Great piece - I found the commentary around returning migration to be of particular interest. I agree with the sentiment that this can be a highly effective mechanism to catalyse learning by doing. However, I would be interested in the net value of highly-skilled (or potentially skilled) individuals migrating to pursue education opportunities. Of the handful of individuals who return, there are undoubtedly a large portion (I wouldn't be surprised if is were a large majority) who do not return which could lead to a significant outflow of talent and economic growth potential.
If this hypothesis is fair, how do we view policy prescriptions around migration for education opportunities more holistically, as I think there can be a risk of only focusing on those who may return.
Apart from the nice points Andy adds, here is a pointed response on this "brain drain" critique from Lant Pritchett:
"Some may fret about “brain drain,” the spurious notion that a poor country will be further immiserated by losing its best and brightest overseas. The principal attraction of arguments regarding “brain drain” seems to be that the words rhyme, as there has never been any evidence that outward migration in general has harmed a country’s prospects. It is worth remembering that many of the richest countries in the world today—including Denmark, Italy, Norway, Spain, and Sweden—had some of the highest emigration rates in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries."
I think there are also benefits for the home country even if their citizens don't come back - the obvious one being remittances, which are a vital source of income and foreign exchange for many countries. But there are probably some more subtle/long-term benefits of having a skill diaspora abroad - like Ireland does in the US for example. It would certainly facilitate trade!
Tony, sorry for the massive delay in responding. Andy and Jonathan covered a number of key points, but to add a few things on top:
1) There is a rough consensus in the literature that global migration is a win-win-win--for the migrant, receiving country, and sending country. There's some nuance here of course, but this is an overall finding.
One nuance is related to the type of migrant--"high-skilled" vs. "low-skilled" (itself a somewhat inaccurate and unfair categorization). Because someone's productivity is massively determined by where they are--and high-income economies are more "high-skill" biased--high-skilled migration fits this triple win maybe even better than low-skilled migration (where some in the literature find small negative effects on local low-skilled native workers).
2) Out-migration increases as countries get richer (to a point), and the incentive of much higher wages abroad often induces local workers in developing countries to upskill. So it's not necessarily the case that low-income countries growing well below potential are the ones suffering from a large outflow of talent. Instead, it is countries that are already growing (or have grown) at a decent clip that enable their people to accumulate the resources and networks to migrate.
Indeed, if you are a country in the first category, you may want MORE out-migration--because that increases the chance that you'll benefit from return migrants, trade and investment links, etc. that bring knowhow that can accelerate your own growth.
Knowhow that matters for economic growth may not come from the classroom, so it's not clear to me that high-skilled migration for education equates to reduced economic growth potential for the sending country. (Historical experience also shows that many countries embarked on rapid growth episodes starting with very low levels of formal education.)
Great piece - I found the commentary around returning migration to be of particular interest. I agree with the sentiment that this can be a highly effective mechanism to catalyse learning by doing. However, I would be interested in the net value of highly-skilled (or potentially skilled) individuals migrating to pursue education opportunities. Of the handful of individuals who return, there are undoubtedly a large portion (I wouldn't be surprised if is were a large majority) who do not return which could lead to a significant outflow of talent and economic growth potential.
If this hypothesis is fair, how do we view policy prescriptions around migration for education opportunities more holistically, as I think there can be a risk of only focusing on those who may return.
Apart from the nice points Andy adds, here is a pointed response on this "brain drain" critique from Lant Pritchett:
"Some may fret about “brain drain,” the spurious notion that a poor country will be further immiserated by losing its best and brightest overseas. The principal attraction of arguments regarding “brain drain” seems to be that the words rhyme, as there has never been any evidence that outward migration in general has harmed a country’s prospects. It is worth remembering that many of the richest countries in the world today—including Denmark, Italy, Norway, Spain, and Sweden—had some of the highest emigration rates in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries."
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/global-economy-immigration-before-automation-people-over-robots
Hi Tony, thanks for your thoughtful comment. Estimates on the share of migrants that return home differ, but it could be up to half (see here for example: https://www.washington.edu/news/2018/12/24/new-human-migration-estimate/)
I think there are also benefits for the home country even if their citizens don't come back - the obvious one being remittances, which are a vital source of income and foreign exchange for many countries. But there are probably some more subtle/long-term benefits of having a skill diaspora abroad - like Ireland does in the US for example. It would certainly facilitate trade!
Tony, sorry for the massive delay in responding. Andy and Jonathan covered a number of key points, but to add a few things on top:
1) There is a rough consensus in the literature that global migration is a win-win-win--for the migrant, receiving country, and sending country. There's some nuance here of course, but this is an overall finding.
One nuance is related to the type of migrant--"high-skilled" vs. "low-skilled" (itself a somewhat inaccurate and unfair categorization). Because someone's productivity is massively determined by where they are--and high-income economies are more "high-skill" biased--high-skilled migration fits this triple win maybe even better than low-skilled migration (where some in the literature find small negative effects on local low-skilled native workers).
2) Out-migration increases as countries get richer (to a point), and the incentive of much higher wages abroad often induces local workers in developing countries to upskill. So it's not necessarily the case that low-income countries growing well below potential are the ones suffering from a large outflow of talent. Instead, it is countries that are already growing (or have grown) at a decent clip that enable their people to accumulate the resources and networks to migrate.
Indeed, if you are a country in the first category, you may want MORE out-migration--because that increases the chance that you'll benefit from return migrants, trade and investment links, etc. that bring knowhow that can accelerate your own growth.
3) Increases in educational attainment do not go hand-in-hand with growth: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/859821468180273788/pdf/773740JRN020010l0the0Education0Gone.pdf
Knowhow that matters for economic growth may not come from the classroom, so it's not clear to me that high-skilled migration for education equates to reduced economic growth potential for the sending country. (Historical experience also shows that many countries embarked on rapid growth episodes starting with very low levels of formal education.)
Happy to chat more in person!