While I live in a country where English is an official language, I am surprised by how few people truly possess a comfortable mastery of it. Notwithstanding more and more call centers, generally poor functional English proficiency in the Philippines has been a stylized fact for the past decade or so (not to mention the observation that acceptance/hiring rates in these call centers remain very low). What gives?
If my limited economic intuition is right, then this situation can be described as:
1. A market failure;
2. Or a consequence of the Philippines' limited exposure to globalization.
The "language problem" can be characterized as a market failure because of the inability to accurately reflect demand and supply for English in the workplace. (In this instance, we can think of firms and households as being on the "demand" side, and schools representing "supply.")
On the demand side:
1. Firms and households underestimate (intentionally or otherwise) their need for English fluency.
- I don't know of anyone or any study having estimated a peso magnitude for productivity arising from good English skills, so in the absence of such a number, many individuals mistakenly presume that bad English can be remedied "on the job," or with sufficient exposure to formal work correspondence. The costs of training those who are not skilled in the language and the inefficiencies from employing those weak in English usage are ignored--because of an ever-present (?) sufficient number of those who, with their skill, can compensate for or shoulder such costs. (There's also the issue of foregone opportunities from having a wider segment of the work force using English as a currency of ideas.)
2. As a result of (1), workers and potential hires with clear spoken/written English advantages are not provided the right incentives.
- The absence of powerful financial and social premiums to English fluency despite its clear importance (at least from a business process outsourcing standpoint) means there is every reason not to invest in improving English instruction or individually make an effort to improve on using the language. (In fact, it may even be said that in some social circles, being good in English is a deterrent to effective communication.)
(1 and 2 underpinned by a belief that English fluency should be a given among college graduates, when it is not.)
Again, why are these happening? Turning 1 on its head, perhaps there really is no need for those in the domestic labor force to be good English speakers and writers; maybe our ways of working have effectively decoupled, at least linguistically, from the rest of the world-- like Japan and China. That could be seen as a boon--except for the fact that much of the knowledge directly useful to the labor market is not in Filipino. (Plus the fact that, by most metrics, we are really not viewed in the international community as an important country.)
A few more econ notes:
1. The "supply" of good English users, while limited, is renewable, and as noted, produces favorable externalities that benefit even those with no immediate use or penchant for it--curiously, because proficient English users in the Philippines often happen to be the best in expressing themselves in the vernacular. (Coincidence? Maybe not. Clarity is primarily a function of systematic thinking, so we should able to universally perceive and appreciate good exposition/explanation, regardless of language; it could be that what we are faced with is not merely a language skills gap, but a fundamental epistemology problem--the discontinuity and inability to synchronize between our "thinking" language and our "expressing" language, or a basic deficiency in critical/conceptual thinking.)
2. Since this English situation can also be seen as an inequality problem, why not "subsidize" English teaching (with small and smart rewards in the classroom) and, conversely, "tax" correct but frivolous/context-inappropriate English use (via subtle penalties)? Here, the idea of "nudges," as advocated by behavioral economists like Cass Sunstein, could be most useful.
3. How can we reconcile the utility of English literacy with compelling, empirical results pointing to improved understanding of math and science via instruction in the vernacular? Again, nudges: doing away with having younger students learn the more technical aspects of Filipino grammar so more time could be spent for technical skills instruction in the native tongue (treating Filipino as a useful "default"); mandating all official documents be produced in both English and Filipino; targeting poor communities for "reinforced" English learning initiatives and the opposite for the more affluent segments of society.
