Language, education and ethnicity: whose rights will prevail in an age of globalisation?

Education and ethnicity cannot be discussed without taking language into account. This paper will argue that any discussion of ethnic minorities cannot ignore the question of language, nor can any discussion of human rights ignore the question of language rights. Unfortunately, in today's globalised world, governments and minorities are faced with conflicting pressures: on the one hand, for the development and use of education in a global/international language; on the other for the use and development of mother tongue, local or indigenous languages in education. Language complexity and ethnic plurality were largely brought about as a result of the creation of nation-states, which were spread around the world as a result of European colonialism. European languages and formal education systems were used as a means of political and economic control. The legacy that was left by the colonial powers has complicated ethnic relations and has frequently led to conflict. While there is now greater recognition of the importance of language both for economic and educational development, as well as for human rights, the forces of globalisation are leading towards uniformity in the languages used, in culture and even in education. They are working against the development of language rights for smaller groups. We are witnessing a sharp decline in the number of languages spoken. Only those languages which are numerically, economically and politically strong are likely to survive. As a result many linguistic and ethnic groups are in danger of being further marginalised. This paper will illustrate this thesis both historically and from several contemporary societies, showing how certain policies have exacerbated ethnic conflict while others are seeking to promote harmony and reconciliation. Why this should be so will be explored. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Explaining the 'health check' of the Common Agricultural Policy: budgetary politics, globalisation and paradigm change revisited

Three potential explanations of past reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) can be identified in the literature: a budget constraint, pressure from General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/World Trade Organization (GATT/WTO) negotiations or commitments and a paradigm shift emphasising agriculture’s provision of public goods. This discussion on the driving forces of CAP reform links to broader theoretical questions on the role of budgetary politics, globalisation of public policy and paradigm shift in explaining policy change. In this article, the Health Check reforms of 2007/2008 are assessed. They were probably more ambitious than first supposed, although it was a watered-down package agreed by ministers in November 2008. We conclude that the Health Check was not primarily driven by budget concerns or by the supposed switch from the state-assisted to the multifunctional policy paradigm. The European Commission’s wish to adopt an offensive negotiating stance in the closing phases of the Doha Round was a more likely explanatory factor. The shape and purpose of the CAP post-2013 is contested with divergent views among the Member States.

Globalisation and the evolution of international retailing: a comment on Alexander's 'British overseas retailing, 1900-1960'

Nicholas Alexander's (2011. British overseas retailing, 1900–60: International firm characteristics, market selections and entry modes. Business History, 53, 530–556) survey of British overseas retailers from 1900 to 1960 provides pathbreaking new evidence of international retailing activity during the first globalisation boom. The article surveys this and other recent evidence, and confirms that international retailing was far more significant up to 1929 than previously thought. This activity was overwhelmingly undertaken by non-retailers, however, and hence by multinationals whose advantages in retailing were fundamentally unsustainable over the long run. Even the department store format, the principal retail innovation of the period, was not internationalised primarily by multinationals. Rather it was diffused via indigenous entrepreneurs, driven by a rapidly growing global demand for western style fashion and dress.