Economics:  'Learn to speak inglish like a proper gintilman or I'll hit ye!" A common enough expression among parents in the latter half of the 19th century, this sentence expressed the economic desperation of rural Ireland in the wake of famine.

The ruthless necessity caused by economic collapse west of the Shannon, resulted in whole communities abandoning Irish in favour of English. Speaking Irish was the road to poverty and discrimination. Learning English, by contrast, opened up employment opportunities in bigger towns in Ireland and England, not to mention America.

Since then, Ireland's English-speaking status has been of major economic benefit, particularly in attracting foreign investment.

Now it is time for Ireland's economic development to help the Irish language, a language that it nearly destroyed. The experience of Switzerland, Belgium, The Netherlands and many other countries shows that Ireland can achieve bilingual status.

Just as economic incentives caused its decline, reviving the Irish language will require economic incentives.

The present approach - all stick and no carrot - is not enough. By using a little bit of microeconomic incentivisation a huge difference could be made to the progress of the language.

The first microeconomic insight into doing this can be understood by considering how network goods become commercially viable. Over 20 years ago mobile phone salespeople faced the same problem that any language - be it English, Irish or Latin - faces. A mobile phone is only any good if a sufficient number of people with whom you are in regular contact use it. At some stage in the mid-1980s, a critical mass of people acquired mobile phones and demand took off. Some time during the late 19th century, the reverse happened to the Irish language.

Due to the huge mismatch between economic opportunities in Irish-speaking areas as against English-speaking areas, Irish speakers became focused in the poorest areas of the country. Either that or they were so thinly spread over the remainder of it that regular contact with other Irish speakers was not feasible.

Technology has solved the latter part of this problem. As the real Gaeltacht continues to fade, a virtual one is emerging through the medium of mass communications. One can now work through English and still be part of a viable Irish-speaking community.

Solving the former requires a different microeconomic insight - the importance of marginal productivity. As far as language is concerned, the marginal productivity of an hour of teaching is far higher in early years of childhood than in later years. Children in countries with bilingual populations, such as Belgium, The Netherlands and Switzerland, receive constant and regular exposure to several languages.

Some people blame compulsory teaching of Irish for holding back their children's progress in other subjects, as if learning sine functions or renaissance history were any more relevant to the real world.

A stronger argument would be to say that, in so far as compulsory teaching of Irish is concerned, the State should at least target resources where the return is likely to be greatest - in early or pre-school education.

But what about adults who want to learn the language? Again there is a microeconomic insight here - the importance of cost recovery.

Since the foundation of the State - and even before it - considerable fiscal resources have been devoted to teaching Irish. It would be tempting to say those resources were wasted, a cost to be written off. But this would be wrong.

As we enter an age of life-long learning, the Government is increasing incentives for people to take up work-related study in mid-career. As well as making cultural sense, incentivising adults to learn Irish also makes microeconomic sense. As a result of Irish language learning, most people retain the ability to learn Irish far more rapidly than they would another language.

Again we come back to the marginal productivity principle. Just as shifting the focus of Irish language teaching to younger children yields a higher marginal return, incentivising adults to learn Irish over other languages guides the student towards the most productive learning activity.

This could be done by offering tax relief to those pursuing adult Irish language courses accredited by the Department of Education.

Again, there is a microeconomic justification for this. An adult, who gives up two or three weeks of their holidays to learn a language is not just benefiting themselves. They are creating something called a positive externality.

This is the term economists use to describe anything from a tidy garden to good manners which benefit those around you, as well as yourself.

In the case of learning Irish, such people are also making a contribution to what was described above as the "network good" challenge. They contribute to achieving that critical mass of fluent Irish speakers that will reignite the incentive for more widespread fluency.

There are precedents. Having slept for centuries among the diaspora, the Hebrew language was revived in Kibbutzim around Israel when its diaspora returned there in the 1940s and 1950s.

And whatever we in Ireland might feel about France's attitude to taxation, one can't help admiring the tenacity with which that country defends its language and culture against encroachment and debasement.

Like the environmental sphere, the cultural sphere is one where leaving market forces to their own devices will result in a tyranny of the lowest common denominator. Enjoying the undoubted benefits of a globalised economy is a blessed thing, but not at any price. Surrendering our national identity, our values and traditions to a bland globalised culture is an unnecessary trade-off.

As fluent Irish speakers, the relevant Ministers, Brian Cowen and Mary Hanafin, should make full use of the next Budget to ensure that the Celtic Tiger does not devour our cultural heritage.