Immigration and “Brain Drain” – Econlib

What should be the reaction of the government when the intellectuals leave their country? Should it be seen as a brain drain: should a problem be solved? Opponents claim that the abandonment of intellectuals results in huge financial losses, reduced human capital, and professional distortion. They believe that a relaxed immigration system eases human suffering. These critics are misguided. Blaming skilled immigrants for wanting to leave is assumed to be a closed immigration system Useful For native countries; This may not be the case.

Brain drain is a phenomenon where people with technical skills or knowledge leave their place of origin due to conflict, lack of opportunities, political instability, health risks, etc. Concerns of other countries about the Indian brain drain, and the West about their best and brightest prey.

The economic justification for worrying about brain drain is straightforward: in order to hire from their citizens, their own countries need to raise human capital. This is often done through state-run education to make their citizens more productive. However, if this initial investment is not likely to provide a solid return, governments may be less likely to initially sponsor education, resulting in lower overall human capital. When developed countries “hunt” graduates with offers of better education opportunities, higher salaries or both, they virtually slow down modernization and create poorer countries.

However, the rationale for ‘brain drain’ is based on a number of dubious assumptions. First, in the absence of immigration, countries will be able to use these graduates efficiently. Second, the countries of the homeland prefer to keep their most talented people talented in unpleasant jobs or situations. Third, this supposed ‘brain drain’ mostly works in a vacuum.

The first assumption is often unspoken that countries would be good at recruiting these talents. Iran’s strategy, for example, is to lock in their best and brightest works, rather than give them jobs that will improve the country. Unfortunately, there is little reason to think that any amount of talent will create economic growth if it is unable to harness it. Economist Bogdan Glavan believes that binding constraints are not ‘human capital’ but physical capital in the development of countries. Similarly Robinson Crusoe, despite being talented, cannot do much on an island, nor can skilled labor in an environment without equipment make good use of it.

The second skeptical assumption, which is to keep people in unpleasant work or situations for the common good, is also wrong. This assumption is reduced by the aggregation problem and the reaction effect. First, the collective problem challenges this notion of a general well-missing political independence. It is difficult to determine how much political freedom deserves, but the published choices of the people to move away from their country of origin indicate that it is worth a lot more. After all, if it doesn’t, it can be a bargain for the individual to stay. Another problem, the impact of the response, changes the pattern because remittances, trade gains and the failure to include GDP paint an incomplete picture of economic development. Remittances can be an important part of an economic strategy. As more immigrants leave a country, the amount of money left per person increases due to remittances. Since underdeveloped countries may lack physical capital, remittances can provide resources to greatly increase productivity. Instead of looking at emigration as a loss to one’s homeland, it is better to describe it as an alternative. Different combinations of production factors can increase productivity.

The third and final hypothesis is that the brain drain occurs in a vacuum. It’s not. First, being able to leave one’s country tempts many to be educated first, because they think education will be a worthwhile investment. Lacking the ability to follow a better life, people are less likely to invest in themselves. Increasing barriers to immigration and emigration can break the interdependent relationship between education and rewards. Looking at immigration for a long time can weaken some of the perceived negative effects of a relaxed immigration policy. Circular migration exists to some extent, and can improve the political rules that give people access to better governed governments. If the people are a valuable asset, and people express that they are willing to return when violence or corruption subsides, it becomes a strong incentive for governments to reform and improve. Frederick Doquer and Hillel Rapoport summarized their research, saying, “It is not a matter of fate for a country to gain or lose under any circumstances; To a large extent, they rely on public policy adopted by the receiving and sending countries. “The existence of migration does not mean that underdeveloped countries will suffer. Stopping immigration to deal with the drain could have the exact opposite effect on its intended effect.

The term brain drain, when often used in conversation, is too much of a guess. It is safe to assume that countries that prevent immigration, or that people trapped in it, will benefit primarily by limiting people’s options. The intellectual short-cuts anticipated by anti-immigrants conceive of a tension between collective and individual good that may not exist. Instead of blaming people for leaving, people should think about why they want to.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.