Abstract
CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 3
3.10 ECONOMIC EXPLANATIONS
In the study done by Venter (1994: 324) we draw relationships from language and planning insights that explain the significance of economic policies and language policies. He gives a full explanation that “economic explanations have also been advanced to explain the neo-implementation of South Africa‟s language policy and plan as envisioned in the constitution. Heugh (1995: 329) posit, “language policy is often a reflection of a more complicated set of relationships between overt political ideology and politics of the economy”. To compound matters, it is not just the political economy of a particular country that would affect that country‟s language policy. The hegemony of the Western free- market economy is such that it influences the economies of the third world. The
Western economy is also very often accompanied by linguistic racism which places a high status on English (for example) and a lower status on other languages.
Referring to the South African language policy and planning implementation dilemma, Heugh (1995: 46) observes that, “in the era of globalization, there are larger structural forces at play, which influence international and domestic economic and development policies. These forces are generally antithetical to multilingualism”. Advancing the economic explanation further, Kamwangamalu (2001) identifies two economic variables that contribute to non-implementation of South Africa‟s language policy and plan - financial constraints and market forces.
In this regard, Kamwangamalu (2001: 417) submits that, “financial constraints have made it difficult for PANSALB to execute its constitutional mandate to promote multilingualism”. As far as market forces are concerned, there is no sustained demand for multilingual skills in African languages for academic, economic, administrative and employment purposes.
Heugh (1995: 45), continues to explain that “the economic explanation to the non-implementation of South Africa‟s language policy and plan only manages to provide half answers to the implementation dilemma and is not sustainable under close scrutiny, especially when contrasted against particular South Africa‟s fiscal and macro-economic facts and public strategic planning principles in general”.
According to Strydom (2001: 81), “the Western economic hegemony cannot be used to justify the non-implementation of South Africa‟s language policy and plan”. Supported by Cling (2001: pp.84-85), “South Africa‟s fiscal policy and macro-economic policy as encapsulated in the Growth, Employment And Redistribution Programme (GEAR), unlike those of other developing countries, do not rely on donor finances for their implementation”. Developed with the assistance of the World Bank, GEAR displays all the characteristics of a structural adjustment programme, albeit of a different scope.
As it did take a loan from the IMF as soon as it came to power, the South African government has subsequently systematically refused to appeal to the Bretton Woods institutions. This loan totalling US$850 million was intended officially to finance food imports. It has never been used and was reimbursed in full in 1998.
The implementation of South Africa‟s social and development policies is basically financed by domestic finances. Therefore, Western economic hegemony cannot satisfactorily be used to explain the non-implementation of South Africa‟s language policy and plan.
The issue of financial constraints also cannot be used to satisfactorily explain the non-implementation of South Africa‟s language policy and language plan as envisioned in the constitution. With the launching of the „National Language Policy Framework: Implementation Plan‟ (2003) the government projected financial commitment over a Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) period of three years (2001/ 2002 – 2004/ 2005). It was a total of R379 349 732.00 for national government departments, R143 952 304.00 for language policy implementation by the provinces and an estimated R 18 243 510.00 for each language unit established in each government department (DAC, 2003:
pp.22-23). These projected allocations point to a commitment by government to provide financial resources for the implementation of South Africa‟s language policy and language plan as envisioned in the constitution. What is clearly lacking is a framework by means of which government departments can deploy the projected financial resources for the realization of the National Language Policy Framework”.
It was further explained that “the governments social and economic policies geared towards redressing the structural realities of a dual economy that is a product of centuries of inequalities in South Africa”, Cling (2001: 7). Terreblanche (2002: 97) also aims at market stabilization so that “there are economic transfers across economic enclaves in the country”. It is coincidental that the economic inequalities in South Africa mirror the language demographics of the country with
speakers of the previous two official languages (English and Afrikaans) enjoying far much better economic status than speakers of previously marginalized languages.
He concludes by saying that, “the constitution envisioned language policy and plan could be one way in which the government can actively stabilize market forces with regard to languages in South Africa, by creating a demand for previously marginalized languages, and in the process redress the structural realities of a dual economy”. The idea is that through government intervention in the „market‟ for language skills, demand for language skills in the previously marginalized languages can be raised. What is lacking therefore is a coherent framework by means of which the government can intervene to create a „market‟
for language skills in the previously marginalized languages and integrate skills in these languages into mainstream macro-economic undertakings.