I want to state my opinion about the phenomenon named Brain Drain. “Brain drain” can be defined as follows; the departure of educated or professional people from one country, economic sector, or field for another usually for better pay or living conditions. In short, this term implies criticism against large-scale emigration of skilled workers from poor countries to rich countries.
The term was coined in Britain in the 1960’s, when a lot of scientists moved to the US dreaming of the better pay and opportunities.
For instance, AFB news reported that in 2009 11 Americans got the Nobel Prize, and 5 out of 11 were naturalised US citizen. More controversial examples are sub-Saharan African states. It is estimated that during 1960s to 1980s, 30% of skilled labour moved to Europe. In Zimbabwe, 60 people graduates from the medical school annually but 90% of them leave the country. (Peter Stalker 1994)
On the one hand, brain drain can be regarded as exploitation of human resources by rich states; on the other hand this is a great opportunity for development and mutual-understanding. Well, I support the latter. I have three points.
Firstly, some criticise the phenomenon claiming that rich countries are buying skilled workers with money. That’s not necessarily the case. In fact, the labour markets in developing countries are excess. In Côte d’Ivoire in 1985, for example, 40% of university graduates were jobless. So I think supplies meet demands here.
Secondly, sending skilled labours abroad can bring about positive results. South Korea, who now has world highest level of industrial, medical, and intellectual technology, lost 10% of professional workers in the 1970s. So sending skilled workers abroad really is an opportunity to enhance their own growth.
Thirdly, it’s not really a “brain drain”, rather it’s a “brain exchange”. I mean international flow of skilled labour is not one-way. Multi-national cooperation’s and International organisations are placing their factories and offices in developing countries, which brings a lot of skilled workers from developed countries!. I think this is a good for both individuals (they can broaden their career path) and society (for mutual-understanding’s sake).
In conclusion, there’s nothing wrong with brain drain. Rather it can offer opportunities. So why don’ t we let the brain drain?
by Yuki Sugiyama
JAPANsociology 
This is a very interesting topic.
“In conclusion, there’s nothing wrong with brain drain. Rather it can offer opportunities. So why don’ t we let the brain drain?”
This a strong statement to make.
And I commend you for your argument.
However, here are some questions you might like to reflect on to further your argument.
1. How about looking at the phenomenon of “Brain Drain” from the perspective of “3rd World” countries? In some poverty-stricken countries, perhaps in South East Asia, there are many professionals (i.e. engineers, teachers, nurses, doctors, etc) who work abroad for better work conditions. As a result, these poor countries lose its professional work force and are left with problems affecting the education, health, and economic sectors. So in this case, is there still nothing wrong with brain drain?
2. Like you said, there are many benefits and opportunities that could come out as a result of “brain drain” or as you said, “brain exchange,” but how do we control the phenomenon? As in the case of third world countries losing their professional work force?
Thanks : )
Thanks for commenting.
Let me answer your questions.
1, Yes I do understand what you mean. That kind of situation is not desirable for what you call “the third world countries”. But that doesn’t really deny the individual’s right to choose whether or not they move.
Also As I wrote in the article, countries can benefit by sending skilled labour abroad. Look at Korean or Chinese elites, they studied and worked abroad and now their experience and knowledge is helping them a lot. Moving abroad doesn’t necessarily mean that she/he cuts all the ties with the home country.They would have their family, friends, and emotional obligation to varied extent,Wouldn’t they?
2, I think we don’t need to control the phenomena , as long as it is conducted under fair and morally defendable procedures, which absolutely depend on each states. I still think we shouldn’t control peoples rights of moving freely. So what you say is not a problem of the host countries, rather it’s a issue that should be tackled by International organisations, NGOs and global civil society with which we should cooperate.
Yuki
Thanks for the reply.
2. ” as long as it is conducted under fair and morally defendable procedures, which absolutely depend on each states.” — Isn’t this a form of control?
And how do we define “morally defendable” procedures?
It’s not a problem of host countries? Why is that? Can you elaborate on that?
Thanks
1. ” Look at Korean or Chinese elites, they studied and worked abroad and now their experience and knowledge is helping them a lot.” — again, this is from the point of view of the elites, so if the greater population consists of the educated individuals opt to work abroad, what happens to the home country which is now left with a small professional work force and an abundant unskilled/undereducated population?
“They would have their family, friends, and emotional obligation to varied extent,Wouldn’t they?” — To a certain extent yes, but how about to the country itself?
Thanks for an interesting exchange
WOW So many questions! thanks
Sorry it was confusing for you(Excuse my language level:( )
>>Isn’t this a form of control?
-Of course every state has their own borders and some sort of selection. I’m not saying we should not manage the border at all. What I meant was that we should not enforce restrictive border controlling policies in terms of skilled labour.
>>And how do we define “morally defendable” procedures?
– morally defendable procedures would depend on each case, I can’t generalise that. im sorry.
Should be discussed and agreed within each communities.
>>It’s not a problem of host countries? Why is that? Can you elaborate on that?
-Receiving states are not necessarily responsible for problems in states from which the migrating skilled labourer come.Rather those are problems that IOs and NGOs are trying to tackle.
>>point of view of the elites??
-It doesn’t matter whose point of view it is. I’m just saying skilled labour migration can stimulate development, and should therefore be encouraged, since Migrants also transfer home skills and attitudes – known as “social remittances”– which support development.
What is elite’s point of view?IDoes that make any significance in saying “Brain drain” is “Brain exchange” ,“brain circulation”or whatever, which can be a powerful force for development, through transfer of resources and ideas back to sending countries.
>>if the greater population consists of the educated individuals opt to work abroad, what happens to the home country which is now left with a small professional work force and an abundant unskilled/undereducated population?
-I’m sorry.I don’t know. there are really diverse situations so I don’t think I can generalise all the situations. I still think the benefits outnumber the costs.
>>how about to the country itself?
-Does everyone always have to care about their country? i don’t think so.Of course some wouldn’t. Yet Large majority would. At least, the fact that “social remittance” is helping the countries develop economically, is real.I reckon.
So what do you think we should do about this phenomenon? Should we say something like “Oh you cannot come to the United States and work here even though your are needed here, simply because you are from “the third world” , You should be helping your fellow people in your country!” ?
very difficult topic.
Thanks