advertisement, the corporate world is a sphere

of its own, very much free and unconstrained in its movements in the global marketplace.”

Though, with the Chinese advertisement he concludes that “the voice of the state appears

alongside that of the new globalized elites” and that “the state is an active partner in corporate

culture in China”. There are, as Blommaert noted, “different forces at work in both” (p. 144).

China, though, is not an example of the 'normative' situation for corporate markets as in

North America or Europe, nor necessarily a desirable substitute with regards to the public good.

China's economy is based on state capitalism (e.g., Bremmer, 2012). State capitalism is 'a

project' directed from one dominant institution, the state. If the state is in partnership with

business in China, under the state capitalist model it is clear that the state is the undisputed

decision-maker in that partnership.

Referring to the Siemens example, we could say Phillipson's (2008; 2009) argument that

English use by corporations is determined by national agendas is actually the other way around.

The agenda of the MNC with regards to the areas they operate within differs from the varied

agendas of past imperialism. Marcuse (2000) noted that while states are certainly not powerless,


there may be an “abdication of state power” due to the fact that governments must “be

responsive to multiple interests and that particular interests regularly dominate the actions of

most” (p. 2). As mentioned perviously regarding the use of the term 'neoliberalism,' there are

actually two contradictory forces at work, economic liberalism and neoconservatism.

Importantly, though, it is the multinational corporation that has the overwhelming material

power. It is, then, the MNC that subordinates disjointed 'democratic' governments via their

lobbying power, and de-facto governs narrower more specific 'projects' as to how these

governments may or may not act according to each MNC's interest.

Phillipson (2008) speaks of 'Global English' being a project in that of “the normative goal

of English becoming the default language of international communication and the dominant

language of international communication” (p. 3). Though, within its zone of control, the MNC

will ultimately choose whatever language or languages increase its profitability and power to

sustain that profitability. As MNCs' shareholder make-up is increasingly becoming more varied

in nationality, there is a greater interest in developing language policies that are more efficient

than nationalistic (e.g., Reich, 2002). With 33 of the top 50 MNCs (in terms of revenue)

headquartered in English-speaking countries, it seems that the incentive therefore would be to

make internal standards and support international standardization of the international business

language to English (Coghlan & MacKenzie, 2011).

Standardizing English within international business begins a ripple felt through other

connected domains. Gray (2002) noted that “the rise of transnational corporations does much to

promote the spread of English” (p. 153). Gray gave an outline as to how “English is usually

adopted as a lingua franca” with regards to MNCs, and how this policy can then filter into the

hotel industry and higher education. It was also explained that English has not only become the

working language for international organizations such as the World Bank and IMF, etc., but also


the working language of international organizations opposed to the World Bank and the IMF, etc.

As for the ELT industry, Cameron (2002) stated that language teaching, “when carried out on a

relatively large scale, both requires and contributes to the process of language standardization”

(p. 79). There is, then, a significant push, as a 'product' rather than strictly a 'project' of the

MNC, in affecting how language learning decisions are formulated at the regional/national

levels.

How MNCs Affect Language Learning Decisions at the Regional/National Level

Language learning decisions are changing within different regions to suit English as a

lingua franca pushed by MNCs. Phillipson (2008) provided an example with the Bologna

Process currently under way to reform higher education in the European Union and beyond.

Phillipson pointed out that “degrees must be 'certified' in terms of the 'employability' of

graduates” according to the “acceptability of corporate imperatives” and that therefore higher

education instruction will be conducted “through the medium of English” (p. 19).

In Pakistan, Rahman (2007) stated that “The international corporate sector, bureaucracies

(such as the United Nations and the World Bank), foreign-funded NGOs, the service sector, and

the Internet predominantly use English” (p. 231). Rahman then went on to explain that the

pressure to learn English is enormous while efforts to preserve regional languages like Urdu are

minimal. But according to a poll of employees in 26 countries, people of higher income or

education were most likely to use English as a language of business (Michaud, 2012).

Therefore, an uncritical approach to learning English for 'social mobility' could create

unreasonable pressure on those outside the elite in societies to acquire something that may have

a relative value as social capital (e.g. Bourdieu, 1986; Bourdieu, 1991; Bourdieu & Wacquant,

1992). In other words, how well one knows English is only one factor in employment connected

to many other forms of social capital such as one's social connections.


Language policy planners and language learners in English periphery countries seem,

then, to go to extremes to acquire English as linguistic capital. Chew (2010) spoke of 'linguistic

migration', where Chinese and Korean 'study mothers' invest heavily in taking their children to

other countries in order to learn English. It was also shown that governments like Singapore

have dramatically pushed their populations to replace their L1 with English, all in an effort to

'compete' on a global level. Despite the stress this most likely imposes on a people who are so

pressured to learn a language, polls show that such learners overwhelmingly see English as a

necessary skill to be developed (Chew, 2007).

While Chew (2007) stated that a “global market economy requires that each country

carefully evaluates the language or variety that it thinks can serve its agenda best”, she also

noted that countries are pushed to use English as an L1 to gain a 'competitive advantage' and that

this “competition for work tends to generate a struggle against all, increasingly destroying the

value of solidarity and humanity” (p. 88). Japan of the previous era, and China of current, did

not build their trade surpluses on language ability. So why is it that regional and local domains

view English as 'global competitiveness' to the point of, what could seen as, a tendency to reduce

social welfare?

In considering English as a form of Bourdieu's (1986; 1991) linguistic, social capital,

English as a skill has become a 'positional good.' A positional good is an investment in which

judgements as to its value are based on a strong link between context and evaluation (e.g., Frank,

2005; Solnick & Hemenway, 1998). Positional goods therefore cause a negative externality, an

untended negative outcome, in terms of social welfare, as the costs do not relate to society as a

whole but upon a need to keep relative closeness between individual actors. Individual actors

are therefore driven to 'keep up' so as to protect their relative position. The negative externality

in terms of social welfare is created because that which is desired has a limited intrinsic value


but the demand for which continues to increase. This would be the case for English as a skill, as

the total demand is ever-increasing while the total marginal benefit for the skill is decreasing

(e.g., Grin, 2001). While there is a negative-sum result in terms of social welfare, individuals are

driven to keep up with ever-increasing standards or face less access to commonly perceived

economic and social status benefits.

The social welfare cost of English as a positional good is then exacerbated by

governments eager to satisfy a constituency steeped in corporate, economic liberalist ideology

and discourse (e.g., Curtis, 2002; Curtis, 2007; Miller, 2008). In periphery countries, language

learning decisions produced by government educational initiatives seem to be based on

increasing GDP per capita (e.g., Chew 2007; 2010). The dilemma these countries face is that

they, as most others, have become trapped in something known as the Easterlin Paradox (e.g., Di

Tella & MacCulloch, 2008). The Easterlin Paradox claims that happiness data does not correlate

with income levels. In spite of the fact that many economists have long argued against using

GDP per capita as a measurement of a country's success, GDP per capita continues to be used a

measure of social well-being by most governments (e.g., England, 1998; Stiglitz, Sen, &

Fitoussi, 2010).

The acceptance of GDP per capita as a measurement, and the failure of mainstream

economics to deal with the Easterlin Paradox, lies in its 'locked in' acceptance of economic

liberalist ideology and discourse (e.g., van den Bergh, 2009). This locked in notion of 'economic

truth' is, in turn, fed back to the populace as the justification for pushing government policies to

increase social welfare. Mainstream economic think tanks, as it so happens, are generally

supported by corporations as long as the ideology and discourse produced fits the corporate

model (e.g., Miller, 2008; Nace, 2003).

As the effects of MNCs language policies filter to the regional and local levels,


contradictions start to become apparent between the perceived value of English as linguistic

capital and the reality. Sociolinguists have found that there is a misconception among English

language learners to what extent the skill will afford them economic security. They put into

doubt the cost-benefit analysis language policy planners and language learners have made with

regards to acquiring English (e.g., Kaplan, Baldauf, & Kamwangamalu, 2011).

The case of Rakuten in Japan might show where distortions are becoming apparent

locally. Founded in 1997, its approach to language policy reflects the extremes of others who

locate themselves on the periphery of the 'English as linguistic capital' dynamic. It has decreed

that “corporate officers who do not become proficient in English in two years' time will be fired”

in addition to conducting most of its internal workings in English (Kuchikomi, 2010, p. 1).

While it is unclear whether Rakuten's measures are experimental or a long-term

commitment, there is much debate over the appropriateness of such an approach within that

regional business community itself. Honda, an MNC with a global presence and language policy

similar to that of Siemens, disagrees with Rakuten's extreme directives in language policy.

According to Honda's CEO, Takanobu Ito, “to be competitive in the global market really means

to be strategically flexible in all areas, including language use” calling Rakuten's language policy

“stupid” (Takahashi, 2012). And so, one might conclude that players on the periphery, even

younger MNCs, are also suffering from misconceptions as to the real value of English as capital.

Holborow (2012), when speaking of 'neoliberalism' as a social system and an ideology,

claimed that it is “said to have invaded discourse; at the same time, discourse is deemed to

reproduce and cement [itself]” (p. 14). As noted with the Easterlin Paradox, a feedback loop of

corporate discourse within MNC target markets that is growing of its own accord. Once this

discourse embeds itself within the varied institutions of the region or locality, it becomes even

further ingrained as 'common sense' throughout society. Though MNCs themselves may have


measured and calculated approaches to language policy, smaller entities and individuals are

susceptible to over-simplified conclusions and uneven access to information (e.g., Fromm, 1969;

Stiglitz, et al., 2010). English, as filtered via MNC language policy, becomes not only a standard

language for communication, but a standard for how to think.

Cameron (2002) stated that, as part of a 'new work order', MNCs “insist that employees

subordinate there own linguistic personae to a centrally-designed corporate linguistic personae”,

and that because of the dominance of anglophone MNCs, “norms of interaction are being

exported to other parts of the world” that are corporate norms (p. 81). Cameron makes clear that

“Finns do not run workshops for British businesses on the virtues of talking less” and “Japanese

are not invited to instruct Americans in speaking indirectly” (p. 70). Block (2002) built on this

and Toffler (1980) in that the MNC's need for standardization and a predictable efficiency has

been proliferated in language through a 'technologized' discourse structure known as 'negotiation

for meaning' (NfM). Block stated that “NfM is inherently enterprise-like in nature” and that it

“reduces human existence to the principles of efficiency, calculability, predictability,

controllability and standardization” (p. 132).

Therefore, this one way flow of constructing communication may not work well for the

localities that are affected. Coulmas (as cited in Holborow, 1999) made the case that language

users or learners also see language as serving the purpose of efficient and effective

communication. But what is efficient for the MNC and what is efficient as part of an individual's

sense of personal identity may be significantly different. Canagarajah (1999) concluded that

students feel divided between “threats of ideological domination experienced at an intuitive level

and the promises of a socio-economic necessity acknowledged at a more conscious level” (p.

174). If more instinctive desires for communication are not satisfied, we could determine that

there may be conflict within an individual leading to ultimately undesirable results. When, at a


French university, a French professor lectures economics to his French students in English, those

involved might very well question the sanity of it (Carvajal, 2007). Thus, for a region or locality

to base its language policies and educational policies on MNC language policies simply in

keeping with corporate discourse, it could be significantly 'inefficient' for increasing the overall

welfare for those in society.

McVeigh (2004) epitomized this when looking at Japanese learners of English, stating,

“Many develop an antipathy toward English, bred through preparing for demanding

examinations that focus on the intricacies of grammar. And yet many Japanese will declare their

devotion to mastering English in order to 'internationalize'” (p. 211). McVeigh also introduced a

model which separated 'Japan-appropriated English' from 'fantasy English', in which the former

detailed learners wanting instruction to help them pass exams and the latter described as a means

to help them 'internationalize' (McVeigh, 2002). Therefore, perceptions of English as linguistic

capital, while apparently beneficial to MNCs, may have heightened out of proportion to the

language's actual benefit to individual language learners, and to any institutional efforts to

further social well-being.

Discussion

Presently, it seems that the uninformed language learner is put potentially at risk of

formulating a failed concept of English as linguistic capital. If English is perceived to be

valuable as a relative, positional good in terms of social capital at an individual level, it is far less

valuable, even detrimental, in terms of improving social welfare. It is therefore necessary for

regional/national language policies to better reflect intrinsic, practical uses for a language such as

English. English study should not be connected to misguided notions of social well-being based

on GDP per capita. There must be a countervailing power that can resist the corporate led

ideology and discourse of economic liberalism. A more objective view based on overall social


welfare is needed as to how language learning decisions/policies should be formulated. This

would both better prepare language learners in thinking critically about English as linguistic

capital and serve to actually maximize social well-being in terms of happiness and life

satisfaction.

Canagarajah (1999) stated that, ultimately, a 'pluralized' English should be supported and

made to prosper in periphery societies in an ultimate reformation of the English language itself.

This would empower those in both the center and periphery of the English speaking domains.

What is needed as a foundation to this is an approach that is neither extreme to the point of

rejecting English as linguistic imperialism nor accepting it uncritically as a gateway to success.

The key in the negotiation of English amongst language learners lies in incentives and

data. Since English may be a positional good, governments should consider incentives that

reduce herd behavior in trying to acquire it as a skill. Secondly, just as the multinational

corporation is allowed access to data so that it can make what it considers 'efficient' choices on

language policy, so too should the language learner be afforded such access. Through incentives

to pursue the study of subjects that reflect the intrinsic values for society in pursuing social well-

being, and by counselling and providing data on the individual social capital value of English,

policy planners can better formulate language learning decisions that will lead to greater

maximization of individual happiness regardless of concern for index such as GDP per capita.

Though the overall 'center-periphery' theory of linguistic imperialism in terms of a

'neoliberalist' ideology does not seem valid per the conclusions of this paper, an indirect center-

periphery argument based on the direct/indirect dictates of corporate power do. Therefore,

pedagogical suggestions from thinkers such as Phillipson (2008) may be valuable. Most

appropriate are the suggestions to educate policy makers and strive to 'decolonize' the minds of

learners. Though, 'decolonization' should be done without the rhetoric that blames all our woes


on a phantom of 'neoliberalism.' This would be a convoluted argument that would more likely

lose than gain ground in the long-run. Rather, it is necessary to clearly identify the source of the

positional externality that English study poses. Those who have questioned the current

'neoliberalism', correct or incorrect in their conclusions, should be given respect for their

challenges. Nevertheless, the issues should be addressed logically, and we should avoid the 'lock

in' so many have done with nonsensical right-wing thought, be it economic liberalism or

neoconservatism.

Learning itself should not be something that is resisted by students. Humans are

naturally curious. If learning, though, becomes a positional good, then it has in many ways lost

its intrinsic value. As a teacher of English, I want my students to be involved in an activity that

they are driven to be a part of from a deeper level, much like that of Csikszentmihayli's (1997)

Flow Theory. This means that schools need to be free from what Toffler (1980) explained as a

standardization of society along corporate lines. Instead, multiple literacies and different entry

points should be allowed if only to give the students the feeling of agency in making learning

decisions rather than real agency itself. Such systems have been put into place in 'democratic

schooling' to some degree better than mainstream schooling (e.g., Neill, 1968). Here, students

were found by government observation to be highly motivated and focused on the activities that

they were engaged in.

An example of dealing with English as more of an intrinsic tool than one of misguided

social capital accumulation might be found in one of my students who works for a large

multinational corporation. The student entered the corporation with little English ability and

with little thought that they would ever pursue study of English. The student was chosen to work

at the MNC's international headquarters in Europe, based not on their language ability, but on

what work the student did best and what that student found most interesting in that job.


Although, it would seem in the above example that the MNC has no direct intent to create

an unnecessary drive for English, it took the student's ability to realize what intrinsically worked

in terms of satisfaction in order to make learning decisions based on clear criteria.

Unfortunately, this student's experience seems far from the norm. The study of English, from my

experience as an English teacher, works best when either the student finds it intrinsically

satisfying, or that it is part of a project that the student has decided on where the reward is clear,

near, and satisfying. If the students can't envision such a clear, intrinsic value from the activity,

which I see more often the younger the learner, the result seems counter-productive in terms of

even individual welfare.

Agency is something that should be dealt with carefully though. At times, I feel the drive

in ELT to supposedly empower students is ultimately disempowering for society, as the goal

itself may be based on a negative-sum gain for social welfare. It would be a mistake to instil

feelings of moral agency into an individual along the lines of feeling superior or inferior to

others because of what they may or may not have 'accomplished.' Thinking along the lines of

Rorty (1979), moral agency is problematic for society in the sense that it fosters the positional

externalities that we are trying to eliminate. It is a distraction from thinking logically how to

solve our problems.

It is too much of a burden, simply too inefficient and laden with error, to expect moral

agency of individuals. Using the term neoliberalism as a pejorative term is an example of this

kind of moral agency, and a failure to look carefully at and critique actual systems that need to

be changed. Instead, we as a society need to focus on systems that work best in removing

positional goods from our range of choices and use terms to this effect that will allow dialogue

across ideological boundaries. The stakes could not be higher. Education as a positional good

further alienates those within a society and societies themselves from one another (e.g., Frank,


2005; Reich, 2002). Through this process, one can lose empathy for those not in one's 'group'

and this leads to the great failings of humanity in terms of justice (e.g., Rawls, 1999). To prevent

or ebb this tide, there needs to be a focus on, or at least a significant inclusion of, what creates

intrinsic satisfaction in a learning decision, such as those of learning a language.

Conclusion

This paper has examined how the language policies created within MNCs can cause

misconceptions in language learners as to what linguistic capital English can afford them.

Considering the heightening of 'competition' around the globe along economic liberalist lines,

this is an important issue to address in avoiding systemic failure in education policy.

The first section of this paper dealt with the concept of neoliberalism, showing that in

trying to combine ideologies such as economic liberalism and neoconservatism, the dominance

of corporate discourse may be overlooked. The second section then described how the MNC has

become the dominant global institution today, and has been positioned to indirectly push

language learning decisions. The third section then examined how language policies made by

these powerful MNCs are proliferated and filtered throughout society as a perceived international

standard. The fourth section highlighted how this perception of English as an international

standard can lead to misconceptions as to the social welfare value of the language and

counterproductive language policies within other institutions. Finally, the paper ended with a

discussion of possible responses to the influence of multinational corporations on language

learning decisions and education in general.

This paper examined to what extent the language policies of multinational corporations

influence those formulating language policies within other institutions at various levels. The

evidence suggests that the language policies created within multinational corporations create

misconceptions as to the value of languages such as English in the formulation of language


learning decisions and initiatives in other institutions. In effect, language learning decisions are

being shaped, albeit indirectly, to cater to the interests of multinational corporations. Therefore,

the study of English has in it high potential of being a negative, positional externality harmful to

social welfare if not that of the individual. Manias, such as the mania to learn English described

in the first paragraph of this paper, should be looked at carefully and with concern. Certainly,

unexamined demand should not be allowed to dictate how or why educational policies and

initiatives are developed.


References

Babington, C. (2012, August 26). Analysis: Akin row shows GOP's social-fiscal rift. Associated

Press. Retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-akin-row-shows-gops-social-

fiscal-rift-172535636.html

Bakan, J. (2004). The corporation. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Baucus, M. & Near, J. (1991). Can illegal corporate behavior be predicted? An event history

analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 1-28.

Barnett, C., Clarke, N., Cloke, P., & Malpass, A. (2008). The elusive subjects of neo-liberalism:

Beyond the analytics of governmentality. Cultural Studies, 22, 624-653.

Becker, G. S. (1976). The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Berlin, I. (1969). Two concepts of liberty. In Isaiah Berlin (Ed.), Four essays on liberty (pp. 1-

32). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Bishop, M. (2009). Essential economics. New York, NY: Bloomberg Press.

Block, D. (2002). 'McCommunication'. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and

language teaching (pp. 117-133). New York, NY: Routledge.

Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Boas, T. C., & Gans-Morse, J. (2009). Neoliberalism: From new liberal philosophy to anti-liberal

slogan. Studies in Comparative International Development (SCID), 44, 137-161.

Bonneau, J. L. (2011). Combating foreign bribery: Legislative reform in the United Kingdom

and prospects for increased global enforcement. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law,

49, 365-410.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and


research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York, NY: Greenwood.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Bremmer, I. (2012). Every nation for itself: Winners and losers in a G-zero world. New York,

NY: Penguin.

British Council. (2012). Our track record [Data file]. Retrieved from

http://www.britishcouncil.org/partnerships/track-record

Brown, W. (2006). American nightmare: Neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and de-

democratization. Political Theory, 34, 690-714.

Cameron, D. (2002). Globalization and the teaching of 'communication skills'. In D. Block & D.

Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 67-82). New York, NY:

Routledge.

Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press.

Carvajal, D. (2007, April 10). In many business schools, the bottom line is English. The New

York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/world/europe/10iht-

engbiz.2.5212499.html?pagewanted=all

Center for Responsive Politics. (2012). Lobbying: Top spenders [Data File]. Retrieved from

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s

Chew, P. G. (2007). Remaking Singapore: Language, culture, and identity in a globalized world.

In A. Tsui & J. Tollefson (Eds.), Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts

(pp. 73-93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chew, P. G. (2010). Linguistic capital, study mothers and the transnational family in Singapore.


In V. Vaish (Ed.), Globalization of languages and culture in Asia: The impact of

globalization processes on language (advances in sociolinguistics) (pp. 82-102). London,

UK: Continuum.

Coghlan, A., & MacKenzie, D. (2011, October 24). Revealed – the capitalist network that runs

the world. The New Scientist. Retrieved from

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-

that-runs-the-world.html

CorpWatch. (1999, September 1). World: Multinationals and the World Trade Organization.

Retrieved from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=329

CorpWatch. (2000, September 1). World Bank fact sheet. Retrieved from

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=444#imf

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life.

New York, NY: Basic Books.

Curtis, A. (Producer). (2002). The century of the self [Television series]. United Kingdom: BBC

Four.

Curtis, A. (Producer). (2004). The power of nightmares: The rise of the politics of fear

[Television series]. United Kingdom: BBC Two.

Curtis, A. (Producer). (2007). The trap: What happened to our dream of freedom [Television

series]. United Kingdom: BBC Two.

Di Tella, R., & MacCulloch, R. (2008). Gross national happiness as an answer to the Easterlin

Paradox? Journal of Economic Development Economics, 86, 22-42.

Edge, J. (Ed.). (2006). (Re-)locating TESOL in an age of empire. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave

Macmillan.


England, R. W. (1998). Measurement of social well-being: Alternatives to gross domestic

product. Ecological Economics, 25, 89-103.

Fairclough, N. (2006). Language and globalization. New York, NY: Routledge.

Ferguson, J. (2010). The uses of neoliberalism. Antipode, 41, 166-184.

Flanders, S. (Producer). (2012). The masters of money [Television series]. United Kingdom:

BBC Two.

Frank, R. H. (2005). Positional externalities cause large and preventable welfare losses. The

American Economic Review, 95, 137-141.

Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its

profits. The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from

http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-

business.html

Fromm, E. (1969). Escape from freedom. New York, NY: Avon Books.

Garland, C., & Harper, S. (2012). Did someone say neoliberalism?: On the uses and limitations

of a critical concept in media and communication studies. tripleC: Communication,

Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information

Society, 10, 413-424.

Gaviria, M. & Smith, M. (Writers), & Mangini, T. (Director). (2010). The spill [Television series

episode]. In M. Gaviria, & M. Smith. (Producer), Frontline. Boston, MA: WGBH.

Gray, J. (2002). The global coursebook in English language teaching. In D. Block & D. Cameron

(Eds.), Globalization and Language Teaching (pp. 151-167). New York: Routledge.

Grin, F. (2001). English as economic value: Facts and fallacies. World Englishes, 20, 65-78.

Harris, P. (2011, November 20). 'America is better than this': Paralysis at the top leaves voters


desperate for change. The Guardian. Retrieved from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/20/paralysis-in-us-politics-extremism

Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hayek, F. A. (1944). The road to serfdom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Hayek, F. A. (1978). The constitution of liberty. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Hill, M. D., Kelly, G. W., & Van Ness, R. A. (2009, January 19). Determinants and effects of

corporate lobbying. Retrieved from http://faculty.bus.olemiss.edu/rvanness/Working

%20Papers/Lobbying.pdf

Holborow, M. (1999). The politics of English. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Holborow, M. (2012). Neoliberal keywords and the contradictions of an ideology. In D. Block, J.

Gray, & M. Holborow (Eds.), Neoliberalism and applied linguistics (pp. 33-55). New

York, NY: Routledge.

Holborow, M. (2012b). What is neoliberalism? Discourse, ideology and the real world. In D.

Block, J. Gray, & M. Holborow (Eds.), Neoliberalism and Applied Linguistics (pp. 14-

32). New York, NY: Routledge.

Homolar-Riechmann, A. (2009). The moral purpose of US power: Neoconservatism in the age of

Obama. Contemporary Politics, 15, 179-196.

Hoover, K. D. (2008). New classical macroeconomics. In The Concise Encyclopedia of

Economics. Retrieved from

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/NewClassicalMacroeconomics.html

Jackson, R. (2006). Genealogy, ideology, and counter-terrorism: Writing wars on terrorism from

Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush Jr. Studies in Language & Capitalism, 1, 163-193.

Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification, and sociolinguistic realism: The English language

in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world:


Teaching and learning the language and literature (pp. 11-30). Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, R., Baldauf, R., & Kamwangamalu, N. (2011). Why educational language plans

sometimes fail. Current Issues in Language Planning, 12, 105-124.

Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. New York, NY: Picador.

Krugman, P. (2004). The great unraveling: Losing our way in the new century. New York, NY:

W. W. Norton & Company.

Kuchikomi (2010, July 19). Rakuten's decision on English not welcomed by everyone. Japan

Today. Retrieved from http://www.japantoday.com/category/kuchikomi/view/rakutens-

decision-on-english-not-welcomed-by-everyone

LaHaye, L. (n.d.). Mercantilism. In The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Retrieved from

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Mercantilism.html

Marcuse, P. (2000, July 1). The language of globalization. Monthly Review. Retrieved from

http://monthlyreview.org/2000/07/01/the-language-of-globalization

McVeigh, B. (2002). Japanese higher education as myth. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

McVeigh, B. (2004). Foreign language instruction in Japanese higher education: The humanistic

vision or nationalist utilitarianism? Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 3, 211-

227.

Michaud, C., (2012, May 16). English the preferred language for world business: Poll. Reuters.

Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/16/us-language-

idUSBRE84F0OK20120516

Miller, D., & Dinan, W. (2008). A century of spin: How public relations became the cutting edge

of corporate power. London, UK: Pluto Press.

Muth, J. F. (1961). Rational expectations and the theory of price movements. Econometrica:


Journal of the Econometric Society, 315-335.

Nace, T. (2003). Gangs of America: The rise of corporate power and the disabling of democracy.

San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Nekvapil, J. & Nekula, M. (2006). On language management in multinational companies in the

Czech Republic. Current Issues in Language Planning, 307-327.

Neill, A. S. (1968). Summerhill. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.

Obenhaus, M. (Writers), & Mangini, T. (Director). (2009). Ten trillion and counting [Television

series episode]. In M. Obenhaus, G. Tenenbaum, & T. Yellin. (Producer), Frontline.

Boston, MA: WGBH.

Peck, J., Theodore, N., & Brenner, N. (2010). Postneoliberalism and its malcontents. Antipode,

41, 94-116.

Penner, J. E. (2001). Corporation. In Mozley and Whiteley's law dictionary 12th ed. (pp 83-84).

London, UK: Oxford University Press.

Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Phillipson, R. (2008). The linguistic imperialism of neoliberal empire. Critical Inquiry in

Language Studies, 5, 1-43.

Phillipson, R. (2009). Linguistic imperialism continued. London, UK: Routledge.

Rahman, T. (2007). The role of English in Pakistan with special reference to tolerance and

militancy. In A. Tsui & J. Tollefson (Eds.), Language policy, culture, and identity in

Asian contexts (pp. 219-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Reich, R. B. (2002). I'll be short: Essentials for a decent working society. Boston, MA: Beacon

Press.


Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Siemens. (2009). Annual report 2009. [Data file]. Retrieved from

http://www.siemens.com/investor/pool/en/investor_relations/e09_00_gb2009.pdf

Siemens. (2011). Key figures Q4 and fiscal 2011 [Data file]. Retrieved from

http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-q4/2011-q4-

financial-statement-e.pdf

Smith, D. G. (2008). From Leo Strauss to collapse theory: Considering the neoconservative

attack on modernity and the work of education. Critical Studies in Education, 49, 33-48.

Solnick, S. J., & Hemenway, D. (1998). Is more always better?: A survey on positional concerns.

Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 37, 373-383.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York, NY: W. W. Norton &

Company.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2007). Making globalization work. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A. K., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2010). Mismeasuring our lives. New York, NY: The

New Press.

The New York Times. (2007, January 25). Siemens investors grill management on bribery

charges. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/business/worldbusiness/25iht-

siemens.4348710.html

Takahashi, K. (2012, July 22). English at work in Japan. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from

http://www.languageonthemove.com/recent-posts/english-at-work-in-japan

Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York, NY: William Morrow & Co., Inc.

Tsui, A., & Tollefson, J. (2007). Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts.


Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

van den Bergh, J. C. (2009). The GDP paradox. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 117-135.

Walker, J. (2009, February). Jay Walker: The world's English mania. [Video file]. Retrieved from

http://www.ted.com/talks/jay_walker_on_the_world_s_english_mania.html

Weinberg, A. (2004, July 15). Wall Street fine tracker. Forbes.com. Retrieved from

http://www.forbes.com/2002/10/24/cx_aw_1024fine.html

Weintraub, E. R. (2007). Neoclassical economics. In The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.

Retrieved from http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/NeoclassicalEconomics.html

MAP - Language Policies - pdf

Documents