An Economic Exploration of Bilingualism, Part One

As an Anglo resident of Montreal, I have gotten to know the city in my three years here as a student. Known as the “cultural capital” of Canada, Montreal is one of the most diverse metropolises in the world. The city has a rather complex demographic history, largely with Anglophone and Francophone residents sharing the island-city through most of its existence. Power and influence has shifted between the English and French since the colonial era, with the Anglophones occupying the business and social elite until a massive cultural shift–the Révolution Tranquille–resulted in the Francophonization of Quebec in the 1960s and 1970s. Today, roughly 60 per cent of Montrealers are native Francophone; Anglophone Montrealers constitute a mere 13 per cent.

Despite these shifts, Montreal is a shining example of bilingualism: Anglophone residents are 80 per cent bilingual and their Francophone counterparts are 51 per cent bilingual. Overall, Montreal is 52 per cent bilingual–the highest rate in Canada.

Economics is the primary driver of the phenomenon: actors make decisions based on perceived value.

tgtgtg

In 1993, Jeffrey Church and Ian King constructed a simple model of the economics of bilingualism, which led them to conclude that network externalities and the cost of learning a new language made it more efficient for a linguistic minority to become bilingual. This model suggests that it is more efficient for Anglophone Montrealers to learn French than it is for their Francophone counterparts to learn English. Unsurprisingly, the number of bilingual Anglophone Montrealers exceeds that of bilingual Francophone residents by a sizable margin. Many Montrealers are bilingual, however, despite one’s origin and considering over half of Francophones identify as bilingual–especially younger Francophone individuals–there must be an omitted variable.

A study published by the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2012 notes that Anglophones in French-majority cities assimilate less than Francophone individuals in English-majority cities, which may provide some insight into language diversity in Montreal. English is the lingua franca of the world, for example, and although Francophone residents can sustain themselves in Montreal using solely the French language, the economic incentive to learn English is substantial, especially for those with career prospects abroad. Bilingualism, however, is becoming a standard requirement for obtaining employment in Montreal’s service sector. Moreover, both English and French speaking Montrealers have a variety of incentives to adopt bilingualism and Quebec’s education system makes learning either language quite easy.

In essence, Church and King’s model explains why it is more efficient for Anglophone Montrealers to learn French, whereas the interconnectedness of Montreal with the English-speaking world creates an incentive for Francophone Montrealers to learn English. Alternatively, Montreal’s role as an economic hub that connects to the English-speaking world is a primary driver of the city’s unique bilingual nature: economic incentives outweigh cultural sentimentality.

Montreal has developed a cosmopolitan culture unlike the rest of Quebec, which enhances its standing as a multicultural hub and economic nexus. It certainly should stay that way.

Leo Plumer is an AIMS on Campus Student Fellow who is pursuing an undergraduate degree in economics and political science at McGill University. The views expressed are the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies

Revitalizing Atlantic Canada

Writing for Free Exchange allowed me to examine a multiplicity of issues facing Atlantic Canada and the following are some that I have found to be of paramount importance.

The most prominent issue in Atlantic Canada is slow economic growth, which has resulted in an enormous outflow of skill labourers, young professionals, and families who have left for British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan to find work. Economic growth rates in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island, for instance, have fallen below the national average of 2 per cent in 2013. Newfoundland and Labrador, which is currently booming due to oil production, is somewhat of an exception, however, declining revenues threaten to derail the province’s path to prosperity. In addition, the three Maritime Provinces experienced declining populations in 2013.

NL’s growth is largely attributable to strong oil and gas production, which has been growing in the province since the mid-2000s. The rest of Atlantic Canada could benefit from NL’s model and the region may need to look toward the oil and gas sector. New Brunswick currently boasts an opportunity to host the Energy East Pipeline and has a prospective shale gas industry. Other opportunities include increased cooperation or shared services between the three Maritime Provinces and exploring trade prospects with emerging markets.

Another problem facing the region, and the entire country, is unfunded liabilities. In other words, public sector pensions are a significant issue that plagues both federal and provincial government. This is where Atlantic Canada can lead: New Brunswick and Nova Scotia both made changes to their pension programs and the rest of Canada could learn from their progress.

In addition, Canada’s healthcare system requires additional consideration and policymakers must look into issues plaguing it. Through the Canada Health Transfer, the federal government allocates funds to the provinces to assist them with growing wait lists, quality assurance, and a number of other issues. However, progress has been futile. The federal government has given $41 billion in additional healthcare funding since 2004, yet, in 2010, Canada ranked last out of 11 countries in terms of wait times. This is why policymakers should consider alternatives to the status quo.

There are also serious democratic issues facing the country. The Senate remains unelected and unaccountable, and the Supreme Court’s recent ruling inscribed the current structure in stone. Its ruling does not need necessarily indicate defeat, though, and the Prime Minister, in addition to supporting premiers, must take the lead and ensure reform to the Upper Chamber.

While many Canadians may agree that these issues are of great importance, there must be action. We often criticize the political sphere for not dealing with these issues adequately, however, the truth is that we, as electors, must show that they are a priority or politicians will not give them due consideration. It is our duty to ensure that ideas, such as natural resource development, prudent fiscal management, and adequate healthcare, receive fair scrutiny, rather than arbitrarily dismissing them from the outset; it is our duty as citizens to place them on the political agenda.

Randy Kaye is a 2013-2014 Atlantic Institute for Market Studies’ Student Fellow. The views expressed are the opinion of the author and not necessarily the Institute

Reforming Canadian Healthcare

The provinces are responsible for administering and delivering healthcare in Canada and while provincial jurisdiction may appear odd, it was not of major concern when the Fathers of Confederation ratified the British North America Act in 1867. Following several years of debate, however, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council declared the provinces responsible for administering and provisioning healthcare. The federal government is responsible for public health, in addition to providing healthcare to certain groups, including First Nations, Inuit, military personnel, and federal inmates. It does provide funding to the provinces via the Canada Health Transfer, which is supposed to assist them with costs and ensure some degree of equivalency between provincial healthcare systems.

Former Saskatchewan Premier Tommy Douglas, widely recognized to be the “Father of Medicare,” fought ardently for the implementation of a publicly funded healthcare system. In 1962, one year after his departure from provincial politics, Saskatchewan began providing public healthcare and, shortly thereafter, so too did Alberta. Former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, in 1958, announced the federal government would fund 50 per cent of provincial healthcare, and eight years later, then Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson ratified this motion.

As a result, Ottawa’s role in healthcare funding is controversial and has been a major policy issue in Canada. Indeed, without federal funding, there would be significant disparities among the provinces in terms of quality, yet, despite these concerns, healthcare innovation is provincial jurisdiction.

The debate over federal funding remerged following the expiration of the Canada Health Accord, established in 2004 under Paul Martin’s tenure as Prime Minister of Canada. It guaranteed six per cent annual increases in funding for healthcare and was supposed to help with deficiencies, such as high wait times. Stephen Harper’s government recently committed to a six per cent increase until 2017, after which the government will fund based on inflation-adjusted economic growth (although the level of funding will not fall below 3 per cent). This development has prompted critics to demand the government return to guaranteeing the six per cent increase, arguing that underfunding issues could worsen the system, and more worrying, allow new issues to emerge.

However, despite funding increases, very little has changed in terms of quality. Kelly McParland of the National Post, for instance, notes the lack of progress in reducing wait times. Moreover, citing the Health Council, he noted that homecare services for seniors are inadequate, primary care is insufficient, and prescription drugs are unaffordable. For example, as reported by the National Post, the federal government has given $41 billion in extra healthcare funding since 2004, yet in 2010 Canada ranked last of 11 countries in wait times.

McParland is not the sole critic. Indeed, there are several reports revealing the shortcomings of Canada’s healthcare system given the amount of money spent on it. Funding, therefore, is not necessarily the issue. There needs to be real reform of the Canadian healthcare system: Ottawa should retain its role, however, the provinces must consider new healthcare models as a means of strengthening their programs. Perhaps the first step ought to be reforming the Canada Health Act to be less restrictive in terms of delivery requirements. The Act requires that healthcare be publicly administered, greatly restricting any partnership with private entities. France, on the other hand, embraces a two-tier system, which typically performs highly in comparison to healthcare systems administered by other rich, democratic countries, in terms of both cost and outcome.

Randy Kaye is a 2013-2014 Atlantic Institute for Market Studies’ Student Fellow. The views expressed are the opinion of the author and not necessarily the Institute