Deceit on the Road to War: Presidents, Politics, and American Democracy. By John M. Scheussler. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2015. 192p. $27.95.

apples to oranges in this way can be problematic when making causal inferences. Theoretically, Language Policy gives us some reason to question English teaching in the classrooms. In poor/ developing countries, the lack of quality education can actually result in wastage. Here, we see an inherently vicious cycle: When a country’s population can speak English, the country’s economy expands. And when it expands, the country’s education system will improve. But, of course, if the education system is lacking in the first place, a country is not likely to have a large Englishproficient population. This is a well-taken point. However, this is not an English-specific point. In many chapters, whenever English is mentioned alongside lowquality education, we can drop the word “English” without losing the larger meaning. For example, in the first paragraph of his introduction, Thomas Ricento writes that “access to quality English-medium education in lowincome countries is mostly restricted to those with sufficient means to pay for it” (italicized for emphasis). Related, in some parts, we can replace “English” with another important skill—for example, math—and the resulting changes would convey a comparable message. Laurence Wright writes: “Where schools manage to achieve and sustain effective education in English and in an African language throughout the school years, the social rewards will be substantial in terms of mobility, access to tertiary education, and available employment opportunities” (p. 200). We can rewrite that sentence as “Where schools manage to achieve and sustain education in math and in an African language. ” While poorly taught English is a problem, the two examples highlight that it is not the problem. Instead, it is symptomatic of a much larger one: a delinquent education system. By focusing only on English classes versus a class—any class—where an important skill is taught, the volume is perhaps too quick to blame English for the limited upward social mobility. Empirically, the contributors do an excellent job of calling attention to the global reach of English and, to some extent, the economic limits of the language. The case studies were picked to demonstrate this point. While this may be true in many countries in postcolonial subSahara African and Asia, it is striking that one normatively important case is never mentioned: Singapore. At independence in 1965, Singapore was in no better position economically or socially than many of the other postcolonial states. Unemployment and inflation rates were high; annual income was only about $500. Lee Kuan Yew’s government had to wrestle among three major races—Chinese, Malay, and Indian—and note that each race spoke a smattering of “dialects. ” On top of this was English, a colonial language that was spoken by only onefifth of the population. The fact that Singapore has transitioned From Third World to First—incidentally the title of a Lee Kuan Yew’s biography (2000)—suggests that teaching English in a poor country can be important. And when it is does well (supply), the demand for English skills will follow. This direction of causality is largely absent in the volume. These comments notwithstanding, Language Policy and Political Economy makes a substantive contribution. It tackles a normatively important phenomenon. The conceptual, theoretical, and empirical comments it generates is evidence of such.