Migration has been an existing phenomenon since the origin of man. However, in the contemporary world, there has been a lot of emerging reasons in pursuant of migration. These reasons include seeking refuge/asylum, economic growth, education, tourism, or change of environment among many others. Today, we will discuss on labour/economic mobility and or in relations to brain drain.
So, what is brain drain? This is the international transfer of resources in form of human capital. It involves the migration of relatively highly educated people from developing countries to developed countries. This form of migration is informed by better pay and a good work environment in the designated country. The individuals feel their work will be better rewarded and appreciated. They also believe they will be able to have career growth in the respective country of migration.
According to (Todaro,1996:119), he indicates that irony of international migration today is that many of the people who migrate legally from poor to richer lands are the very ones that Third World countries can least afford to lose: the highly educated and skilled. Since the great majority of these migrants move permanently, this perverse brain drain not only represents a loss of valuable human resources but could prove to be a serious constraint on the future economic progress of Third World nations. This is because these individuals contributed significantly highly to the hosting country’s economy.
The US 1990 Census revealed that there were more than two and a half million highly educated immigrants from developing countries residing in the United States. In Canada, its immigration policy they focus in getting the best in terms of human capital/resource. Emphasis has been put on the selection of highly skilled workers through a system of quotas favouring candidates with academic degrees and/or specific professional skills.
Countries like Australia, Germany, Canada, France, Belgium among others are more interested in labour mobility rather than traditional resettlement. There is more increase in labour mobility rather than resettlement of refugees, asylum seekers, and applicants seeking family reunification. This is an indication that Western countries are now learning to become quality selective. In Germany, Chancellor Schröder announced in May 2000 plans to recruit 10,000 additional specialists in the field of information technology. In France, the Weil Report on Immigration of 1997 also explicitly recommended favouring the immigration of highly educated workers. Currently, Canada is calling for labour mobility for both refugees and any interested individual around the world. This call is based on occupations in demand. The annual number of visas issued for highly skilled professionals is increasing tremendously.
(Easterly and Levine, 2001) indicates that the institutional background of the brain drain is now characterized by “demand-pull” on the side of the receiving countries, whose immigration policies are determined according to domestic needs and labour-market conditions, regardless of the consequences for the immigrants’ origin countries. Combined with traditional self-selection effects on the supply side, this leads to much higher migration rates among the highly educated and increased international transfers of human capital from developing to developed countries.
Due to the benefit foreseen by individuals and families, more people are increasingly investing in human capital because of increased migration opportunities. Migration was and is increasingly seen as a central livelihood strategy.
Is brain drain detrimental to the migrants’ source countries? How about we do a practical assessment of the economic impact of the brain drain for developing countries. Let us pick Kenya for instance (or any African country for that sake). From the respective country, select a few individuals that you know who have migrated under the context of brain drain. For me, I know of George, Bernard, Fred, Beatrice, Wendy (not their real names), and several others. They are graduates of computer science, civil engineering, doctorate, nursing, and law. These individuals have migrated to different western countries for work. They are currently practicing in their respective field and have even acquired more education in the hosting countries. They have gotten career rank, additional pay as time goes. As a result, their living condition has improved, they send remittances back home to their family and friends. Some have chosen to invest in their home countries by buying properties or starting a business for their family or themselves. These transactions translate to supporting the Kenyan economy. But at what scale or magnitude?
So, the pros of brain drain to the country of nationality include remittances, return migration after additional knowledge and skills have been acquired abroad, and the creation of business and trade networks.
The question will now be, is their contribution to the economy equivalent to the brain drain that the western countries benefit from? Is there Brain waste? I.e., Educated refugees not allowed to work, and does this brain waste a contributing factor to the brain drain?
Has the remittance by these skilled immigrants over the years significantly contributed to the elevation of people in their origin countries from poverty? Lifting people from poverty requires strong economic pillars. Creating industries that would not only compete in the international market but also employ thousands of people is one way to solve poverty issues in developing countries. But this can only be done through retaining our brilliant and smartest people. Over the year, I have noticed that it is the expatriates from developed countries working here (developing countries) are the ones setting up businesses and companies. A good number (not all) of these experts-founded ventures mostly employ fellow experts. In most cases, these companies are not sustainable and rely heavily on grant money; once the grant money dries up, so is the business. What am I trying to drive home here? Local people (particularly those smart and skilled ones being taken away) stand a better chance of creating sustainable businesses because they understand their countries’ dynamics, something that foreign experts mostly lack!
I find the perception of some developed countries on immigration as the solution to poverty in developing countries as misleading. It would have made more sense to help these smart and brilliant people set-up industries in their own countries rather than luring them from their countries. Most of these people just end up improving their own lives and maybe that of their close families (something we all yawn for), rarely do they impact the entire nation. You might be thinking ‘what about the taxes?’ The last time I checked, the government was not efficient in putting our money into good use. So, that is a no-brainer.
In conclusion, brain-drain benefits the hosting counties, the immigrate and their families (maybe), and a few government officials who benefit from remitted taxes back at home. You will have to move everyone to developed countries if you are to solve the developing world’s poverty through immigration!
Have a great week and a new month ahead, Cheers!
belinenyangi'sdiscussion#oursociety# 