Introduction

The term brain drain appears to have gained wide usage in the late
1960s when growth in the migration of skilled personnel from developing
to developed countries accelerated.1 The developed countries, by attracting
scarce skilled labor, were widely held to be pursuing policies that were
costly to developing countries, both in the short and longer run. The costs
were not only in terms of output and employment, but alsodepending on
the way in which education was financedthrough additional fiscal costs
associated with public subsidies to education. A variety of policy proposals,
mostly centered around taxation, were floated, although none were ultimately
implemented. Part of this may be attributed to likely difculties
with implementationmeasurement problems (including temporary migration
and migration linked to education enrolment in developed countries)
and ambiguities with respect to the welfare consequences.
Many of the same issues and debates have undergone a recent revival.
This can be attributed to a number of factors. In the first place, it is commonly
believed that the emigration of skilled labor from developing countries
has again accelerated over the last decade, not least in association with
the growth-of-information and knowledge-intensive activities. Second, the
developed economies have actively and openly set out to poach talent, using
a range of incentives and institutional mechanisms for attracting skilled
labor. In particular, the use of temporary skilled-migrant visas whether in
the United States or, more recently, in Western Europe, has been striking.
Possible explanations for why poaching has increased are various. They
include skill shortages resulting from rapid skill-biased technical change as
well as educational failures. Gaining access to international competence
heterogeneitymay be another factor, while access to technical or market
knowledge may be another. The first explanation generally is taken as bringing
in substitutes to local human capital, although this need not necessarily
be the case. The importing firm would gain through lowering wage costs,
dampening any domestic-wage pressure, or both. The other explanations,
however, may be consistent with complementarity (at least in static or shortrun
terms). By widening the talent pool, poaching may result in the selection
of the best candidates and hence impart a positive productivity efect.
At the same time, there has been growing recognition not only of the
global benefits of greater mobility, but also that the emigration of skilled
labor may not be negative for the sending country. In the first place, emigration
of talent may provide a positive signal that motivates others in the
sending country to acquire more education, thereby raising human capital
and possibly promoting growth. Second, emigrants may, in due course, return
or, through networks and resource repatriation (such as through remittances),
provide essential inputs to new businesses and activities in the
sending country. Third, emigration may actively promote a more efective
flow of knowledge and information. Fourth, the changing nature of mobility
in part due to major advances in communications technologymay
be limiting the extent to which skills are actually lost. A network industry,
like software, is possibly a case in point.
This paper has several objectives. First it attempts to take stock of our
knowledge concerning the scale, composition, and direction of migration
from developing to developed countries in the recent period. Second, it
places that mobility in the context of the existing literature, and, third, it
attempts to indicate ways in which, at both an analytical and empirical

level, progress can be made in better understanding the phenomenon and,

in particular, the appropriate policy implications.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 7.2 provides a brief empirical
survey of our knowledge concerning the scale, distribution, and composition
of skilled labor flows. Section 7.3 surveys a class of models developed
in the 1970s that focused primarily on the implications of emigration for labor
markets in the sending countries. Section 7.4 surveys the subsequent
class of dynamic models in particular, those that endogenize human236 Simon Commander, Mari Kangasniemi, and L. Alan Winters

capital decisions. We extend the analysis to take account of possible

screening by developed countries. Section 7.5 then examines the empirical
evidence for screening, while section 7.6 looks at the relevance of return
flows, remittances, and diasporasfactors that may ofset some of the
negative efects associated with skilled migration. Section 7.7 then turns to
examining the relevance of economic geography models for understanding
the brain drain and not least the reasons for why agglomeration occurs.
Section 7.8 then moves on to look in a little bit more detail at two sectors
software and healththat have features that may be helpful in understanding
sectoral diferences. Section 7.9 concludes.

The Facts
Quantification of the movement of skilled individuals across countries
let alone the exact measurement of any associated brain drain
remains very patchy. National authorities have maintained very limited
databases on migration with highly inconsistent skill or education categories.
2 There is a lack of data on the attributes of the individual migrants
and the changing nature of migrationwhich is away from permanent,
point-to-point migrationhas itself complicated matters. Furthermore,
the link between education and migration has changed over time. For example,
a significant component of skilled migration is now accounted for
by students that stay on after completion of degrees.

Skilled Migration in The Recent Period

Carrington and Detragiache (1998) provide a benchmark for skilled migration
in 1990. They compiled the U.S. census and the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) migration statistics for
that year and then compared the immigrant stocks to the size of the educated
population in the sending country using Barro and Lees (1996) education
data for 1993. Their study has several shortcomings: In addition to possible
deficiencies of the basic data they use,3 their figures fail to take into account
skilled migration to the Middle East, which for countries like India actually
accounts for a large proportion of the total migration. Also, the immigration
to the United States in their study includes all types of migration, not only
employment based, which is what is usually understood by brain drain.
Despite their shortcomings, the Carrington and Detragiache estimates
are probably the best available estimates of brain drain. We use them to
The Brain Drain: Curse or Boon? A Survey of the Literature study the relationships between
population, the gross domestic product
(GDP), and migration. Table 7.1 provides information on population, on
expenditure on tertiary education, and a measure of the intensity of migration

(i.e., the share of a countrys labor force having tertiary education

that has migrated). The share presented in the table is based on the assumption
that the Barro and Lee estimates do not include the migrants.
What emerges is that there are a significant number of small countries
principally in the Caribbean, Central America, and Africawith very
high skilled-migration rates.
Similar exercises comparing skilled-migration rates and GDP per capita
also yield negative correlations. Countries where the fraction of highly educated
workers and general productivity (GDP per capita) is already low
also tend to lose relatively more skilled workers. Of course, this raises some
difcult issues of interpretation. For instance, if the productivity of skilled
labor in these countries is low because of factorssuch as lack of managerial
talent (Rauch 1991) and inability to achieve economies of scale that
are hard, if not impossible to correctthen the emigration of skilled labor
may indeed be the best outcome. We return to these questions below.
What has happened since 1990? The general consensus appears to be
that skilled migration has accelerated, yet the data are limited mainly to
census and labor-force surveys. Salt (1997) has arrived at some estimates
for high skilled-migrant flows to selected OECD countries from a number
of developing and transition countries. He draws a number of (weak) inferences
to the efect that the stocks of highly skilled foreign workers in
OECD countries have increased since 1990. Certainly, the flows of the
highly skilled have been increasing at a higher rate than those of less-skilled
migrants. With respect to the European Union as a whole, labor-forcesurvey
data show that highly skilled migrants (International Standard of
Classification of Occupations [ISCO] categories 13)4 in 1997 accounted

An Overview of Brain Drain in the World

Rao (1979) asserts that the history of cross-national diaporas of scholars and
researchers can be traced back to the times when academics migrated to
the Lyceum in
355 B.C. and to Athens in 388 B.C. Around 300 B.C. Alexandria, where most
of the best
work on science and philosophy was carried out between 300 B.C. and 500
A.D., became
the first centre of science, philosophy and arts (Dedijer, 1968). Soon after
500 A.D. this
centre of teaching and learning was shifted to Gundi Sapur in East Persia,
where the
Greek King Hursa Anusirwan established a university and gathered scholars,
physicians,
and scientists from many parts of the world, but mainly from Christian
countries. During
the middle-ages, cross-border mobility of scholars, teachers and artists was
common to
European universities, especially to people from Italy, France, Britain and
Austria. The
direct causes for this cross-national mobility were said to be the economic,
political,

social issues and intellectual demands for knowledge in natural and physical
sciences and
humanities (Rao, 1979).
According to Thomas (1968), in the nineteenth century, there was a great
flow of
human capital from Europe to the New World4 in terms of exporting physical
and
unskilled labour, and this flow helped create an infrastructure in the New
World which
had to send their people to European countries to receive further training at
a later stage.
As a result, both the sending and receiving countries could enjoy economic
benefits.
After World War II, developing countries began to build sustainable physical
infrastructure, but they were short of technical and professional personnel in
key
scientific, administrative and research positions (Rao, 1979). The flow of
expertise was
then characterized as a North - South, developing developed direction
(Carrington,
Detragiache, & Vishwanath, 1996). In the 1960s, depending on their national
needs,
political leaders receiving countries acted accordingly either to stimulate or
to prevent
from such migrations, yet those who held high degrees of science could
generally be
granted immigration permission (Dedijer, 1968). The British Royal Society,
for the first
time, coined the term brain drain to describe the outflow of British
scientists to the US
in the 1950s and 1960s. As popularly used, the term brain drain denotes
the migration
of scientists, academics, doctors, engineers and other professionals with
university
training from one country to another (Myint, 1968; Shinn, 2002).
As the skilled workforce net flow moves heavily in one direction from
developing
countries to developed countries, it is commonly said that the former sufer
from
shortages of high-level skilled workforce and losses of resources to train that
human
capital. The latter, on the other hand, gain the needed high-level skills and
save huge
sums of money and time needed to educate and train such specialists at
home

(Carrington, Detragiache, & Vishwanath, 1996; Rao, 1979; Rapoport, 2002;

Salt, 1997).
The losses caused by this global migration have been internationally alerted
since the
1960s when the hiring and circulation of skilled workers within transnational
corporations (TNCs) has made an increasing contribution to international
migratory flows
(Salt, 1997). The causes and consequences of brain drain led to debates and
resolutions
in the United Nations as early 1967, concerning the argument that the poor
countries lost
their skilled workers to the rich countries (Lowell, 2002).
The discussion on brain drain usually refers to two groups of people. The first
group includes professionals who migrate from LDCs or who migrate from a
developed
economy to a more dynamic one, and join the workforce of the developed
countries
immediately. The other group consists of students who leave LDCs initially for
the
purpose of education and training and then decide to live and work in
developed
countries (Rao, 1979). Each group has diferent reasons and expectations for
their
migration. Some professionals go to developed countries to work
temporarily, and others
migrate on a long- term basis. The receiving countries have to carefully
assess the
professionals qualifications, and judge whether they will be able to make a
social and
economic contribution. Both the receiving and sending countries have to
make sure that
the migrating professionals do not leave any obligations and financial debts
at home.
Gedamu (2002) divides international intellectual migrants into three main
categories. The first group includes flows of professionals leaving their home
countries
due to economic reasons such as lack of employment and low salaries. The
second type
results from political instability in home countries, and thus people do not
trust their
governments in creating conditions and opportunities for a promising future.
They are
usually disadvantaged individuals due to their ethnic, cultural, religious
belongings or
political afliation in their home countries. The third cohort consists of
scholars who

have been sent abroad for further professional development and remain
abroad for a
better life, leaving their families and work at home. Some of them can find
good jobs and
are able to secure a stable life, but other migrants expectations are not met
as hoped and
become ashamed of returning home being empty-handed. This kind of
migration results
from the lack of appropriate information and misguidance.
The Socio-Economic Effects of Brain Drain
In general, brain drain occurs due to diferent reasons such as political and
social
turmoil (Adams, 1968; Glaser, 1978; Johnson, 1968; Mountford, 1997; Portes,
1976;
Rao, 1979; Thomas; 1968), economic imbalances (Portes, 1976; Rutherford,
1992), lack
of professional development in home countries (Adams, 1968; Bushnell &
Choy, 2001;
Rutherford, 1992; Salt, 1997), and lack of receptivity in home countries due
to the oversupply
of specialized graduates in LDCs (Kindleberger, 1968; Rutherford, 1992). It is
agreed that brain drain is like a zero-sum game in which rich nations gain on
the loss of
poor nations (Bhagwati, 1976; Bhagwati, 1979; Bhagwati & Hamada, 1974;
Bhagwati &
Partington, 1976; Hamada, 1977). If migration did not happen, the home
country would
have a more skilful workforce, and per capita output would be higher (Stark,
Helmenstein, & Prskawetz, 1997; Vidal, 1998). Although diferent countries
have
diferent socio-economic, political and historical contexts, brain drain has a
negative
efect in most sending countries. Stalker (1994) estimates that every year
23,000
graduates leave Africa mainly for Europe and North America. According to
the estimates
of the Presidential Committee on Brain Drain in Nigeria, this country had to
lose 10,694
professionals from tertiary education alone during the period from 1986 to
1990, making
the nations engine room be taken away due to their economic and
political crises
(Anekwe, 2001, p. 1). Also, with a rapidly growing population, the country
has to

establish more educational institutions to accommodate its expanding

population. Yet,
there have been no corresponding employment opportunities for school and
university
leavers, and hence brain drain has occurred. Ethiopia has also faced the
same situation
when 50% of the Ethiopians who went abroad for further education have not
returned
home for the past two decades after completing their studies in the West
(Gedamu, 2002,
p. 2).
The number of temporary resident overseas-trained doctors arriving in
Australia
to work in rural and remote areas has increased from 667 in 1992-1993 to
2,899 in 20012002 (AMWAC, 2002). In 2001, 5.7% of the Australian medical workforce was
born in
Africa or the Middle East and 16% (8,348) in Asia (AIHW, 2003). In the
Philippines there
are about 2,000 medical doctors migrating to western countries while the
country can
train only 1,000 doctors every year, resulting in both a waste of money on
the training
costs and a deficiency of doctors in this country. Many of these migrating
doctors even
accept to work as nurses with the average salary of 8,000 USD/month, which
is 16 times
higher than that a doctor in the Philippines is paid (Tuoi Tre, 05 August,
2005). In
general, Olesen (2002) estimates that the total number of brain drain from
LDCs to
OECD countries is a stock figure of 12.9 million (with 7 million migrating to
the US and
5.9 million to OECD countries), and in most developing countries the
migration rate is
highest among university graduates. Carrington and Enrica (1998) assert
that a majority
of LDC migrants tend to be much better educated than the rest of the
population, and
conclude that the very well educated tend to be the most internationally
mobile group.
Amongst the emigrants are students who go abroad to study and decide not
to
return to their home countries after completing their courses. Within 40
years, the number

of non-returnees of this type has increased seven times from 245,000 in

1960 to 1.7
million (Asian students accounting for 44% of the total number) in 2000. In
the US,
foreign students account for 35% of the total number of students. According
to the US
National Science Foundation (NSF, 2004), half of the PhD candidates in the
US are from
South Asia. Half of these Asian PhD candidates are originally from India and
China who
have already been granted degrees by US educational institutions and have
decided to
remain in that country for higher education. The receiving countries then
enjoy the
money that has been spent on their training. In fact, it is estimated that the
US can earn
seven billion US dollars, and the UK two billion US dollars annually from their
brain
gain (Lien hiep Hoi KH&KT Vietnam, 2004). Among the 150 million people
who are
participating in scientific activities worldwide, 90% are from the seven most
developed
countries, and 25% are working in the US and Canada. 90% of patents in the
world
belong to English-speaking countries. These figures show that there seems
an uneven
exchange of knowledge between the east and the west, which is diferent
from Lukes
assertion (2001) about the reciprocal exchange of knowledge between the
two directions.
Instead, developed countries are more dominant in the production and
application of
knowledge.
For the past ten years, developed countries have applied measures to attract
skilled workers from developing countries. For example, the US and Germany
have
loosened immigration policies to people from Russia, China and India who are
often
assumed to possess high educational backgrounds. To call for skilled labour
to come, the
US also grants Skilled Worker Visas (H-1B and L-1 Visas) to those who hold at
least a
bachelors degree in the fields which are needed. The H-1B classification
applies to
people in a specialty occupation which requires theoretical and practical
application of a

body of highly specialized knowledge, and the completion of a specific

course of higher
education such as a bachelors degree. According to the US Chamber of
Commerce,
since October 2000 the number of visas granted has annually increased from
140,000 to
195,000. Within the past ten years, the number of immigrants has reached
28.4 million,
accounting for 10% of the total US population. The US Immigration and
Nationality Act
provides employment-based immigrant visas to people with extraordinary
ability, which
are classified into five preference categories including science, arts,
education, business
and athletics. Applicants who are mostly outstanding professors and
researchers must
prove that they have achieved national or international acclaim and
recognition in their
field of expertise. Seeking highly skilled workforce from foreign countries,
Australia has
recently tightened the skilled immigration policy which strictly requires
applicants to
hold at least a Masters degree in certain fields instead of a bachelors
degree compared
to the past. In France, efective measures have been applied to encourage
foreign
professionals to come and work. In fact, French professors lecturing in North
African
countries are also asked to call for local professionals to migrate to France
(The
Labourer, 23 March 2005).
Brain drain has also occurred amongst developed countries. In Canada, for
instance, brain drain has been happening in connection with brain gain the
reception of
skilled labour from other countries to replace the lost professionals. The
annual average
permanent and temporary emigration in Canada to the United States during
the 1990s
was in a range of 22,000 to 35,000, accounting for 0.1% of the Canadian
population, and
these emigrants were better educated than both the Canadian-born
population and recent
immigrants to Canada. While losses of skilled workers to the US accelerated,
Canada
also enjoyed an influx of 39,000 skilled workers in 1996 into the nations
labour market

(The Daily Statistics Canada, 24 May 2000). In general, as trained workforce

moves
from developing countries to developed countries, the former experience
shortages of
highly skilled human resource and sufer losses of financial resources to train
that human
capital while the latter tend to gain the needed expertise human capacity
and save huge
sums of money for not having to train such specialists. In other words, brain
drain is like
a slow death for sending countries (Blagov, 2000).
In Vietnam, amongst the 30,000 students studying overseas, approximately
95%
who have received financial assistance and loans have returned home. The
others have
remained in the foreign countries to work to pay the debt or to pursue higher
education
(Tin Tuc Vietnam, 23 July 2004; VNS, 11 November 2004; UNDP, 2002).
According to
the writers survey done at an Australian university in 2005 (Nguyen, 2005),
selfnancing
students tend not to return to Vietnam after graduation in order to pay the
money that their parents had to invest for their education. However, also
according to this
survey, about 95% of the Vietnamese students at this university expect to
return to
Vietnam to work due to two main reasons: ties with families in Vietnam and
their
patriotism. Their patriotism cannot be seen as the sole love for the country
and the
protection of their home country, but it is expressed as transnational
patriotism with
their expectations and eforts to contribute to the nations development even
from a
geographical distance. This is the determinant pull factor from Vietnam (the
push factor
from Australia) while the pull factor from the Australian university
(considered as the
push factor from Vietnam) is the chance to enhance their professional
development in the
modern R&D environment. Consequently, if Vietnam could provide academic
courses of
high quality as those in Australia, would students choose to study abroad? If
Vietnamese
educators could train each individual with real patriotism, would Vietnamese
academics

choose to leave home? It is certain that these questions are just some
examples of the
challenges Vietnam is facing with at the moment.
Sustainable Measures Used to Mitigate Negative Effects of Brain
Drain
To deal with the flows of professionals in the 1960s, when governments were
making eforts to mitigate the negative efects of these migrations, sending
countries had
to raise salaries for professionals, which had to at least reflect their
opportunity costs
abroad (Adams & Dirlam, 1968). Yet, this approach seems unrealistic in poor
nations like
Vietnam because it lies out of the States financial capability. Also, salary
diferentials
amongst employees may result in many negative efects such as strong
competition to go
abroad, passing-the-buck and increasing personal jealousy. In my view,
although the next
agenda seems to be too slow for LDCs to carry out, they need to create more
local-based
professional development opportunities for people and for those in
employment. In fact,
it calls for the revolutionary economic and technological changes that build
up a new
class of professionals who produce innovations and encourage the receptivity
to change.
Furthermore, sending countries must restructure investment in education,
tailor their
training needs and rationalize human capacity policies. This approach insists
that reforms
in education be carried out to produce the right skills with the right
proportions in order
to produce skilled workforce who possess both academic and social
knowledge in order
to survive and grow in the changing environment. More specifically, the
government
must place a strong emphasis on the training and development of the
knowledge-based
economy and R&D.
Furthermore, governments must establish local institutions with both capital
and
professional assistance from foreign organizations and countries in order to
retain most

students at home. Attention to and eforts in human resource management

should be paid
more closely to create favourable conditions for those who have been trained
abroad to
disseminate the knowledge that they have learnt overseas to locals. If
exploited
unreasonably, their knowledge is wasted. This is the alarming situation in
Vietnam,
especially in State agencies, when employees with high qualifications and
good working
abilities are not employed properly. After a while, their professional
knowledge may
become fossilized.
The measure of paying remuneration based on meritocracy and working
abilities
instead of hiring foreign professionals also presents some disadvantages in
developing
countries. Attracting well-trained professionals by ofering high salaries is
one of the
main causes to internal brain drain. For example, many foreign companies
such as Ikea,
Electrolux, P&G Cooperation, BP, Prudential, Ericsson, Mercedes-Benz, etc.
have come
and looked for Vietnamese foreign-trained professionals. A prospective
employee can
approximately earn a monthly salary of 1,000 USD compared to that of 100
USD paid by
the State sector. These foreign employers are also ofering attractive working
promotion
programs to attract as many professionals as possible by accepting students
as interns and
then promoting bright students to suitable posts in their headquarters. These
TNCs have
actually contributed to GDP in Vietnam, yet at the same time, they are the
States
competitors in staf employment.
Bhagwati (1976, 1979) and Gedamu (2002) also suggest another alternative
measure which is to tax emigrants who are indigenously trained in their
home countries
in order to stop the influx from overseas. Yet, this issue, to my mind, is
indeed sensitive
and may be not feasible for some countries which really need specialists to
work in some
specilizations and to replace the lost workers. In addition, this measure may
impinge on
the basic human rights to choose the nature and location to work and reside.

In Vietnam, what the Vietnam Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) does
is to request sponsored students and their relatives to sign in an agreement
which forces
them to return upon the completion of their studies, otherwise the relatives
will be held
accountable for such illegal emigration, and will have to pay back the
money for the
training fees. In 2000 the Ministries of Finance and MOET issued Circular
75/2000/TTLT/BTC-GDDT, under which State-financed non-returnees must
repay all the
grants they have received during their time abroad three months after their
graduation or
even return home ahead of planned time due to violations of academic rules,
or because
they have chosen to drop out of their courses. The amount of repaid money
is determined
by the specifics of each case, but must be at least 50 percent of the total
expenses (UNDP
in Vietnam, 11 August, 2000). However, in the case of self-financing
students, the
possibility to coerce them to return after graduation seems impracticable.
In my own view, governments can reduce the possibility of brain drain by
building an appropriate number of training institutions in their countries and
designing
training programs that best fit their urgent and long-term demands. Political,
economic
and educational leaders must reach a consensus in devising long-term
strategic plans
which recognize and prioritise what expertise fields and the number of
expected
professionals in the future are required for the national development.
Furthermore, they
can employ professional locals who have been trained and have been
residing abroad as
the main seeds in disseminating their knowledge to other local people (Hugo,
2002).
Even building networks of professionals in the same expertise can encourage
them to
contribute their ideas and innovations to the nations development from
overseas. This
strategy can reduce the costs and time to send many people overseas and
prevent
unexpected brain drain. Also, there must be bilateral and multilateral
compromises
amongst sending and receiving countries to avoid the situation where one
country

enjoys great financial benefits from professional migration whereas others

have to
sufer from the losses. They must plan what kind of expertise needed for
their strategic
development and the quantity of professionals demanded. The sending
countries can
negotiate to send professionals trained in an abundant number who may be
at the risk of
unemployment. The sending countries and receiving countries can meet
their demands by
exchanging professionals, stopping the unexpected outpouring of talents and
facilitating
knowledge to circulate amongst the countries.
In addition, calling for more foreign universities to come and build their
ofshore
campuses in LDCs benefits the course of long term education development.
Most parents
want their children to have a foreign western degree. Also studying at a
foreign-funded
university which is based locally is less expensive than studying overseas,
and helps the
local currency circulate inside home countries. Once foreign universities are
built, local
higher education sectors have to urgently improve their training quality and
management
in order to attract more students for financial competition (economic bottom
line) and
social competition (training quality and prestige).
Not all professional migrants can secure a better life in a destination country
because their linguistic competence, the skills and knowledge they have
obtained
somewhere else may not be as appropriate in the foreign country as in their
home country
prior to migration. For example, some Asian migrants holding high degrees in
TESOL
(Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages), Cultural Studies
(American or
Vietnamese Studies), or Medicine cannot find jobs appropriate to their
qualifications.
This phenomenon causes a human capital waste (or brain waste termed by
OECD,
1987 cited in Giannoccolo, 2004, p. 4) in receiving countries and a brain
drain in sending
countries. Also, employers in receiving countries are not always completely
informed of

migrants skills except those who have been studying and working with them
for a long
time. Conflicts at workplace may occur as employers do not share the same
culture,
background, and language with those of immigrating workers. Finally,
compared to their
lives in their home countries, many migrants have to start their lives again
almost from
square one, e.g. looking for accommodation, or spending some time
adjusting into the
new living. Migrants do return home due to diferent reasons such as work
failure,
retirement, ties with relatives in home countries, and expectations to
contribute to the
home countries development by sending remittances6 and ideas and
innovations.

Conceptualizing brain drain/brain gain

According to the traditional literature views, the exodus of human capital is
something of a curse for developing countries, and policies need to be
considered to oppose or reduce its negative impact on the emigration countries,
including the taxation of migrants income abroad. However, in contemporary
theoretical debates, the term brain drain is contrasted with the relatively new
7
term brain gain which emerged in the late 1990s. This literature has taken
into consideration the benefits of skilled migration including increased trade,
remittances, knowledge, capital flows--including Foreign Direct Investment
(FDI8), and the skills attained by return migrants in the destination country. 9 As a
result, brain drain primarily means the spontaneous phenomena accompanying
skilled persons decisions regarding where to work and live, without being
influenced by any policy-makers or state administration, whereas brain gain is
concerned with the intentional eforts of diferent institutions designed to
identify and generate benefits from the outflow of skilled people. goods
produced by skilled labour.150 Clearly the presence of highly-skilled specialists
can improve diverse sectors within receiving countries. For instance, the report
presents data from the UKs Science and Engineering Policy Studies Unit
showing that the incorporation of scientists and engineers from Eastern Europe
had increased in a variety of institutions in the UK over the previous few

years.151 It can be concluded in few words: a generally favourable picture is

present for the host country from the immigration of skilled workers.

Causes of Increased Brain Drain in developing countries

There are many factors which cause brain drain from the less developing countries to the highly
developed countries. The regional, national and global flow of migrates are increasing every
second. There are two main factors due to which people move from one place to another place.
There are some major routes of human migration before 1950s but highlighted in 60s. The
reasons can be different region to region; i.e. satisfactory facilities of goods and services, the
reconnection of diverse cultural groups, in the time of conflict and war, political instability,
health risks and the lack of opportunities. The mobility of intellectuals and skilled personals or
emigrants from the country of origin referred to as the PUSH FACTORS of their capital flight.
And there are many parallel and inverse reasons for the immigrants called PULL FACTORS to
attract towards host countries.

Theoretical framework
Brain drain is studied under the theoretical frame of migration theories under the two main
factors as discussed below:

Push factors:
There are certain push factors causing brain drain, to leave the less developed country to
developed countries as listed below:
Substandard living conditions, dearth of conveyance, accommodation
Under-utilization of skilled and semi- skilled personnel; lack of adequate working conditions;
low panorama of specialized development
Low and corroding wages
Discrimination in recruitments and promotions
Social unrest, Political instability, conflicts and wars
Lack of research facilities, including support staff; meagerness of research funds, lack of
professional apparatus and tools
Lack of freedom and autonomy
Deteriorating excellence of educational system,

Why Academic intellectuals leave their Country of Origin:

Challenging socio-economic conditions (poverty, unemployment, epidemics diseases, increased
rate of crime, corruption, etc.)
Poor libraries, ICT & apparatus for research
Lack of autonomy academic freedom to create literature at universities
Political instability and harassment, human rights manipulations, wars
Lack of pure democracy
Deprived payments for intellectuals and skilled personals
Lack of self-determination and social equivalence
Lack of quality education for children
Lack of career opportunities
Lack of entrepreneurial investments

Why Students go abroad:

Poor worth of national education from the Montessori level to post graduation level
Unavailability of scholarships or financial assistance for the brilliant
Miserable infrastructure of schools, colleges and universities
Limited opportunities for higher studies students
As a decided step towards emigration, they suffered with inferiority complex, due to all the
above reasons and many more pushing factors resulted to leave their point of origin.

Why Students Do Not Return:

Limited employment opportunities restrict to come back in the homeland
especially at PhD level, Course or research work not relevant to home countrys state of affairs
convenience of grants for further exploration
living conditions, insufficient earning and job satisfaction in developed world

Need to send money home and support the family

Getting married to a host countrys citizen to get the citizenship
Although, they suffered with many crisis as alienated in the host country including the identity
crisis, diaspora and make up their own imagined communities to prevent themselves with the
socio-political and religious disparities.

Pull Factors
Similarly, numerous attractive pull factors at the destination states permitting the brain drain to
occur at a higher leap:
Sophisticated standard of living
Employment opportunity
greater income and Higher wages
Extensive resources for research, unconventional and advanced technology, modern facilities of
laboratory equipment; availability of experienced support workforce
Healthier working conditions; employment and occupation opportunities with the proficient
development
Modern educational schemes; prestige of foreign training
Political stability & foreigner secured policies
Meritocracy, transparency
Scholarly &Intellectual autonomy
Appreciation & rewards on governmental level

Effects of Brain Drain in Developing Countries

Aftermaths of Brain Drain in Exaggerated Regions of the globalized world:

Negative effects:
The phenomena of brain drain has left harmful effects in the region of poor countries like Africa,
because of their great hope, talents and skills have immigrated to the richer countries. As seen
pragmatically, develop and rich countries become richer and more developed and poor and
developing countries become poorest and failure states. Consequently, some of the outcomes

have produced the poorer rates of growth and development, highly instable politically some are
in the condition of cold war like Pakistan ..fewer productive educational funds, and worse
health care system and Loss of potential modernizers who might have paved the way to
rejuvenation and up gradation through their advanced and creative abilities.
Doctors, Engineers, scientists & students leave for the industrialized world
Africa loses the best brains it needs for its trade and industrial development

African recruitment of thousands of expatriates from the industrialized West at a cost of billions
every year
increased deterioration of higher schooling
Universities have to be close, extension of higher education not possible
Poor people seriously affected by the epidemic, infectious diseases
Universities unable to run and achieving Development Goals
In the global knowledge economy, Africa becoming sidelined
Due to the pitiable environment, Lack of skilled people.
Crumbling poor & middle class
political instability & religious persecution
Corruption of income tax equal to less basic goods and services
Economic instability leads to increased rate of unemployment and inflation
Lack of industrial growth & innovation.

Positive Effects
The brain drain may cause numerous positive effects for source countries. It is well documented
that remittances of employees played a significant support to GNP of a country and are a viable
spring of income in several developing countries. Remittances and transmittals intrude on family
decisions in terms of professional choice, labor supply, education, investment migration, and
fertility, with hypothetically essential aggregated special effects. Especially in the case of poor
countries, where market inadequacies available to members of low-income classes reduce the set
of possibilities.

Brain Circulation equalizes Brain Drain

Transnational corporation and increase in Foreign Direct Investment
When possibility of migration is real. level of education in sending countries rises
Amalgamation in global economies

Advantages of the brain drain

A brain drain is effectively an export of human resources such as education services, which has
inadvertently become a money machine for countries such as the US, contributing over $7
billion to the US economy.[161] However, it is important to note that the knowledge and wealth
generated is twofold, both for the country of origin and the host country, which acquires
additional human capital to fill labour gaps, thus increasing economic development. The country
of origin, exporting their skilled and highly educated workforce, benefit from a brain gain both in
terms of the increase in the labour power they possess, and also in the fact that skilled migrants
leaving the country generate increased demand for higher level education amongst the
population[162] Furthermore, the sending back of remittances increases economic development in
the country and its standard of living. Circular migration presents a number of benefits
associated with brain drain. First, the economy of the origin country may not be able to take
advantage of the skilled labourers, so it becomes more beneficial for the workers to migrate and
send back remittances. Second, when the migrant workers return home as part of the circular
pattern, they may bring with them new skills and knowledge.
Remittances are a positive effect of the brain drain because they increase living standards in
society; as Faini notes, skilled migrants typically earn more therefore remit more thus fostering
growth.[163] Nevertheless, this is not a precedent. The remittance economy is a significant part of
the brain drain as well an integral source of income for developed economies: 2011 remittances
were estimated at $372bn,[164] and for countries such as Mexico and the Philippines were worth
$24 and $34 billion[164] respectively.
Negative consequences of brain drain

While a brain drain is beneficial, its flaws are inherent in its title, since it usually involves the
loss of human capital, i.e. a skilled labour force which is vital to the development of society and
the country as a whole. In the case of skilled manpower, Alam et al. recognise emigration of

these skilled workers as essentially providing personal benefits for individuals rather than
public benefits.[165]
The brain drain benefits individuals more than society; however, implementing policies to
reduce their movement, according to Skeldon, "is in effect to act against the process of
development.[162] This means society is inadvertently caught in a catch-22 scenario, whereby
"allowing the Brain Drain to continue is likely to result in knowledge being distributed
unevenly"[161] across space, resulting in a fall in economic development for either the country of
origin or destination countries.
Another consequence of the brain drain is the existence of social marginalisation, which occurs
due to several reasons. For example, highly skilled labourers have been villainised by society
because they may be perceived as a disruption to existing society. The migrants themselves, who
have struggled to adapt to their new surroundings and way of life, may subsequently perceive
themselves as living 'parallel lives.' The most pressing issue skilled migrants face in
contemporary society, however, is what Tsuda refers to as double marginalisation,[166] which is
when migrants are kept from integrating into their new surroundings either by society or by
existing governments, and upon their return home are shunned by the community they originally
migrated from due to their earlier departure. Double marginalisation has become a common
feature in contemporary society, which has in some respects reduced the amount of skilled
migration occurring.
Impact on the health systems of developing countries

Despite the existence of significant global efforts trying to improve health and healthcare
systems in the developing world, the money invested is insufficient, as health workers from the
developing countries leave their home countries and immigrate to the developed world, assuming
low-status positions in rich countries. As a result of many local health workers abandoning their
countries, countries in the developing world lack sufficient health care workers, which harms the
local health system. Health systems in the developing world are receiving financial aid to deal
with significant diseases and health issues such as child mortality, AIDS, and malaria. However,
the money is ineffective, as there is not sufficient manpower in the form of medical and health
professionals to do the work required, which further damages the health system rather than
strengthening it.[167]
The utility of the brain drain

In assessing the usefulness of brain drain, it is important to understand that for some of the
worlds developing countries "the gains from migration accrue neither from migrant remittances
nor do they return home with amplified skills acquired abroad".[168] The gains come instead from
the increase in promotion of education of highly skilled labour in developing countries, as well

as investment in infrastructure. Nonetheless there does exist a vast "remittance economy

worldwide worth $510 billion in 2007"

The real reason for Indias brain drain

We always come across reports of how much talented Indians are and are conquering the world
in the field of technology & business. There are several reports suggesting that Indians dominate
the
technology
industry
of
USA.

But why are most of those Indians not in India but in US/UK? If we go a little more in depth to
analyze this issue, we will begin to notice that the top Indian professionals & entrepreneurs today
in US had actually left India during 1970s & 80s after obtaining their degrees in India. So, Why
did we have such a severe brain drain in 1970s and 80s?
One common answer we get is that India did not have the right opportunities for their
specialization. Maybe true for technical PhD holders who need employment from research
institutes which might not have been prevalent in India. But what about entrepreneurs? They had
a market of 0.7 billion ppl, something that nobody would like to ignore. Instead of going to a
foreign land and toiling hard to become entrepreneurs, why did they not remain in India and do
the same here? Afterall, India being a developing nation could have provided them a chance to
experiment as well as capture marketshare.
It is easy to say that they were greedy, did not care for our country and flee to the US for greener
pastures. But the real reason lies in the political & economic system.
This snapshot of the 1974 budget might give us some hints. During Indira Gandhis rule in
1970s, income tax was at an all time high with the top slab having a tax rate of 97.75% !!
Conclusion

Recommendation for the developing countries:

How the future of developing countries can preserve and what should be the recommendation?
Establish recorded database of skilled, intellectual, students and specialists on the time of
departure from LDCs.
Reformation of the national education system and the infrastructure of schools, colleges and
universities.
High budget allocated for the higher education and use of funds purely for the education projects.

Sufficient facilities for research projects in universities and establish the research cells.
Encourage the distant learning and education for all.
Pure democracy, encourage human rights and enforce the legislation, strictly keep an eye on the
law and order situation to stable and regulate the factors like corruption, crime etc.
On governmental level, the allocation of budgets to the science and technology organizations and
from the health sector to control the infectious diseases.
Introduce new policies and laws to reduce the conflict and war at the national and international
level.
Role of government should be the key role to avoid the issue of human capital flight.
Government should spend heavy fund for the infrastructure, avoid load shedding like issues and
provide the demanded power supply and drinking water and the efficient communication.
Facilitate the education system through training, research, and education
Government should advertised job opportunities on merit & provide specific allowance and
salary for the scientists, engineers, doctors and highly intellectuals
State should reduce the rooted conflict to maintain peace
Democratic governance is the best solution for the cancerous problem of brain drain.
Engage the LDCs best organizations with DCs and encourage the collective training and work
with DCs as partners
If west needs some research they should request on the governmental level for research
How western countries can help to reduce brain drain?
Ensure through incentives and immigration policies, intellectual return back to their resource
countries discourage labor recruitment through academics and qualified personals
Discourage full time attendance for the foreigner graduate students
Consideration of joint degrees with developing world universities
Encourage riven PHDs instead of 100% attendance
Support university association to progress LDCs (curriculum, quality and methodology of
research)

Collaboration through appropriate university association for e.g. (HEC, AAU, ACU, AUF IAN)