talleyberry

Translanguaging: The Basics

Translanguaging is “the deployment of a speaker’s full linguistic repertoire without regard for watchful adherence to the socially and politically defined boundaries of named (and usually national and state) languages” (Otheguy, et al., 2015, p. 281). While translanguaging involves the use of multiple languages by a single speaker, it differs from the more familiar code-switching in that it focuses on the speaker and the speaker’s linguistic competence, rather than the named languages the speaker uses. As we will see, implementing a translanguaging pedagogy requires that teachers adopt a translanguaging stance, design classroom activities to support translanguaging, and practice flexibility in the learning environment (García, Johnson, and Seltzer, as cited in Burton & Rajendram, 2019, p. 25).

Translanguaging: Foundations and underlying issues

Principles

Translanguaging and multilingualism

Translanguaging was originally conceived as “a bilingual pedagogy that alternates language modes. The input is in one language while the output is in the other language” (Hungwe, 2019, p. 3). As we will see in our discussion of recommended translanguaging practices, it has expanded to include other ways to leverage multiple languages within the classroom. Translangaging “enable[s] and empower[s] bilingual learners and teachers to engage in knowledge construction through flexible use of their linguistic repertoire” (Garcia & Li, 2018, p. 5). Because this approach views all of students’ language resources additively as potential resources for the making of meaning, leaners may benefit from translanguaging “irrespective of what named languages they know” (Garcia & Li, 2018, p. 5).

Li and Luo (2017) borrow a metaphor from Ofelia Garcia to describe this understanding of bilingualism.

… García (2009b) argues that bilingualism is “not monolingualism times two” (p. 71), “not like a bicycle with two balanced wheels,” but like an all-terrain vehicle (ATV). She explains that like the wheels of an ATV “extend and contract, flex and stretch, making possible, over highly uneven ground, movement forward that is bumpy and irregular but also sustained and effective” (p. 45), teachers and students respond to different classroom contexts through fluid choices of linguistic tools from their linguistic repertoire to fulfill classroom tasks. The notion of one linguistic repertoire is central to the concept of dynamic bilingualism (García & Li Wei, 2014). 

Li & Luo, 2017, p.141

Theoretical Foundations

Translanguaging reflects a post-structuralist approach to language. Crucially, this approach views individuals’ linguistic repertoires not as lists of discrete named languages at higher or lower degrees of proficiency but as dynamic toolboxes which may be used wholly to make meaning and to which new features are continuously added. A translanguaging approach to an ESL class full of Spanish speakers, for instance, means including all the meaning-making skills individual students can bring to bear, not just allowing the use of two languages in the classroom. Translanguaging pedagogy “transcends socially constructed boundaries of language systems and structures to engage diverse multiple meaning-making systems and subjectivities” (Garcia & Li, 2018, p. 5).

Translanguaging pedagogy views both language and learning as socially situated. Learners use the linguistic resources within their own repertoires and those of the people around them. From this Vygotskyan perspective, we understand that students “will benefit from engaging socially in groups where teachers or more knowledgeable peers can guide their learning” (Li & Luo, 2017, p. 141). A translanguaging approach removes obstacles to the social interaction that leads to learning.

Underlying issues

Translanguaging has found popularity within the English as a Second Language community, which serves a growing population of students whose languages, cultures, and ways of knowing are often undervalued and excluded from the classroom. A translanguaging pedagogy recognizes the essential role of a learner’s context in language learning. “Literacy is not only related to children’s histories, but to the dynamics of the social, cultural, and institutional contexts that help define its context” (Moll, et al., 2001, p. 447). By adopting a translanguaging pedagogy, teachers empower students to engage the breadth of the linguistic and cultural repertoires at their disposal.

Translanguaging is therefore an expression of multiliteracies pedagogy, which “views literacy as a functional practice that is socially, culturally, and politically situated” (Cárdenas & Ponzio, 2021, p. 84). In a multiliteracies pedagogy approach, “minoritized and marginalized communities and their literacy practices are recognized” (Cárdenas & Ponzio, 2021, p. 84). Translanguaging pedagogy fits within this approach by supporting students’ different ways of communicating and different ways of knowing. Our multilingual students’ experiences–their linguistic and cultural backgrounds–are hugely diverse. A multiliteracies approach recognizes that their ways of knowing are to be valued, and translanguaging recognizes their languages as the medium through which they have understood the world. It brings those languages into the classroom to mediate their new cultural and linguistic learning. As Cervantes-Soon et al. argue, translanguaging serves “not only…as scaffolding tools, but also mediate[s] and disrupt[s] deficit cultural understandings” (cited in Cárdenas & Ponzio, 2021, p. 95).

Translanguaging: Why is it important?

The benefits of translanguaging include both academic outcomes and affective development.

Academic Benefits

The academic benefits of a well-implemented translanguaging strategy may be numerous. Burton and Rajendram identified the following:

• building background knowledge
• promoting a fuller understanding of the subject matter
• developing higher order thinking skills
• building metacognitive ability
• engaging learners in identity investment
• interrogating linguistic inequality (2019, p. 26).

Social and Affective Benefits

Wright (2019) identifies “four purposes of translanguaging that work together to advance social justice:

1. Supporting students as they engage with and comprehend complex content and texts
2. Providing opportunities for students to develop linguistic practices for academic contexts
3. Making space for students’ bilingualism and ways of knowing
4. Supporting students’ bilingual identities and socioemotional development” (p. 99)

Like Wright, Sahr (2020) demonstrates that the academic and social benefits of translanguaging pedagogy can be mutually reinforcing. Translanguaging “contributes to the development of a more assertive identity…Translanguaging can contribute to both the empowering of students and to their development of self-confidence. Students in [Sahr’s] study demonstrated a deep understanding of the new content they were learning. They used translanguaging to include other students, demonstrate their knowledge and co-construct meaning and mediate understanding among each other” (p. 70).

Translanguaging: In context

English as a Second Language

Translanguaging is popular in ESL contexts, where it can be used to offer primary (home) language support for English learners. Burton and Rajendram report that it is particularly well suited to this context: “Translanguaging as a pedagogical practice has also been shown to be advantageous specifically for second language (L2) learning, for example, by enabling cross-linguistic transfer, promoting collaborative language learning, and helping students develop a more critical understanding of language and culture” (Burton & Rajendram, 2019, p. 26).

Translanguaging in combination with other approaches

Translanguaging pedagogy can also be combined with best-practice general education approaches, such as Lucy Calkins’s writing workshops. In a study of students in such a classroom, Cárdenas and Ponzio write, “…the teacher mediated background knowledge and vocabulary as part of the writing process…she provided linguistic and disciplinary knowledge needed to write [a particular form]…teachers can build a culturally-sustaining writers’ workshop to support emergent bilingual learners’ language development and writing practices.” (2021, p. 79). Teachers who implement writing workshops or the genre approach to writing should be encouraged to adopt translanguaging practices within their programs, especially where those programs include speakers of other languages.

Translanguaging to lower students’ affective filters

Translanguaging’s benefits to students’ affective posture can help teachers engage students in challenging circumstances. In a study of Thai learners of English in one-on-one tutoring sessions, Kampittayakul observes that lowering students’ affective filters by adopting a translanguaging stance benefits their development of interactive competence. “[I]nteractions depend on two people: a teacher and a learner,” she writes. “It is, therefore, critical that the teacher and the learner interact (2018, p. 107). She emphasizes this strategy’s benefits may be especially important for remote-learning students, suggesting that “translanguaging be brought into transboundary education to develop [interactive competence] among distant learners, who need the interactive participation” (2018, p. 108). Of course, in person, too, translanguaging is a powerful tool for engaging multilingual learners, who benefit from seeing their language skills as a complete (if growing) multilingual system unique to them, rather than as a collection of incomplete—or even defective—monolingualisms.

Translanguaging: Recent Research

According to Wright, research “has consistently revealed ways that the home languages of ELLs are effectively leveraged in the classroom” (2019, p. 304). He points to a study conducted by Sayer in a 2nd grade classroom “in which students were able to move fluidly between English and Spanish and between the standard and vernacular varieties…this environment helped students make sense of content and language learning and helped to legitimize the students’ identities as bilingual Mexican Americans” (2019, p. 305). He describes how he has used Khmer to accelerate the math learning of students from Cambodia.

Likewise, Sahr’s study of multilingual (English and Spanish) learners of German, mentioned above, concludes that translanguaging is effective in both academic and social goals. “It can be said that a translanguaging pedagogy was useful in creating a classroom environment that was conducive to learning. Similarly to other translanguaging research this study shows translanguaging as a successful strategy to promote language acquisition and as a strategy to integrate and include students” (2020, p. 70).

In addition to being used to promote learning, translanguaging pedagogy can also be used to measure learning. Huangwe (2019) writes that it is effective “to enhance comprehension of academic texts” as well as to “guage comprehension of reading material” (p. 7).

Wright cautions against unthoughtful use of translanguaging, or creating “translanguaging free-for-all zone.” Some activities, such as concurrent translation, are simply ineffective for promoting students’ English development (2019, p. 305).

Translanguaging: Activities and Recommendations

For teachers interested in trying a translanguaging approach in your own classrooms, there is much to think about.

Core Components

García, Johnson, and Seltzer have described three “core components of a translanguaging pedagogy…:

• a) a translanguaging stance, which is the belief that the diverse language practices of students are valuable resources that should be used in the classroom;
• b) a translanguaging design, which involves the design of strategic plans (e.g., lesson plans, assessments) that are informed by students’ diverse language practices; and
• c) translanguaging shifts, which require the ability to make moment-by-moment changes to the lessons according to students’ needs” (as cited in Burton & Rajendram, 2019, p. 25).

While shifts possibly require the most skill on the part of the teacher, design will be the immediate concern for any teacher hoping to start implementing translanguaging, so let us look into ways to design a translanguaging classroom.

Designing a translanguaging space

Li and Luo suggest three key steps to building a translanguaging class:

1. Construct collaborative/cooperative structures
2. Collect varied multilingual and multimodal instructional resources
3. Use translanguaging pedagogical practices (Li & Luo, 2017, pp. 156–157)

The first point reminds us to maintain a student-centered orientation, include higher-order thinking skills in our classroom activities, and group students with what Moll calls the “Bilingual Zone of Proximal Development” (as cited in Li & Luo, 2017, p. 156) in mind. The second point means that teachers will have to spend time and effort creating appropriate multimodal materials for the translanguaging goals of their particular classrooms (see discussion of Seals, et al., below). They might also leverage the internet, authors who translanguage, or resources from students’ families and communities (Li & Luo, 2017, p. 157). The third point reminds us to actually include in our instructional time activities that encourage students to translanguage. Li and Luo quote a list of ideas from Garcia and Kleyn: “allowing students to make presentations; reading aloud to the class in their home languages or bilingually; providing translations of lesson objectives, key vocabulary, directions, and concepts; and allowing students to do science or social studies instead of only reading about it” (Li & Luo, 2017, p. 157) (see more from Wright below).

Creating translanguaging materials

Seals et al. (2020), discussing translanguaging in English Maori, provide a three-part framework for creating translanguaging materials.

1. The materials need to build vocabulary across languages – where a phrase or idea occurs in one language, it must also occur somewhere else in the other language.
2. There must be repetition of ideas intersententially but also fluidity intrasententially. 
3. Three types of translanguaging should be used: translanguaging for self-repetition (repeating oneself but using a different language each time); continuous segmental translanguaging (moving between languages intrasententially; and cross-speaker interactional translanguaging (a second speaker building upon a first speaker’s utterance but doing so in a different language from the first speaker) (Seals, et al., 2020, p. 123).

Translanguaging Pedagogical Practices

Wright (2019) provides an extensive list of translanguaging activities. Various of these activities will be appropriate for students at different ages and different language proficiency levels and must be thoughtfully implemented:

• Use Preview-Review
• Give Quick L1 Explanations during Whole-Class or Small-Group Instruction
• Give Quick L1 Explanations for Individual Students
• Pull Students Aside to Re-teach Concepts
• Read Aloud Books in the Home Language That Reinforce Concepts Taught in English
• Accept Students’ Contributions in Their Home Languages During Class Discussions
• Label the Classroom in English and the Students’ Home Languages
• Create Instructional Wall Displays in Home Languages
• Engage Students in Cognate Word Study Lessons
• Use the Home Language to Support Writing in English
• Provide Bilingual Dictionaries and Mobile Translation Apps
• Accept Initial Writing in Students’ Home Language as They Transition to English Writing
• Read-Aloud Home Language Versions of Books Used in Class
• Provide Home Language and Dual Language Books for At-Home Reading Programs
• Send Home Letters in the Students’ Home Languages
• Allow Students to Help Each Other
• Use Computer Software and Internet Resources
• Seek Blingual Parents or Community Volunteers (2019, pp. 306–313)

Translanguaging: Criticism

Criticism in the research literature

Translanguaging approaches are not without their critics. Some are concerned that translanguaging approaches tend not to be implemented well by their practitioners. In one study of teachers’ perceptions, “EFL teachers’ perceptions were not akin to their practices. Although they held positive views about translanguaging in some particular situations, they did not frequently employ this pedagogy due to the expectations of their institutions, colleagues and parents of their students” (Yuvayapan, 2019, p. 678). Clearly, some language teachers feel societal pressure not to permit language mixing in the classroom.

Other writers express misgivings about the translanguaging terminology. According to Seals et al. (2020), “[T]ranslanguaging is sometimes criticized in academic spheres as simply being ‘codeswitching by another name” (p. 127).

Janet Holmes has written, “I do not see that this term [translanguaging] offers more than could be encompassed by the well-established term ‘code-switching’ (Seals & Olsen-Reeder, 2019, p. 10).  She acknowledges that translanguaging highlights “dynamism and fluidity,” but points out that the work of John Gumperz on code-switching had similar goals (Seals & Olsen-Reeder, 2019, p. 10).

Finally, opponents of bilingual education in all forms are unlikely to condone translanguaging practices. English language advocates ProEnglish claim that bilingual education “does not lead to faster or better learning of English…[d]oes not lead to better learning of school subjects, and…[d]oes not produce higher self-esteem in students” (ProEnglish, 2022).

My own concerns

EFL vs. ESL contexts

Translanguaging may be less useful for language teachers working in an EFL (or other foreign language) context. The majority of the literature on translanguaging approaches it from an ESL perspective. In such second-language contexts, while we still have to make sure we provide students with a large amount of comprehensible input, their presence in a community that speaks their target language means that we have to worry less about providing any input at all. In an EFL context, however, incorporating L1 use into the classroom runs the risk of harmfully reducing students’ already limited exposure to L2 input. On the other hand, a review of recent research conducted by Shin et al. (2019) suggests that “judicious and intentional use of L1” may be beneficial to “maximize L2 learning” (p. 406). Tang (2002) similarly concludes that “limited and judicious use of the mother tongue in the English classroom does not reduce students’ exposure to English, but rather can assist in the teaching and learning processes (p. 41). It may seem impossible L1 use could be done without reducing total exposure to L2, but it is plausible that using L1 for pre-teaching concepts or streamlining the process of giving instructions might increase over all the amount of comprehensible L2 input students receive.

We have seen that a benefit of translanguaging is its potential for empowering students and developing a more assertive cultural identity (Sar, 2020, p. 70), often including pride in first languages that may be devalued in ESL contexts. Translanguaging in EFL (and other foreign language) contexts, however, seems to lack this benefit; an L1 is less vulnerable to being devalued where it is the dominant language. Wherever these non-academic benefits of translanguaging are absent, teachers must be especially careful that their adoption of a translanguaging pedagogy does effectively serve academic purposes beyond making the teacher’s life easier.

“Dressing for the job you want” but like…with language

A further concern is that students are sometimes expected to perform on other monolingual (e.g., standardized) assessments. Translanguaging pedagogy may improve learning outcomes so that students are better prepared for such assessments, but it does not directly prepare them for the monolingual assessment procedures still common in interviewing and standardized testing nationwide. Li and Luo argue that policymakers “should reconsider [the] monolingualism that dominates standardized assessments in the US” (2017, p. 158), but until that happens, it will be true that a translanguaging classroom’s practices are mismatched with students’ assessment experiences.

Similarly, there is no shortage of workplaces and academic institutions that maintain monolingual ideologies. These spaces may encourage strict separation of named languages and view students’ translanguaging and code-switching tendencies as bad habits.

References

Akbar, R. S. S., & Taqi, H. A. (2020). Translanguaging as an ESL learning strategy: A case study in Kuwait. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(6), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v9n6p54

Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Multilingual Matters.

Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5). 585–614. DOI: 10.1177/1461445605054407 

Burton, J. & Rajendram, S. (2019). Translanguaging-as-resource: University ESL instructors’ language orientations and attitudes toward translanguaging. TESOL Canada Journal, 36(1), 21–47. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v36i1.1301 

Cai, Y., & Fang, F. (2022). TESOL in transition: Examining stakeholders’ use of and attitudes toward translanguaging and multimodal practices in EFL contexts. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 19(1), 7–33. DOI: 10.30397/TJTESOL.202204_19(1).0001 

Cárdenas Curiel, L., & Ponzio, C. M. (2021). Imagining multimodal and translanguaging possibilities for authentic cultural writing experiences. Journal of Multilingual Education Research, 11(6), 79–102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5422/jmer.2021.v11.79-102

Dougherty, J. (2021). Translanguaging in action: Pedagogy that elevates. ORTESOL Journal, 38, 19–32. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1305313.pdf

EAL Journal. (2016, July 26). What is translanguaging? EAL Journal.  https://ealjournal.org/2016/07/26/what-is-translanguaging/

Ferris, D., & Hedgcok, J. (2014). Teaching L2 composition: Purpose, process, and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203813003

Fu, D. (2009). Writing between languages: How English language learners make the transition to fluency, grades 4–12. Heinemann.

Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Wiley-Blackwell.

García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan.

Garcia, O., & Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging. In Chapelle, C. A. (Ed.). The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. John Wiley & Sons. DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1488

Huangwe, V. (2019). Using a translanguaging approach in teaching paraphrasing to enhance reading comprehension in first-year students. Reading & Writing – Journal of the Reading Association of South Africa, 10(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/ 10.4102/rw.v10i1.216 

Kampittayakul, T. (2018). The role of translanguaging in improving Thai learners’ interactional competence in dyadic English as a Foreign Language tutorial sessions. PASAA, 56, 80–111. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1224429.pdf

Lee, C. C. (2019). Invite their languages in: Community-based literacy practices with multilingual African immigrant girls in New York City. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 21(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v21i2.1800

Li, S., & Luo, W. (2017). Creating a translanguaging space for high school emergent bilinguals. The CATESOL Journal, 29(2), 139–162. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1164350.pdf 

Moll, L. C., Sáez, R., & Dworin, J. (2001). Exploring biliteracy: Two student case examples of writing as a social practice. Elementary School Journal, 101(4), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1086/499680 

Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281-307. 

Sahr, A. (2020). Translanguaging practices of multilingual learners of German. Athens Journal of Education, 7(1), 49–76. https://doi.org/10.30958/aje.7-1-3

SEAL (2018, September 18). Bilingual/dual language education – Families [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmMcqRiym-g

Seals, C.A., & Olsen-Reeder, V.I. (2019). Embracing Multilingualism across Educational Contexts. Victoria University Press.

Seals, C. A., Olsen-Reeder, V., Pine, R., Ash, M., & Wallace, C. (2020). Creating translingual teaching resources based on translanguaging grammar rules and pedagogical practices. Australian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.29140/ajal.v3n1.303 

Shin, J. Y., Dixon, Q. L., & Choi, Y. (2019) An updated review on use of L1 in foreign language classrooms. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 41(5), 406-419. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1684928

Taner, G., & Balıkçı, G. (2022). EFL Teachers’ opinions on the use of L1 in L2 classrooms: Role of experience and context. Focus on ELT Journal, 4(1), 74-90. https://doi.org/10.14744/felt.2022.4.1.6

Tang, J. (2002). Using L1 in the L2 classroom. English Teaching Forum, 37(2), 36-43. https://americanenglish.state.gov/files/ae/resource_files/02-40-1-h.pdf

Tanış, A., Harman Şensoy, F., & Atay, D. (2020). The effects of L1 use and dialogic instruction on EFL writing. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 1–21. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1256980

Wright, W. E. (2019). Foundations for teaching English language learners: Research, theory, policy, and Practice. Caslon. 

Yuvayapan, F. (2019). Translanguaging in EFL classrooms: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(2), 678–694. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1220799.pdf

Zhang, Y., & Jocuns, A. (2022). From natural translanguaging to planned translanguaging: Developing classroom translanguaging as pedagogy in a private university in China. Arab World English Journal, 13(1), 313–329. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol13no1.20 

Zhou, X., & Mann, S. (2021). Translanguaging in a Chinese university CLIL classroom: Teacher strategies and student attitudes. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 265–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2021.11.2.5 

I know what Cristiano Ronaldo really wants. At least, I think I do.

The former Manchester United winger and current Real Madrid superstar is the subject of constant speculation. Will he return to England or stay in Spain? Will he eventually move to MLS?

A lot of the speculation focuses on Cristiano’s motivations. Fans in Manchester dare to dream every time a Sunday rag claims the Portuguese still loves United. Madridistas, on the other hand, take solace from reports that he’ll finish his career with the club he grew up supporting. I believe the key to Ronaldo’s future is a more concrete motivation:

Cristiano Ronaldo thinks it’s possible for him to finish his career as the leading all-time goalscorer at both Manchester United and Real Madrid. Which means he may be eying a move back to Manchester as soon as August.

Continue reading “Is This Cristiano Ronaldo’s Ultimate Goal?”

I’m six months late, but I’ve just read this Forbes editorial by Tim Worstall. And I’m very confused.

Why I’m Confused

The article is about Paul Krugman’s take on the IMF’s take on inequality’s effect on growth. One way inequality affects growth is by reducing opportunities for the poor to use their talents. I’m going to quote Mr. Worstall at length here, so you can understand the source of my confusion:

Yes, it’s most certainly true that the poor in the US (most especially the urban and African American poor) do not have the same opportunities to make use of their talent. But this is a comment upon the disastrous state of the urban education system rather than anything else. That a system can have pupils for 12 years, spend $11,000 a year on each and every one of them on average, and still have people coming out of said system functionally illiterate and innumerate means that there’s something very wrong indeed inside that system. It’s not a lack of resources here, other school systems in other countries do very much better on much less money. Heck, the parochial school system inside the US does better on less money. Given that those inner city school systems are, and have been for decades, controlled by the sort of lefties who complain about inequality I’d say there’s some soul searching rather overdue there myself.

So, since urban schools spend a lot with little to show for it, there’s no “lack of resources” holding back the urban poor. And, of course, schools outside such poor areas do much better.

Wait…what?

Isn’t the fact that schools in poor areas struggle to achieve results no matter how much money they spend a very strong argument in favor of the idea that the poverty of the students themselves is what’s preventing them from reaching their full potential? How likely is it that the same “something very wrong indeed” just happens to present itself only in schools attended by impoverished students? There is not, to my knowledge, a unified “urban education system” that coordinates the efforts of its leftie controllers across America’s poor regions. And do those miraculous “school systems in other countries” happen to be located in places that do a better job of keeping their citizens above the poverty line?

Mr. Worstall seems to be forgetting that we’re talking about inequality rather than spending, which I can only assume is a favorite bogeyman of his (oh…quite). Poor kids are held back by the lack of resources that hangs over every aspect of their lives, not by academic under- or over-spending. That’s the problem with the poverty prevalent in unequal societies, of course: it creates obstacles too great for a bit more school spending per student to overcome. And that’s what Tim Worstall is – inadvertently – telling us about inequality.

Why Else I’m Confused

As an aside, I’m also confused about the article’s “important point.” Here’s Mr. Worstall:

And thus we reach our important point. Yes, it’s true, excessive inequality can damage economic growth. Yes, reasonable measures to reduce inequality can increase economic growth. But most industrialised countries are already above that level and it’s really only the US that is particularly below it. And even for the US there’s not all that much room to do more in inequality reduction before we do start damaging economic growth. Another 3 points off the gini perhaps is possible.

Ah. So we should really be talking about this specifically in the context of America. What did Professor Krugman actually say?

This (emphasis mine):

American inequality has become so extreme that it’s inflicting a lot of economic damage.

And this:

Think about it. Do talented children in low-income American families have the same chance to make use of their talent — to get the right education, to pursue the right career path — as those born higher up the ladder? Of course not.

And this:

Will the new view of inequality change our political debate?

And this:

And government programs that reduce inequality can make the nation as a whole richer.

So which nation does Mr. Worstall think Professor Krugman is talking about? I’m confused.

The European Central Bank finally announced today a 1.1 trillion euro program of quantitative easing (buying private bonds in addition to government bonds). It may not be enough, and the ECB won’t be getting much additional (fiscal) help from European governments.

Though ECB president Mario Draghi famously promised two years ago that the body he leads would do “whatever it takes” to save the euro, the consensus seems to be that today’s announcement comes too late to prevent a prolonged period of trouble for Europeans. Even this larger-than-expected round of QE will be hard-pressed to stave off the clear and present deflationary danger that necessitated it.

Of course, though the new monetary measures may fall short of alleviating that danger, European governments aren’t likely to budge from their hard line against fiscal intervention. Angela Merkel recently came out in favor of economic distres…er, pressure. And today Draghi himself said, “It would be a big mistake if countries were to consider that the presence of this program might be an incentive to fiscal expansion.” That’s despite historically low borrowing costs and high unemployment in large swathes of Europe.

We Americans should be careful about throwing stones, though. In a similar position for the last few years, we’ve also been relying on unorthodox monetary policy instead of fiscal stimulus. And as far as I know, the Europeans don’t even have the benefit of regular bridge collapses to point them toward a potential use of stimulus funds.

The two big problems with using QE instead of fiscal measures to revive consumption/inflation at the “zero lower bound” are that 1) it’s inefficient, and 2) it tends to exacerbate inequality.

They’re related problems. Since QE usually involves a central bank pumping money into the economy by buying private bonds from large corporations, the immediate beneficiaries are the wealthy (as this famous-but-not-terribly-nuanced video demonstrates). Hence its inefficiency; the wealthy are much less likely to spend additional income than the poor. It should already be clear now why it promotes inequality, unless you’re still practicing voodoo after all these years.

But for now quantitative easing is Draghi’s only viable option in Europe. The reason liberal economists like Paul Krugman support QE, despite its flaws, is that it’s probably better than nothing. Let’s hope so, for the Continent’s sake.

Oh, and speaking of Professor Krugman, here’s Draghi’s blunt reasoning for warning against fiscal measures: they “would undermine confidence.” Expecting a Confidence Fairy blog post in 3…2…1…

Yesterday, I clicked hopefully on a link reading “Obama and Cameron: Prosperity Is Key To Defeating Terrorism.” President Barack Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron had penned a coöp-ed in the Times (UK). The piece is headlined “We won’t let the voice of freedom be muzzled,” which is an interesting choice from a president often accused of cracking down on press freedoms and a prime minister who is currently calling for an end to privacy on the internet. But more interesting to me was the subtitle:

“Safeguarding our way of life depends on economic strength and standing up to terrorism and international aggression.”

Though the second half is standard-issue meaningless tough talk, that “economic strength” set my heart aflutter. Had these two powerful world leaders finally concluded that Islamic terrorism’s primary cause was neither violence inherent to Islam nor barbarism native to Middle Easterners but the region’s explosive mixture of poverty, hopelessness, and youth unemployment? Would we be cutting spending on our mind-bogglingly massive defense budget and battling future terrorism by reinvesting it in a global pro-education, anti-poverty fund?

No, of course not. Here’s what they actually wrote: “We reaffirm our belief that our ability to defend our freedoms is rooted in our economic strength.”

In other words, we need to focus on making sure our own wealthy nations stay wealthy so we can keep pouring money into whack-a-mole military solutions.

Sigh.

The past year, everyone has been talking about the rise of inequality in the world, and in the United States, over the past few decades. In 2015, the richest .01 percent of Americans own over 11 percent of the country’s wealth.

But another .01 percent has been in the news today, although I haven’t seen the number put in such terms, as guns (~33,000) are likely to have recently surpassed automobiles (~32,000) in number of Americans killed per year. 33,000 is, of course, slightly more than .01 percent of 320,000,000, the population of the United States.

It’s obviously not a coincidence of any statistical significance, but it’s still interesting to note that America is either violent enough or unequal enough (or both) that the same number of people are shot to death yearly as own more than a tenth of the country’s wealth.