There have been recent calls for the implementation of a novel language to facilitate global communication. In my opinion, though this would make for a more level playing field economically, it is impractical.
Those who support an international language rely on its economic advantages. The salient argument is that it would remove barriers to success currently in place. English is close to a universal language at the moment and those born in English-speaking countries have a clear headstart while those from non-English countries, who cannot afford private instruction, begin life at a disadvantage. A new language would reset these disparities. An added advantage of minimising the value of English would be that developing countries could integrate more deeply with the global market and be better able to extend services, entertainment and products to a wider audience.
However, the disadvantages of this proposal all relate to its feasibility. In an ideal world, we would have a global language but for the time and money required. The best evidence of this is the progress of the world’s current dominant language, English. Countries all around the world pour money and time into funding English education but the majority of the world still cannot attain mastery. A new language would be even more difficult not only because everyone in the world would have to learn it but also because there would be little incentive if you can already communicate with your compatriots and English allows you to talk to a large segment of the world population. The money and time resources required are staggering, unrealistic, and would be detrimental to both individuals and society.
In conclusion, the drawbacks to an international language far outweigh any perceived gains. Instead, countries should continue to fund English education in the hopes of establishing it as a lingua franca.