Construction of English language skills as human capital and ELT as development aid in Bangladesh

ABSTRACT

The discourse of English Language Teaching (ELT) development aid for the Global South has undergone significant changes since its introduction in the post-WWII period. Specifically, in the contemporary context of globalisation, both the aim and operation of ELT aid exhibit the influence of neoliberalism. This article examines policy documents about the introduction and implementation of a UKaid-funded development project in Bangladesh called English in Action to understand the forces and ideologies which guided the donor and project implementers to subscribe to instrumentalist discourses in relation to ELT as development aid. Drawing on decolonial perspectives, notably, the idea of ‘geopolitics of knowledge’, the article contributes to our understanding of the politics of the neoliberal discourses of English constructed through contemporary ELT development aid projects by illustrating how such discourses of English and development may hide coloniality through the promotion of Euro-centric epistemological approaches as a universal solution to global problems.

KEYWORDS:

• ELT development aid
• English in Action
• discourse
• human capital development
• neoliberalism
• Bangladesh

Introduction

Discourses of human capital (i.e. employment-relevant embodied skills) have become ubiquitous as a result of neoliberalism, which promotes market logics in all spheres of society, including education (Block, 2018). The dominance of neoliberalism has placed individuals and their skills at the centre – in an effort to accelerate productivity, income and growth to build a society free from poverty (Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Harber, 2014). The instrumental/utilitarian role of English as a global lingua franca has been emphasised by national policy makers and international aid agencies within such an environment (Erling, 2017; Ong, 2006). As the English language provides the linguistic infrastructure for globalisation (Hamid, 2016), proficiency in English is considered critical for human capital development (Ali & Hamid, 2021). It is often argued that proficiency in English will increase individuals’ employability due to the demand for the language in the context of rising global trade and commerce (Eyres et al., 2019). Against this backdrop, international aid agencies and development partners have promoted English language teaching (ELT) in the form of development aid for developing nations (Coleman, 2017; Erling, 2017). Externally funded ELT projects are construed as development intervention to bring about positive changes in English language teaching which is expected to bring societal changes. ‘Changing learning, changing life’ is an illustration of this micro-level intervention leading to macro-level change (Hamid & Jahan, 2021).

Although the origins of ELT development aid are linked to the post-war development agenda for decolonised nations (Crack, 2020), since the start of the twenty-first century, the goal of ELT aid has been aligned with more recent global development frameworks such as the United Nations’ (UN) Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (see Coleman, 2017; Eyres et al., 2019). The shift from the earlier goal of macro-economic and infrastructure development to human capital development has influenced the way ELT aid agencies have come to represent the English language. There is a clear shift in the ideology of English language learning – from viewing it mainly as an educational and intercultural pursuit to human capital development. The English language learner is now framed as an aspect of capitalist enterprise – human capital – who can potentially contribute to their own economic future and the future of their society (Erling, 2017). ELT aid assumes that there is a strong ‘relationship between English and economic and social development’ (Hamid & Jahan, 2021, p. 553), as proficiency in English as a form of human capital can be marketed in employment (Cameron, 2012). The idea of language as human capital, capable of enabling individual productivity and income, has led international agencies to invest in ELT in the context of poverty alleviation and international development. This investment is guided by human capital theory which states that investment in human capital (in this case, communication skills in English) works as an antidote to poverty (Erling, 2017; Sayer, 2015).

This article examines a large-scale international ELT project called English in Action (EIA 2009-2018) in Bangladesh to develop a better understanding of how proficiency in English is construed as human capital in the context of development aid in a globalised world. This £50 million mega-project was funded by UKaid through the British government’s Department for International Development (DFID), currently renamed Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). The project was implemented by a consortium of three international agencies (Cambridge Education, Open University UK and BBC Media Action) and two Bangladeshi NGOs (Non-Government Organisations: Under-privileged Children’s Education Programme, and Friends in Village Development in Bangladesh). EIA aimed to ‘change the economic future of millions of Bangladeshis by helping them develop English language proficiency’ (Hamid & Jahan, 2021, p. 552). Thus, while EIA’s goals of contributing to Bangladeshi society and economy are explicitly spelled out, not much is known about the underlying logics and the ideological forces that guided the implementation of the project in Bangladesh.

Therefore, we critically examine EIA policy documents including EIA reports as our data to identify key discourses surrounding the introduction, implementation and expected outcomes of the project. In doing so, we aim to understand the ideologies and forces which underpinned EIA. Our analysis reveals that EIA was guided by neoliberal ideologies and market forces such as commodification, individualisation, and competition in pursuing the development agenda legitimated by its affiliation with MDGs and SDGs (see also Erling, 2017). These findings suggest that ELT as development aid is undergirded by a broader political economic agenda. Such aid, as our findings indicate, broadly aims for human capital development in developing societies as part of extending the market logics to education as part of global capitalism (Kerr, 2009). As our analysis indicates, EIA’s broader political and economic agenda is evident in its efforts to foster local infrastructure development for human capital formation through the development of local experts with global dispositions, and the involvement of local NGOs and private media in the promotion of the globally mobile instrumentalist English language education policy trends.

Such an agenda has important implications both in terms of the structural demand for the English language created by global capitalism and the epistemological directions through which language choice, policy, and language learning and teaching practices operate, reflecting neoliberal ideals (Ali & Hamid, 2022). The structural demand for English is an example of colonial conditionalities promoted through neoliberal globalisation (Ong, 2006), created through what Quijano (2000) calls the ‘coloniality of power’, which is based on Eurocentric rationalities. Such a patten of power ‘erased the possibility of even thinking about a conceptualisation and distribution of knowledge ‘emanating’ from other (i.e. non-European) local histories’ (Mignolo, 2002, p. 59). In other words, ‘Anglophone ontologies and epistemologies are universalised’ as a solution to problems for the rest of the world (Wang & Zhang, 2020, p. 740). We draw on these decolonial perspectives to develop a conceptual framework (outlined below), which informs our analysis of the data. We argue that EIA has not just reproduced neoliberal agenda and the residual colonial practices in Bangladesh through ELT as development aid, but such reproduction in relation to the discourses of development has also tended to hide coloniality in the ways these discourses have been constructed by aid agencies.

Geopolitics of knowledge and the politics of discourse: Conceptual framework

To help reveal the colonial legacy of current neoliberal forces, we utilise Mignolo’s (2002) idea of ‘geopolitics of knowledge’ as these relate to EIA policy documents and/or discourses. Deconstructing the geopolitics of knowledge is part of decolonial perspectives that seek to ‘disrupt ongoing domination’ (Shahjahan, 2016, p. 695) of the colonial and imperial powers as well as the dominance of Eurocentric epistemologies and the politics of representation. This interrogation of hegemony is relevant to our analysis as we seek to unpack the politics of discourse constructed by ELT aid agencies. As highlighted above, EIA opted to solve socio-economic problems in the Global South context of Bangladesh through ELT as development aid, and accordingly, produced discourses that have global currency. Mignolo’s idea of geopolitics of knowledge is particularly useful in analysing these discourses as the concept provides an analytical lens to understand why certain views and ways of knowing and doing are emphasised, while rejecting others, particularly those which are local – treating them as obsolete and ineffective. Such authority to accept certain views (European and American) as legitimate and others (rest of the world) as illegitimate is an example of coloniality of power which has been retained through modernity (Quijano, 2000). Mignolo (2007) believes that ‘there is no modernity without coloniality, that coloniality is constitutive of modernity’ (p. 162).

English was brought to the Indian sub-continent by the British colonial regime, which has survived in the post-colonial context of Bangladesh through residual practices such as the integration of the language into the school curriculum as a compulsory subject. Such residual practices have gained much greater impetus in the contemporary political economic context, shaped by neoliberalism (Kabir & Chowdhury, 2021; Ong, 2006), and in relation to the position of the English language in global capitalism (O’Regan, 2021). In other words, in relation to the growing focus on the English language as a form of human capital, the coloniality/modernity reciprocity has manifested in a more nuanced way through neoliberal globalisation. Quijano (2000, p. 215), for example, maintains that ‘the globalisation of the world is, in the first place, the culmination of a process that began with the constitution of America and world capitalism as a Euro-centered colonial/modern world power’. What is notable in this process is a singular and one-world Euro-centric perspective and/or epistemology taken for granted as a solution for everything as if there existed only one world and the other worlds (i.e. worldviews) do not exist, or at least, are not recognised as legitimate. Shahjahan (2016, p. 695) argues that ‘modern [Euro-centric] epistemology has thus perpetuated coloniality by delocalising and detaching its concepts (e.g. rationality, logic, and epistemic values) from local histories and presenting them as applicable to everyone’ (see also Santos, 2014). This helps us understand why neoliberal discourses of English have been globalised as human capital, and seen as readily employable within any context in the world. More importantly, this helps us understand the politics of the neoliberal discourses of English constructed by EIA.

The geopolitics of knowledge helps us understand how coloniality has been masked by the discourses of modernity such as English for human capital and socio-economic development of Bangladesh. It also allows us to understand how local epistemologies and ways of knowing and teaching have been represented by aid agencies, and why they have been represented in those ways (Ong, 2006). In other words, the concept facilitates our understanding of how the promises of English and ELT as development aid in relation to achieving MDGs and SDGs tend to hide coloniality in the discursive construction of English and development in the Global South.

ELT as development aid in Bangladesh

Since the mid-1970s, the Bangladesh government and its donors and development partners have sought to integrate the national economy with the global economy (Kabir, 2013; Sobhan, 2005). To achieve this integration, neoliberal ideologies have been emphasised in the country’s public policies by both national policy makers and donors (Hamid & Jahan, 2021; Mahmud, 2003). The focus on individuals has become an important strategy in macro-level policies, along with a heavy emphasis on human capital as a key instrument for the country’s economic growth. Skilled human resources are considered vital to harnessing opportunities and accessing the global economy. Along with this swing towards individualisation in a neoliberal environment, the country has experienced socio-economic changes due to the diversification of the economy through privatisation of different sectors. The increasing adoption of neoliberal ideologies and the promotion of free trade, deregulation and privatisation have attracted foreign direct investment. Bangladesh’s socio-economic transformation has attracted various multinational companies and transnational corporations to invest in the country. This has been facilitated by the availability of cheap labour. In this neoliberal climate, local entrepreneurs have established ready-made garments industries, private banks, real-estate companies, NGOs and various other private enterprises. The emerging private sector and the establishment of international businesses in Bangladesh has created a demand for skilled human resources to meet local and global employment expectations.

In this changing employment market, proficiency in English has been emphasised for Bangladeshi graduates seeking jobs (Erling, 2017). For this, communicative language teaching (CLT) approaches have been introduced in the country’s education system from Grade 1 to Grade 12 (Hamid, 2010; Rahman & Pandian, 2018). CLT was introduced through a project called English Language Teaching Improvement Project (ELTIP), which was jointly funded by the Bangladesh government and the DFID. ELTIP marked the beginning of a new trend of local-global partnership in the country’s ELT initiatives, and which was possible due to Bangladesh’s globalisation during the 1990s (see Ali & Hamid, 2022). Introducing CLT, however, presented a myriad of challenges as teachers, students and their parents were not familiar with the new approach. There have also been difficulties translating the pedagogical innovation into relevant testing and assessment (Ali, Hamid, & Hardy, 2020). In other words, the changes in the English language policy and pedagogy did not yield positive outcomes as most students could not develop proficiency in English, even after receiving compulsory language instruction in the new approaches for twelve years from Year 1 to Year 12 (Ali & Walker, 2014; Erling & Khatoon, 2019). This situation was seen as a barrier to the country’s economic growth and development in relation to the internationally agreed development goals (Eyres et al., 2019).

The English language is now considered critical for Bangladesh due to the globalisation of its economy and its promotion of neoliberal ideologies. However, the outcome of the curricular innovation and Bangladesh’s adoption of CLT pedagogy has been reported to be unsatisfactory (Hamid & Baldauf, 2008). In this context, the EIA project was introduced to improve English language learning and teaching. In other words, development aid was provided in the form of support (i.e. ELT as development aid) to bring about positive changes in ELT as a means to facilitate Bangladesh’s economic development. Thus, the context in which ELT aid was provided is noteworthy, which is accelerating Bangladesh’s development in relation to MDGs and, more recently, SDGs (see Eyres et al., 2019). Bolitho (2012) argues that as a result of ELT aid, changes take place not only in the perceptions of local stakeholders, but also in the curriculum, textbooks, pedagogy and examination system. In relation to EIA, it was expected that the project would contribute to a positive change in the English language teaching and learning situation in Bangladesh and thereby it would contribute to human development processes by increasing productivity and employability of its citizens. As such, in this paper, our aim is to deconstruct the discourses which led to such priorities through ELT as development aid in Bangladesh.

Data and analytical perspectives

As outlined above, we examined EIA policy documents as well as the project implementers’ self-generated reports on EIA outcomes to understand the discourses surrounding the initiation and effects of the project. In doing this, we sought to unpack the ideologies and forces which underpinned the project. We derived our data from the following sources: (a) EIA official website; (b) Mott MacDonald’s webpage on EIA; (c) Cambridge Education’s report on EIA outcomes, available on its website; and (d) Open University webpage on EIA. From these sources, we analysed the texts listed in the table below:

Table

Number	Documents
1	EIA: Introduction (EIA, n.d.)
2	English in Action, Bangladesh (Mott MacDonald, n.d.)
3	Bringing Bangladesh into the Global Conversation (Cambridge Education, n.d.)
4	English in Action: Using low-cost technology to transform language learning (Open University, n.d.)
5	English in Action (EIA, 2016)

These texts helped us understand the key discourses and narratives, which guided the implementation of EIA in Bangladesh.

To analyse the texts, we employed critical discourse analysis (CDA) together with the decolonial perspectives outlined earlier. Discourse generally refers to language use and the use of other semiotic resources for constructing knowledge and representing reality from particular perspectives (Hall, 1997). Such representations usually serve the interests of dominant groups (Dolores, 2012). As a methodological approach, CDA considers language use (i.e. discourse) as non-neutral, ideologically motivated and contested (Fairclough, 2001; Wodak & Meyer, 2009). We utilised Fairclough’s (2001) three-dimensional CDA framework which consists of three stages – i.e. description (text), interpretation (discursive practices), and explanation (social analysis). At the description stage, we examined textual properties, particularly lexical items, to understand the ideologies embedded within the text. Analysis of the textual features helped to understand not only the text producer’s beliefs and dispositions and power, but also how the production was influenced by such ideological forces and the geopolitics of knowledge. Building on this understating of the textual features, at the second stage, we tried to understand how pre – and post-EIA intervention in the ELT field was represented. This helped us to identify key discourses embedded in the text. Finally, at the explanation stage, we tried to understand the texts and the discourses in relation to broader socio – and political economic issues. While our analysis of the earlier stages mainly followed an inductive approach, at the third stage, we adopted a more deductive approach informed by our understanding of changing political economic conditions in Bangladesh as well as decolonial perspectives from the Global South (Kabir & Chowdhury, 2021; Mignolo, 2007; Quijano, 2000).

Our analysis revealed three key discourses, including: (a) a discourse of proficiency in English as human capital; (b) a deficiency discourse; and (c) a discourse of change. The first discourse foregrounds the instrumental value of the English language by highlighting how proficiency in English is considered human capital, and how this linguistic human capital is associated with individual mobility and economic development of developing nations in a globalised world. The second discourse highlights Bangladesh’s deficiency in producing human capital, and how this is construed as responsible for its inability to harness global opportunities due to a lack of skilled human resources and a deficient language education system. The third discourse constructs how EIA intervention worked as a solution to this deficiency and changed the English language learning and teaching situation in Bangladesh and contributed to human capital development. Our analysis also suggests that these discourses are value-laden and motivated by neoliberal ideologies including market forces and interests of edu-businesses, all undergirded by continuing colonial legacies. These discourses are elaborated below with reference to the texts examined. The findings provide the basis for our argument that ELT as development aid in the contemporary globalised world is undergirded by a broader political economic agenda emphasising human capital development as a contribution to the neoliberal global economy, and reflecting ongoing colonial tendencies.

Findings: Discourses of English as human capital, deficiency and change

Discourse of proficiency in English as human capital

English language skills are unambiguously represented as human capital by EIA. It is argued that the English language is a passport to employment and income. Thus, the language is also associated with economic development, as the following extract indicates:

English is the language of economic opportunity in the world, especially in growth industries such as technology. (Cambridge Education, n.d.)

Some of the lexical choices are noteworthy in this extract. The use of words such as ‘the’, ‘economic opportunity’ ‘world’, and ‘growth’ are all important to understand how the English language has been represented by edu-businesses such as Cambridge Education. The use of a definite article (i.e. ‘the’) is used to indicate certainty about proficiency in English as the key form of linguistic human capital which is productive in the employment market. This article choice also suggests how Cambridge Education has ignored the economic potential of other languages or of bilingual and multilingual resources in the employment sector, reflecting broader geopolitics of knowledge (Mignolo, 2007) that privileges English linguistic capital. Similarly, the words ‘economic’ and ‘growth’ also indicate the instrumental potential of English and how it can change lives. This extract also constructs a causal relationship between proficiency in English and income, suggesting that knowing the language will result in employment and economic solvency of individuals and communities in Bangladesh (see also Erling & Khatoon, 2019). As such, EIA has emphasised proficiency in English as a critical tool to improve Bangladesh’s overall economic situation by taking people out of poverty. As EIA claimed: ‘With English rapidly becoming the global language of business, fluency in working English can play a major role in helping people escape from poverty’ (EIA, n.d.). In other words, proficiency in English has been associated with broader development goals such as poverty reduction, as emphasised in MDGs and SDGs.

Deficiency discourse

Our analysis suggests that underlying the implementation of EIA was also a logic of deficiency. While it was argued that the English language is critical for Bangladesh’s economic growth and social development, EIA represented the country as deficient in developing its citizens’ communication skills in English. Reflecting the coloniality of power, this is an example of how local epistemologies are considered deficient in relation to development discourses in a globalised world shaped by neoliberalism (Ong, 2006; Quijano, 2000). It was argued that the majority of the country’s population were not adequately equipped to respond to the requirements of the contemporary job market (see Eyres et al., 2019). At the macro level, this ‘short supply’ of skilled human resources limited the country’s economic opportunities. As the Open University, UK, claimed: ‘In Bangladesh, English skills are in short supply, limiting economic growth and opportunities’ (Open University, n.d.). Importantly, at the societal level, this deficiency was also identified in relation to social cohesion. It has been argued that poor and marginalised groups of people in Bangladesh could not integrate with the formal economy due to their lack of proficiency in English. As Cambridge Education posited:

Bangladesh’s language barrier was known to be holding back the poorer societies in the country, which struggled to access the higher-skilled jobs that would improve their standard of living. (Cambridge Education, n.d.)

The lack of market-relevant communication skills among Bangladeshi people was attributed to a deficient school and teaching system in the country. As Cambridge Education argued:

However, English language skills were in short supply nationwide, due to out-dated teaching techniques, lack of teacher training and lack of learning opportunities outside of schools. (Cambridge Education, n.d.)

The word ‘supply’ is noteworthy due to its relevance to the notions of market and global capitalism. Not only ‘English language skills’ but also English proficient individuals are constructed as commodities, which are in demand in the job market (Cameron, 2012). However, as the extract highlights, the local education system was not effective in developing Bangladeshi citizens’ linguistic human capital. The deficiency was highlighted using terms such as ‘short’ ‘out-dated’, and ‘lack[ing]’. These lexical choices not only construct a negative representation of the local culture of teaching and learning in Bangladesh, labelling it incompatible with the market, but also establish as superior those learning and teaching approaches which are relevant to the global economy and the employment market (see also Hamid & Jahan, 2021). Such a response reflects how neoliberal manifestations through EIA discourses of English and development have also tended to hide colonial legacies and continued colonial tendencies (Mignolo, 2007). The following extract reveals further deficiency about how traditional educational culture in the country is represented:

English was taught in schools, but children learned reading and writing by rote, with a view to passing exams, rather than developing their oral skills so they could speak English at work and in their daily life. (Cambridge Education, n.d.)

This extract suggests deficiency in the traditional pedagogy. Elsewhere in our work, we have further highlighted how local pedagogy in Bangladesh is shaped by colonial influences, encumbering the implementation of the employment-orientation emphasised at the policy level (Ali, Hamid, Hardy, & Khan, in press). As the extract above makes clear, skills required (i.e. listening and speaking) in employment were not taught in Bangladeshi schools due to the influence of a deficient examination system (see Ali & Hamid, 2020). In other words, a gap existed between schooling and the employment sector as content and skills learned in schools could not be transferred to the job sector. Words such as learning ‘by rote’, and ‘passing exams’ are used to represent ELT as incompatible with the employment market in Bangladesh. Thus, the local education system is represented as deficient since it has failed to align with the employment market by producing human capital required for a neoliberal world and global capitalism. Testimonies from local English teachers were also utilised by EIA and its implementers to highlight the inefficiency of the traditional pedagogical system. For example:

Students used to be inactive and stuck to their desks. Now they move about the classroom, playing games with English words. The faces of my little learners are glowing. (Cambridge Education, n.d.)

The teacher providing this testimonial generated a comparative picture of how the same students in the same context have responded to the local pedagogical system and the EIA intervention. On the one hand, traditional practices are described as ineffective, as represented through the use of words and phrases such as ‘inactive’ and ‘stuck to their desks’. These lexical choices have deeper meanings. ‘[I]nactive’ and ‘stuck’ symbolise a lack of mobility. In other words, the traditional education system is represented as problematic in helping students achieve linguistic, social and career mobility. On the other hand, EIA intervention is represented positively, as illustrated by words such as ‘move’, ‘play’ and ‘glowing’. These words symbolise students’ future career mobility, freedom and happiness (see also Power et al., 2019). Importantly, this ‘imagined’ transformation from passive to active is underpinned by discourses of the English language which have become ubiquitous in a globalised world. Such imagined socio-economic transformation in developing societies has been subjected to the intervention by donors and global agencies. In other words, instrumentalist discourses of the English language and the alignment between education and the market have also promoted dependency on the donors and global agencies (Phillipson, 1992). Such arrangements, invariably involving actors from the Global North, perpetuate colonial legacies and dependencies. Furthermore, and reflecting the geopolitics of knowledge, these ‘success stories’ from the local actors are published as such by the aid agencies from the Global North, continuing earlier colonial influences and dependency relationships. This itself indicates the politics of knowledge production and the role of power and authority to choose and use relevant stories (Hamid & Jahan, 2021).

Discourse of change

The EIA intervention aimed at addressing the English language deficiency in Bangladesh. ELT as development aid was intended to bring about positive changes by contributing to communicative learning and teaching approaches which are compatible with human capital development (Eyres et al., 2019). In other words, the aid was intended to improve market-relevant English language skills of Bangladeshi people to change their life situation through the enhancement of their employability and income prospects. For example:

English in Action aims at enabling 25 million Bangladeshi adults and school children to improve their English language skills that will help them access better economic and social opportunities. (EIA, n.d.)

English in Action is about equipping the poorest people with language skills that will help them find jobs, engage in entrepreneurial activities and improve their standard of living. (EIA, n.d.)

The underlying discourse is one of the inadequacy and illegitimacy of local knowledges and the superiority of ‘accepted’ (Euro- and Anglo-centric) worldviews (Quijano, 2000). These official statements of the EIA missions refer to socio-economic transformation of the country through the mediation of English proficiency as human capital. The project was linked to MDGs and SDGs as EIA expected to contribute to Bangladesh’s socio-economic development. The following extracts reveal this connection between EIA and development goals:

Nearly 70 million Bangladeshis survive on less than a dollar a day and a third of the urban population lives in slums. The programme, English in Action, supports the internationally agreed Millennium Development Goals, which are aimed at eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. (EIA, n.d.)

English in Action supports two of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals: SDG 4 (i.e. Quality Education) and SDG 8 (i.e. Good Jobs and Economic Growth). (Open University, n.d.)

The English language is represented as a universal common good, which even the poor can access to compete with others in society and thereby ensure their inclusion in the mainstream employment system in the country. Their integration with the formal job sector as well as their increased income are construed as contributing to Bangladesh’s endeavours to achieve MGDs and currently SDGs (Eyres et al., 2019). However, this structural demand for English reflects colonial conditionalities promoted through neoliberal globalisation (Ong, 2006).

With such broader development goals, it has been claimed that EIA intervention has contributed to a positive change in the country’s linguistic human capital formation process (Eyres et al., 2019). Cambridge Education has claimed that EIA has made a substantial impact on student and teacher perceptions and classroom practices in Bangladesh. For example:

Ultimately, it [EIA] has helped to achieve a change in culture, in which individual students are encouraged to learn for themselves in activity-based classes, and where teachers are encouraged to support each other’s development and interact more with students. (Cambridge Education, n.d.)

Again, however, and reflecting the geopolitics of knowledge and the coloniality of power (Mignolo, 2007), the lexical choices in the extract warrant closer scrutiny. The phrase ‘change in culture’ denotes a transformation from a supposedly deficient educational culture to a more outcome-based language education system. However, as mentioned before, this discourse of deficiency was constructed in relation to the neoliberal employment market and a capitalist world that does not value local histories in the South. The traditional teaching culture was represented as deficient as it did not align with a neoliberal work environment and the emerging market demand. On the other hand, the new culture’s adherence to the neoliberal market logics is evident in Cambridge Education’s representation. The words, ‘individual’ and ‘themselves’ signal how this discourse of change is loaded with assumptions of the value of human capital theory, in which emphasis is on individuals and development of their market-relevant skills for increasing their personal competitiveness and employability (Block, 2018; Erling, 2017).

Apart from promoting communicative language teaching and learning approaches in the classroom and the community, EIA has also come to influence national policy and curricula for the English subject. According to an EIA report:

Simultaneously, EIA is working to embed its materials and practices into the existing institutional infrastructures both at the administrative and field level. (EIA, 2016, p. 1).

The extract reveals EIA’s plan to influence the broader educational structures in Bangladesh. Importantly, the project was able to do so as its influence extended to national policy documents. Following EIA’s discourses of English language skills as human capital, Bangladesh’s national English language curricula have also emphasised the role of the English language for individual mobility and national development. For example, it has been argued in the revised secondary and higher secondary English curricula that:

The country is endeavoring to achieve developments in science, technology, higher education, business, industry, and particularly in communications and IT skills. And the communicative use of English language can greatly contribute to these areas of national development. (National Curriculum, 2012a)

[T]he curriculum focuses on teaching-learning English as a skill-based subject so that learners can use English in their real-life situations by acquiring necessary language skills as well as knowledge, learning about cultures and values, developing positive attitudes, pursuing higher education and having better access to local and global employment. (National Curriculum, 2012b)

As these extracts suggest, discourses generated and contextualised by EIA such as proficiency in English as an employment-oriented skill (i.e. human capital), role of the English language for accessing local and global employment, English for national development and economic growth have been taken up in the latest English curricula in the country (see also Ali & Hamid, 2021). Again, such positioning of English reflects continued colonial legacies promoted through neoliberal globalisation (Ong, 2006).

On the part of EIA, the continuation of such colonial legacies was also evident in how the project worked technically at other levels as well to align its resources and classroom activities with Bangladesh’s official textbook series for English language education called English for Today (EFT). EIA has linked its materials to the EFT series so that teachers could implement the EIA initiated resources within their classroom. As Mott MacDonald noted:

All EIA’s resources are linked to the national textbook, English for Today, making it easy for teachers to incorporate activities into their lessons. (Mott MacDonald, n.d.)

While EIA has had a notable impact on the policy, perceptions and practices of English language learning and teaching in Bangladesh (Eyres et al., 2019), the way this change was achieved – through local infrastructure development and privatisation – is also noteworthy. EIA responded to the question of sustainability by developing local agents who would be capable of managing language education for human capital development in the post-intervention period. As Cambridge Education argued:

By building the capacity of local education officers to own and manage the programme, it meant they could lead and drive subsequent initiatives, in close partnership with teachers. (Cambridge Education, n.d.)

Such capacity building for human capital development may be seen as part of the neoliberal infrastructure development in aid recipient countries – a form of ‘aid’ that perpetuates established colonial legacies and inequalities (Mignolo, 2007). Under such circumstances, the disruption of dominant colonial legacies (cf. Shahjahan, 2016) is lacking. As a consequence, local education officers are exposed to global policy trends and technologies and are trained in managing education, thereby developing a new transnational habitus, which is different from that constituted through traditional understandings of pedagogy and educational management (Kerr, 2009). The representation of their ‘close partnership with teachers’ is important to understand how they can influence language teachers in Bangladesh. Generally, education officers in Bangladesh hold higher positions in the hierarchy, and they can exercise power and influence teachers in particular ways. This is how EIA also envisioned the change by building a new habitus at the meso-level administrative domain.

The change was also facilitated by privatisation as part of neoliberal management of services. It has been claimed that involvement of private media and service sectors helped EIA to reach people of all ages and regions even beyond formal schooling. BBC Janala, a ‘multi-platform service’ of EIA utilised electronic and print media, media celebrities, mobile operating companies, and NGOs to spread EIA discourses and the EIA initiated materials and lessons to the wider community in Bangladesh. As Cambridge Education and Mott MacDonald argued:

Away from the classroom, adults have benefited from BBC Janala (‘window’ in Bangla): an award-winning, multiplatform service that enables millions of Bangladeshis to learn English affordably through their mobile phones, the web, television programmes, print media and peer-to-peer learning. Working in partnership with BBC Media Action, we helped to develop this mobile phone service, which transforms a simple handset into a low-cost learning device. Anyone can learn and practise English by calling a mobile short-code from any Bangladeshi mobile operator. (Cambridge Education, n.d.)

BBC Janala partners with local NGOs and agencies in the private sector to establish platforms which improve access to English learning opportunities. (Mott MacDonald, n.d.)

Thus, the processes of change, following the market logics and commodification, were influenced by neoliberal forces of privatisation and deregulation. EIA’s goal of massive spread of the English language in Bangladeshi society would not have been possible through government intervention alone. Therefore, the project augmented but also, arguably, minimised government involvement in its implementation of EIA goals. From a more macro point of view, involvement of the private media and service sectors in English language education also contributed to the new culture in education – but one which surreptitiously ensures the continued effects of colonial inequalities as well as dominance. EIA, for the first time in Bangladesh, used private infrastructures on a massive scale to spread English in the country.

Although EIA was primarily introduced to bring about changes in the English language teaching and learning approaches, our analysis indicates that the project fostered a larger aim – i.e. facilitating Bangladesh’s integration with the global economy. As Cambridge Education argued:

As one of the world’s fastest developing countries, Bangladesh aspired to become a major global player in this (i.e. growth industries) and other sectors. (Cambridge Education, n.d.)

This integration is essentially a process of change within globalisation which is facilitated by dominant policy organisations such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (Harber, 2014; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). From this perspective, EIA had aligned its goals with these organisations’ visions for a globalised economic system, which is underpinned by neoliberal ideologies, but which also tends to hide substantive colonial legacies underpinning such envisioning (Mignolo, 2007). At the same time, the phrase ‘one of the’ indicates Bangladesh’s relational position and its growing importance in the global economic race. As the extract illustrates, Bangladesh is represented as a ‘player’. This word is particularly important to understand the embedded competitiveness in a neoliberal economic environment – none can play alone in a globalised world; the global economic game is relational whereby nations compete for their share and competitive edge in the globalised economic system. In other words, EIA sought to facilitate Bangladesh’s participation in the global economic race, in which nations are governed based on their performance against internationally agreed development goals such as MDGs and SDGs. This broader goal of EIA is manifest in the very title of the Cambridge Education’s report on EIA i.e. ‘Bringing Bangladesh into the global conversation’. However, this is not just an ahistorical ‘conversation’; the word ‘conversation’ here can be understood to have deeper historical resonances, suggesting continued governance reflecting the influence of coloniality/modernity – of colonial power which has been retained through modernity (Quijano, 2000). This is also enabled by monitoring nation-states by comparing them in terms of their performance in various sectors in relation to internationally agreed goals (see Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). Thus, in a way, EIA was not just underpinned by neoliberalism which promotes world-wide competition through integration of global economies (Block, 2018), but also deeper colonial discourses which are manifest as neoliberal ideals through the project’s development discourses.

Discussion

Our analysis of the EIA policy documents suggests that the project’s construction of English language skills as human capital and ELT as development aid is guided by neoliberal ideologies and market forces (Block, 2018), and that these are manifestations of longer standing colonial influences (Mignolo, 2007). The larger narrative which the three discourses collectively put forward is that (1) proficiency in English is human capital and is essential for the economic fortune of individuals and nations (human capital discourse). However, (2) the Bangladeshi education system was deficient in producing this market-relevant human capital (deficiency discourse), and therefore, (3) development intervention was required to bring about changes in English language education and society (discourse of change). These discourses are underpinned by dominant market logics as promoted by contemporary political economy and its key construct – neoliberalism (see Block, 2017). The traditional educational culture has been represented as deficient, as it does not align with the demands of the changing employment market. As such, the traditional learning/teaching culture is represented as a barrier to pursuing broader development goals of MDGs and SDGs. In other words, such a culture is construed as ineffective in relation to the broader development goals such as poverty eradication and economic development (Erling, 2017). On the other hand, EIA intervention is represented as a positive breakthrough for individual mobility and social development as the project’s aims and activities aligned with what is expected in the employment market (Ali & Hamid, 2021). Importantly, such representations fail to adequately account for the geopolitics of knowledge construction that underpin these discourses, in which local epistemologies and cultures are hardly recognised in a neoliberal world order (Mignolo, 2007; Quijano, 2000). Drawing on decolonial perspectives and our analysis of the EIA policy documents, we argue that EIA has not just reproduced neoliberal agenda and the residual colonial practices in Bangladesh through ELT as development aid, but such reproduction in relation to the discourses of development has also tended to hide continued colonial domination in the ways these discourses have been constructed by aid agencies.

Neoliberal influences were identified in the way the project operated through privatisation and involvement of local NGOs, private media and service sectors, all of which shaped the habitus of the local agents as a mechanism to maintain the sustainable influence of the project on English language learning and teaching initiatives in Bangladesh into the future (Eyres et al., 2019; Kerr, 2009). In other words, in line with the contemporary trend of globalising market-relevant education in a neoliberal world, the project contributed to the development of infrastructure for spreading and extending human capital framing of English language education in Bangladesh (Park, 2018; Sayer, 2015). This is an example of how one solution is generalised for all nations in relation to global capitalism, leading to ‘a universal and objectivist conception of knowledge, or a ‘god-eye’ point of view, Western epistemology … ’ (Shahjahan, 2016, p. 697). Such global extension of the human capital framing of education in ELT as a solution to economic problems in the Global South is made possible through the coloniality of power (Quijano, 2000, p. 216), which leads to the systemic erasure of the local histories of learning and teaching as they are construed irrelevant to a neoliberal world order (Mignolo, 2002).

Therefore, it is important to understand the embedded politics of the discursive construction of change, which is mediated by interest and power, and never neutral (Park, 2018). The discourses of change and positive outcomes of EIA intervention have been constructed by the agencies, which implemented the project. At the same time, demonstrating success to the funding body (i.e. DFID) might have been an obligation for EIA. Therefore, in a way, these discourses are examples of ‘self-branding’ in a neoliberal market, where the agencies themselves are in competition with other agencies (Block, 2017). It is difficult to unearth exactly what interest guided DFID to spend £50 million in Bangladesh. However, as critical scholars have indicated, such development aid is ideologically loaded with interests such as establishing hegemony through the spread of English as a dominant global language (Phillipson, 1992). Again, we witness the coloniality of power (Quijano, 2000) in action. Our analysis indicates that construction of English language skills deficiency promoted Bangladesh’s dependency on donors to improve the situation. This has, however, reduced Bangladesh’s authority and increased donor priorities in the country’s language policy issues, particularly in relation to English. This is problematic because the emphasis is only on the English language, while people’s access to employment is still influenced by bilingual, or even multilingual competence in non-English speaking countries (Imam, 2005; Kubota, 2011). There are some indigenous groups in Bangladesh who speak their own languages. A large number of these people cannot speak standard Bangla. Hence, it would be naïve to claim that only knowing English would guarantee their access to employment in the formal economy; this is a reality that the coloniality/modernity nexus not simply obfuscates but entirely ignores, ensuring the continuation of colonial legacies in neoliberal times. Most importantly, proficiency in English is not the only skill people need for accessing employment; access to jobs is also contingent upon acquisition and access to other forms of social and cultural capital (Azam et al., 2010; Grin, 2001).

These insights have clear policy implications for development contexts, particularly where ELT is received as development aid. Development aid and policies for English language education should consider the social contexts of development more carefully, including a recognition of language ecology in those contexts (Lo Bianco, 2002) as well as the local histories and epistemologies that are central to meaning-making (Santos, 2014). This will require a careful examination of how local languages and pedagogies may be incorporated into the human capital development process to develop bi/multilingual capacity of the people (Bruthiaux, 2002). More importantly, development is not just economic growth; it also entails freedom and happiness (Sen, 1999). From this perspective, the recipient country’s dependency on aid agencies is also problematic, as the country’s freedom and choices are limited under conditions set by donors (see Coleman, 2017). These issues should be taken into consideration in formulating development policies for improving the well-being of people in these contexts (Erling, 2017).

Conclusion

This article has analysed EIA policy documents to understand the key discourses related to the introduction and the outcomes of this development aid project in Bangladesh. Our analysis illustrated how proficiency in English was constructed as human capital and a ‘neutral’ tool for ensuring a poverty-free, prosperous Bangladesh. In a way, the English language is presented as a panacea for poverty in the country in relation to the UN’s development goals (Erling, 2017). While EIA constructed the critical role of the English language for Bangladesh’s socio-economic development and its participation in a globalised world, it also highlighted the ‘deficiency’ in the country’s language education system. In this context, ELT as development aid was delivered through EIA to overcome this ‘deficiency’ and to respond effectively to MDGs and SDGs. As highlighted in this article, change was reported to be subsequently brought about in the educational culture of the country through a shift from traditional approaches to language education to a human capital framing of education as a direct response to the employment market. The processes by which the change was introduced – through privatisation, deregulation, and inclusion of NGOs, private media, and service sectors – reflected the project’s adherence to neoliberal ideologies and market forces for aligning education with the demands of contemporary workplaces. Importantly, these processes are not simply neutral but reflect the continued legacies of colonialism and the coloniality of power (e.g. Mignolo, 2007; Quijano, 2000). In this way, the findings contribute to the language and political economy literature in applied linguistics (e.g. Ali & Hamid, 2022; Block, 2017; O’Regan, 2021; Soto & Pérez-Milans, 2018) by illustrating how ELT as development aid may play a bigger role in the Global South than often realised by extending infrastructures for spreading human capital framing of education. Crucially, reflecting geopolitics of knowledge construction, such aid projects may also represent a narrowed understanding of development, especially in relation to human capital theory and simply serve to perpetuate Western epistemologies that hardly recognise local ways of knowing, and that thereby sustain problematic legacies of colonialism. We argue that such understanding may not help in ensuring the well-being of diverse peoples in development contexts. Thus, we emphasise the need for a broader approach to development within ELT as development aid, particularly by re-examining and recognising the roles of bi/multilingual resources, freedom, happiness and the choices of aid recipient countries and their peoples. Recognising these issues will contribute to more holistic development of individuals in aid recipient countries in the Global South, such as Bangladesh.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship provided by The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Notes on contributors

Md. Maksud Ali

Md. Maksud Ali is Assistant Professor (on leave) at International Islamic University Chittagong, Bangladesh and Sessional Academic in the School of Education at the University of Queensland, Australia. Dr Ali graduated with a PhD at the University of Queensland, Australia. His research focuses on the policy, politics and practices of human capital development in English language education in the context of neoliberal globalisation. His works have been published by English Today, TESOL Quarterly, ELT Journal, Language Assessment Quarterly, Comparative Education Review, and Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education.

M. Obaidul Hamid

M. Obaidul Hamid is Associate Professor of TESOL Education at the University of Queensland, Australia. His research focuses on the policy and practice of TESOL education in developing societies. He is the co-editor of Language planning for medium of instruction in Asia (Routledge, 2014). He is on the editorial boards of Current Issues in Language Planning, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, English Teaching Practice & Critique, and Journal of Asia TEFL.

Ian Hardy

Ian Hardy is Associate Professor in the School of Education at the University of Queensland, Australia. Dr Hardy researches and teaches in the areas of educational policy and politics, including in relation to teachers’ work and learning, at the School of Education, University of Queensland. He is also increasingly involved in policy studies relating to international and comparative education in schooling, higher education and vocational education. Dr Hardy's teaching at Undergraduate, Masters and PhD levels, and his service to the research, professional and wider community is informed by research into the relationship between education and society, particularly broader policy and political discourses, and educators’ responses to the socio-political contexts in which their work is undertaken. Dr Hardy is continuing to work on research undertaken during his recent Future Fellowship (2014-2018); this includes in relation to how policy support for the Australian Curriculum influenced teacher learning in diverse schooling settings in Queensland, within a broader global policy context. This work has also involved exploring how concurrent policy reform in Scandinavian (Finland and Sweden) and North American (Ontario and Connecticut) contexts has constituted and influenced practice in these settings. This research builds upon earlier work (2012-2014; ARC-DECRA) which focused upon teacher learning practices in Queensland under globalised policy conditions. Dr Hardy also researches the nature of academic work under current conditions in Australian and international university settings.