It is the case in France. We have the Académie Française, an institution that edits an "official" dictionary. Unlike other dictionaries that describe the words that are in current usage, this one is supposed to act as a reference for "proper French".
The Académie Française is not a ruling body anymore, however, there is a committee that decides on which words to use, following a very bureaucratic process. French people are still free to use French as the way they want (thankfully!), but it is mandatory for official government communication.
And in case you are wondering, the ones who decide are usually famous French writers who got a honorific position for their past work. They tend to be completely out of touch with the modern world, and with a bureaucratic process that doesn't help the result is more silly than manipulative.
A dictionary is a creative, curated and editorial work. While I could see, in the US for example, the National Endowment for the Humanities supporting the work, it is very far removed from something like the National Institute if Standards and Technology.
It is not a given that such work is best handled through the public purse.
Governments fund the arts all the time. Why is there automatically an assumption that this will end with the government editing the dictionary to control speech?
The Académie Française is not a ruling body anymore, however, there is a committee that decides on which words to use, following a very bureaucratic process. French people are still free to use French as the way they want (thankfully!), but it is mandatory for official government communication.
And in case you are wondering, the ones who decide are usually famous French writers who got a honorific position for their past work. They tend to be completely out of touch with the modern world, and with a bureaucratic process that doesn't help the result is more silly than manipulative.