Hubbry Logo
Human capital flightHuman capital flightMain
Open search
Human capital flight
Community hub
Human capital flight
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Human capital flight
Human capital flight
from Wikipedia
Theoretical physicist Albert Einstein, who emigrated to the United States to escape Nazi persecution, is an example of human capital flight as a result of political change.

Human capital flight is the emigration or immigration of individuals who have received advanced training in their home country. The net benefits of human capital flight for the receiving country are sometimes referred to as a "brain gain" whereas the net costs for the sending country are sometimes referred to as a "brain drain".[1] In occupations with a surplus of graduates, immigration of foreign-trained professionals can aggravate the underemployment of domestic graduates,[2] whereas emigration from an area with a surplus of trained people leads to better opportunities for those remaining. However, emigration may cause problems for the home country if trained people are in short supply there.

Research shows that there are significant economic benefits of human capital flight for the migrants themselves and for the receiving country.[3][4][5][6] The consequences for the country of origin are less straightforward, with research suggesting they can be positive,[7][8][9][10][11][12] negative[13][14][15][16] or mixed.[17][18][19] Research also suggests that emigration,[20] remittances and return migration[21] can have a positive effect on democratization and on the quality of political institutions in the country of origin.[22][23][24][25]

Types

[edit]

There are several types of human capital flight:

  • Organizational: The flight of talented, creative and highly qualified employees from large corporations that occurs when employees perceive the direction and leadership of the company to be regressive, unstable or stagnant, and thus unable to satisfy their personal and professional ambitions.
  • Geographical: The flight of highly trained individuals and college graduates from their area of residence.
  • Industrial: The movement of traditionally skilled workers from one sector of an industry to another.

As with other human migration, the social environment is often considered to be a key reason for this population shift. In source countries, lack of opportunities, political instability or oppression, economic depression, health risks and more (push factors)[26] contribute to human capital flight, whereas host countries usually offer rich opportunities, political stability and freedom, a developed economy and better living conditions (pull factors)[26] that attract talent. At the individual level, family influences (relatives living overseas, for example), as well as personal preferences, career ambitions and other motivating factors, can be considered.

Origins and uses

[edit]

The term "brain drain" was coined by the Royal Society to describe the emigration of "scientists and technologists" to North America from post–World War II Europe.[27] Another source indicates that this term was first used in the United Kingdom to describe the influx of Indian scientists and engineers.[28] Although the term originally referred to technology workers leaving a nation, the meaning has broadened into "the departure of educated or professional people from one country, economic sector, or field for another, usually for better pay or living conditions".[29]

Brain drain is a phenomenon where, relative to the remaining population, a substantial number of more educated (numerate, literate) persons emigrate.[30]

Given that the term "brain drain", as frequently used, implies that skilled emigration is bad for the country of origin, some scholars recommend against using the term in favor of more neutral and scientific alternative terms.[31][32]

Effects

[edit]

The positive effects of human capital flight are sometimes referred to as "brain gain" whereas the negative effects are sometimes referred to as "brain drain". According to economist Michael Clemens, it has not been shown that restrictions on high-skill emigration reduce shortages in the countries of origin.[33] According to development economist Justin Sandefur, "there is no study out there... showing any empirical evidence that migration restrictions have contributed to development."[34] Hein de Haas, Professor of Sociology at the University of Amsterdam, describes the brain drain as a "myth",[35][36] whilst political philosopher Adam James Tebble argues that more open borders aid both the economic and institutional development of poorer migrant sending countries, contrary to proponents of "brain-drain" critiques of migration.[37][38] However, according to University of Louvain (UCLouvain) economist Frederic Docquier, human capital flight has an adverse effect on most developing countries, even if it can be beneficial for some developing countries.[39] Whether a country experiences a "brain gain" or "brain drain" depends on factors such as composition of migration, level of development, and demographic aspects including its population size, language and geographic location.[39]

Economic effects

[edit]

Some research suggests that migration (both low- and high-skilled) is beneficial both to the receiving and exporting countries,[3][4][40][5] while other research suggests detrimental effect on the country of origin.[10][14] According to one study, welfare increases in both types of countries: "welfare impact of observed levels of migration is substantial, at about 5% to 10% for the main receiving countries and about 10% in countries with large incoming remittances".[3] According to economists Michael Clemens and Lant Pratchett, "permitting people to move from low-productivity places to high-productivity places appears to be by far the most efficient generalized policy tool, at the margin, for poverty reduction".[41] A successful two-year in situ anti-poverty program, for instance, helps poor people make in a year what is the equivalent of working one day in the developed world.[41] Research on a migration lottery that allowed Tongans to move to New Zealand found that the lottery winners saw a 263% increase in income from migrating (after only one year in New Zealand) relative to the unsuccessful lottery entrants.[42] A 2017 study of Mexican immigrant households in the United States found that by virtue of moving to the United States, the households increase their incomes more than fivefold immediately.[43] The study also found that the "average gains accruing to migrants surpass those of even the most successful current programs of economic development."[43] A 2024 study found that EU migration to the United States had adverse effects on EU productivity in the short-term but positive long-term effects through productivity spillover effects.[44]

Remittances increase living standards in the country of origin. Remittances are a large share of GDP in many developing countries,[45][46] and have been shown to increase the wellbeing of receiving families.[47] In the case of Haiti, the 670,000 adult Haitians living in the OECD sent home about $1,700 per migrant per year, well over double Haiti's $670 per capita GDP.[34] A study on remittances to Mexico found that remittances lead to a substantial increase in the availability of public services in Mexico, surpassing government spending in some localities.[48] A 2017 study found that remittances can significantly alleviate poverty after natural disasters.[49] Research shows that more educated and higher earning emigrants remit more.[50] Some research shows that the remittance effect is not strong enough to make the remaining natives in countries with high emigration flows better off.[3] A 2016 NBER paper suggests that emigration from Italy due to the 2008 financial crisis reduced political change in Italy.[51]

Return migration can also be a boost to the economy of developing states, as the migrants bring back newly acquired skills, savings and assets.[52] A study of Yugoslav refugees during the Yugoslav Wars of the early 1990s found that citizens of former Yugoslavia who were allowed temporary stays in Germany brought back skills, knowledge and technologies to their home countries when they returned home in 1995 (after the Dayton accords), leading to greater productivity and export performance.[53]

Studies show that the elimination of barriers to migration would have profound effects on world GDP, with estimates of gains ranging between 67 and 147.3%.[54][55][56] Research also finds that migration leads to greater trade in goods and services between the sending and receiving countries.[57][58][59] Using 130 years of data on historical migrations to the United States, one study finds "that a doubling of the number of residents with ancestry from a given foreign country relative to the mean increases by 4.2 percentage points the probability that at least one local firm invests in that country, and increases by 31% the number of employees at domestic recipients of FDI from that country. The size of these effects increases with the ethnic diversity of the local population, the geographic distance to the origin country, and the ethno-linguistic fractionalization of the origin country."[60] Emigrants have been found to significantly boost Foreign direct investment (FDI) back to their country of origin.[61][62][63] According to one review study, the overall evidence shows that emigration helps developing countries integrate into the global economy.[64]

A 2016 study reviewing the literature on migration and economic growth shows that "migrants contribute to the integration of their country into the world market, which can be particularly important for economic growth in developing countries."[65] Some research suggests that emigration causes an increase in the wages of those who remain in the country of origin. A 2014 survey of the existing literature on emigration finds that a 10 percent emigrant supply shock would increase wages in the sending country by 2–5.5%.[66] A study of emigration from Poland shows that it led to a slight increase in wages for high- and medium-skilled workers for remaining Poles.[67] A 2013 study finds that emigration from Eastern Europe after the 2004 EU enlargement increased the wages of remaining young workers in the country of origin by 6%, while it had no effect on the wages of old workers.[68] The wages of Lithuanian men increased as a result of post-EU enlargement emigration.[69] Return migration is associated with greater household firm revenues.[70] A study from the IMF concluded that emigration of high skilled labour from Eastern Europe has adversely affected economic and productivity growth in Eastern Europe and slowed down convergence in per capita income between high and low income EU countries.[71]

A 2019 study in the Journal of Political Economy found that Swedish emigration to the United States during the late 19th and early 20th century strengthened the labour movement and increased left-wing politics and voting trends.[72] The authors argue that the ability to emigrate strengthened the bargaining position of labour, as well as provided exit options for political dissidents who might have been oppressed.[72]

Education and innovation

[edit]

Research finds that emigration and low migration barriers has net positive effects on human capital formation and innovation in the sending countries.[9][10][11][12][73][74] This means that there is a "brain gain" instead of a "brain drain" to emigration. One study finds that sending countries benefit indirectly in the long-run on the emigration of skilled workers because those skilled workers are able to innovate more in developed countries, which the sending countries are able to benefit on as a positive externality.[75] Greater emigration of skilled workers consequently leads to greater economic growth and welfare improvements in the long-run.[75] According to economist Michael Clemens, it has not been shown that restrictions on high-skill emigration reduce shortages in the countries of origin.[33]

A 2021 study found that migration opportunities for Filipino nurses led to a net increase in human capital in the Philippines, thus contradicting the "brain drain" thesis.[8] A 2017 paper found that the emigration opportunities to the United States for high-skilled Indians provided by the H-1B visa program surprisingly contributed to the growth of the Indian IT sector.[40][76] A greater number of Indians were induced to enroll in computer science programs in order to move to the United States; however, a large number of these Indians never moved to the United States (due to caps in the H-1B program) or returned to India after the completion of their visas.[40][76] One 2011 study finds that emigration has mixed effects on innovation in the sending country, boosting the number of important innovations but reducing the number of average inventions.[77] A 2019 paper found that emigration from Fiji led to a net increase in skill stocks in Fiji, as citizens increased their education attainment.[78] A 2019 analysis found that emigration of youths from Italy led to a reduction in innovation.[79]

Democracy, human rights and liberal values

[edit]

Research also suggests that emigration, remittances and return migration can have a positive effect on political institutions and democratization in the country of origin.[22][80][81][72][82][83][84][85][86] Research shows that exposure to emigrants boosts turnout.[87][88] Research also shows that remittances can lower the risk of civil war in the country of origin.[89] Migration leads to lower levels of terrorism.[90] Return migration from countries with liberal gender norms has been associated with the transfer of liberal gender norms to the home country.[91][92][93] A 2009 study finds that foreigners educated in democracies foster democracy in their home countries.[94] Studies find that leaders who were educated in the West are significantly more likely to improve their country's prospects of implementing democracy.[95][96] A 2016 study found that Chinese immigrants exposed to Western media censored in China became more critical of their home government's performance on the issues covered in the media and less trusting in official discourse.[97] A 2014 study found that remittances decreased corruption in democratic states.[98]

A 2015 study finds that the emigration of women in rural China reduces son preference.[99]

Historical examples

[edit]

Flight of the Neoplatonic academy philosophers

[edit]

After Justinian closed the Platonic Academy in 529 AD, according to the historian Agathias, its remaining members sought protection from the Sassanid ruler, Khosrau I, carrying with them precious scrolls of literature, philosophy and, to a lesser degree, science. After the peace treaty between the Persian and the Byzantine empires in 532 guaranteed their personal security, some members of this group found sanctuary in the Pagan stronghold of Harran, near Edessa. One of the last leading figures of this group was Simplicius, a pupil of Damascius, the last head of the Athenian school. The students of an academy-in-exile may have survived into the ninth century, long enough to facilitate the medieval revival of the Neoplatonist commentary tradition in Baghdad.[100]

Spanish expulsion of Jews (15th century)

[edit]

After the end of the Catholic reconquest of Spain, the Catholic Monarchs pursued the goal of a religiously homogenous kingdom. Thus, Jews were expelled from the country in 1492. As they dominated Spain's financial service industry, their expulsion was instrumental in causing future economic problems, for example the need for foreign bankers such as the Fugger family and others from Genova. On 7 January 1492, the King ordered the expulsion of all the Jews from Spain—from the kingdoms of Castile and León (Kingdoms of Galicia, Leon, Old Castile, New Castile or Toledo), Navarra and Aragon (Aragon, Principality of Catalonia, Kingdoms of Valencia, Mallorca and the Rousillon and the two Sicilies). Before that, the Queen had also expelled them from the four Kingdoms of Andalusia (Seville, Cordova, Jaén and Granada).[101][102] Their departure contributed to economic decline in some regions of Spain.

Huguenot exodus from France (17th century)

[edit]

In 1685, Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes and declared Protestantism to be illegal in the Edict of Fontainebleau. After this, many Huguenots (estimates range from 200,000 to 1 million[103]) fled to surrounding Protestant countries: England, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark and Prussia—whose Calvinist great elector, Frederick William, welcomed them to help rebuild his war-ravaged and under-populated country. Many went to the Dutch colony at the Cape (South Africa), where they were instrumental in establishing a wine industry.[104] At least 10,000 went to Ireland, where they were assimilated into the Protestant minority during the plantations.[citation needed]

Many Huguenots and their descendants prospered. Henri Basnage de Beauval fled France and settled in the Netherlands, where he became an influential writer and historian. Abel Boyer, another noted writer, settled in London and became a tutor to the British royal family. Henry Fourdrinier, the descendant of Huguenot settlers in England, founded the modern paper industry. Augustin Courtauld fled to England, settling in Essex and established a dynasty that founded the British silk industry. Noted Swiss mathematician Gabriel Cramer was born in Geneva to Huguenot refugees. Sir John Houblon, the first Governor of the Bank of England, was born into a Huguenot family in London. Isaac Barré, the son of Huguenot settlers in Ireland, became an influential British soldier and politician. Gustav and Peter Carl Fabergé, the descendants of Huguenot refugees, founded the world-famous Fabergé company in Russia, maker of the famous Faberge eggs.[citation needed]

The exodus of Huguenots from France created a brain drain, as Huguenots accounted for a disproportionate number of entrepreneurial, artisan and technical occupations in the country.[105][106][107] The loss of this technical expertise was a blow from which the kingdom did not fully recover for many years.[citation needed]

Expulsion of the Jesuits

[edit]

The suppression of the Society of Jesus in Spanish America in 1767 caused the Jesuit vineyards in Peru to be auctioned at high prices, but new owners did not have the same expertise as the Jesuits, contributing to a production decline.[108]

Also, after the suppression, the production and importance of yerba mate-producing regions, which had been dominated by Jesuits, began to decline.[109][110] Excessive exploitation of indigenous labour in the plantations led to decay in the industry and the scattering of Guaranís living in the missions.[110][111] With the fall of the Jesuits, and the mismanagement of their former enterprises by the crown and the new entrepreneurs that had taken over, Paraguay gained an unrivalled position as the main producer of yerba mate. The plantation system of the Jesuits did prevail, however, and mate continued chiefly to be harvested from wild stand through the 18th century and most of the 19th century.[110]

19th century Eastern Europe migration

[edit]

Mid-19th century Eastern European migration was significantly shaped by religious factors. The Jewish minority experienced strong discrimination in the Russian Empire during this period, which reached its maximum in the pogrom waves of the 1880s. During the 1880s, the mass exodus of more than two million Russian Jews began. Already before, a migration stream of Jewish people started which was characterized by highly skilled individuals. This pronounced selectivity was not caused by economic incentives, but by political persecution.[30] A large number of Nobel Prize winners were descendants of the people ejected by pogroms who emigrated to the United States and the United Kingdom.

Antisemitism in pre-World War II Europe (1933–1943)

[edit]

Antisemitic sentiments and laws in Europe through the 1930s and 1940s, culminating in the Holocaust, caused an exodus of intelligentsia. Notable examples are:

Besides Jews, Nazi persecution extended to liberals and socialists in Germany, further contributing to emigration. Refugees in New York City founded the University in Exile. The most prolific research center in maths and physics before the war was the German University of Göttingen, that became a focal point for the Nazi crackdown on "Jewish physics", as represented by the work of Albert Einstein. In what was later called the "great purge" of 1933, academics were expelled or fled, ending up in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Following the great purge, the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton took on the role of leading research institution in maths and physics.

The Bauhaus, perhaps the most important arts and design school of the 20th century, was forced to close down during the Nazi regime because of their liberal and socialist leanings, which the Nazis considered degenerate.[citation needed] The school had already been shut down in Weimar because of its political stance, but moved to Dessau prior to the closing. Following this abandonment, two of the three pioneers of modern architecture, Mies van der Rohe and Walter Gropius, left Germany for America (while Le Corbusier stayed in France). They introduced the European Modern movement to the American public and fostered the International Style in architecture and design,[citation needed] helping to transform design education at American universities and influencing later architects.[citation needed] A 2014 study in the American Economic Review found that German Jewish Émigrés in the US boosted innovation there.[112]

The resulting wave of high-skilled immigration greatly bolstered up the scientific development of the United Kingdom and United States of America. As a result of Nazi intellectual purges, the Anglosphere replaced Germany as the world's scientific leader.[113] German historian Michael Grüttner [de] stated that the "German universities suffered a loss of 20.5% of their teaching staff" after the Nazi seizure of power. He estimates that about 70% of fired scientists lost their position because of Jewish or "non-Aryan" ancestry, 10% lost their position because they were married to a Jew, and 20% were fired for political reasons. As over 60% of fired scientists emigrated, Grüttner argues that Germany lost even more than the sheer number of dismissed scientists would suggest as top scientists were disproportionately represented among the emigrees. When taking into consideration both those who won Nobel Prize either before or after emigration, a total of 24 Nobel laureates fled either Germany or Austria because of Nazi persecution.[114]

Many Jews escaping from German-occupied Europe to the United Kingdom established successful careers in publishing, medicine, science, psychoanalysis and other occupations. Notable scientists include Max Perutz, Rudolf Peierls, Francis Simon, Ernst Boris Chain and Hans Adolf Krebs.[115] Intellectuals include art historians Nikolaus Pevsner and Ernst Gombrich, sociologists Norbert Elias and Karl Mannheim, and philosophers Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein.[115]

Hungarian scientists in the early and mid 20th century

[edit]

Different waves of emigration occurred.

Before World War I: József Galamb, engineer and creator of T-Ford; Eugene Farkas, engineer and creator of Fordson[116] tractor; Philipp Lenard (Nobel prize/physics)

  • First and biggest wave was around World War I.
  • Then after Trianon 1920 when Hungary lost two-thirds of its territory: Mária Telkes, István Szabó (engineer/physicist), Hans Selye
  • World War II and the Third Reich
  • Soviet occupation and communist occupation around 1948 and then revolution of 1956

During the 1930s and 1940s Hungarian was the third-most-often-used language in Hollywood.

"The Martians" were a group of prominent Hungarian scientists of Jewish descent (mostly, but not exclusively, physicists and mathematicians) who escaped to the United States during and after World War II due to Nazism or Communism. They included, among others, Theodore von Kármán, John von Neumann, Paul Halmos, Eugene Wigner, Edward Teller, George Pólya, John G. Kemeny and Paul Erdős. Several were from Budapest, and were instrumental in American scientific progress (e.g., developing the atomic bomb). Many more left because of communism: Hungarian Nobel-prize winners: György von Békésy, Szent-Györgyi, Harsányi and Hersko and others like Viktor Szebehely, Zoltán Bay, Alexandre Lamfalussy (economist), Mihaly Csikszentmihaly (Flow)

The process didn't stop, since the region that used to be the Western Block quickly recovered from the economic crisis caused by the World War and stabilized as reconstruction was completed so the bulk of businesses and capital flocked there, creating a systematic barrier.[118]

German scientist recruitment by the US and USSR post World War II

[edit]

In the last months of and post World War II, both the American and Soviet governments forcibly recruited and transported thousands of former Nazi scientists to the US and USSR respectively to continue their scientific work in those countries.

Eastern Europe under the Eastern Bloc

[edit]
Berlin Wall in November 1975

By 1922, the Soviet Union had issued restrictions making emigration of its citizens to other countries almost impossible.[119] Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev later stated, "We were scared, really scared. We were afraid the thaw might unleash a flood, which we wouldn't be able to control and which could drown us. How could it drown us? It could have overflowed the banks of the Soviet riverbed and formed a tidal wave which would have washed away all the barriers and retaining walls of our society."[120] After Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe at the end of World War II, the majority of those living in the countries of the Eastern Bloc aspired to independence and wanted the Soviets to leave.[121] By the early 1950s, the approach of the Soviet Union to restricting emigration was emulated by most of the rest of the Eastern Bloc, including East Germany.[122]

Even after the official closing of the Inner German border in 1952,[123] the border between the sectors of East Berlin and West Berlin remained considerably more accessible than the rest of the border because it was administered by all four occupying powers.[124] The Berlin sector border was essentially a "loophole" through which Eastern Bloc citizens could still emigrate.[123] The 3.5 million East Germans, called Republikflüchtlinge, who had left by 1961 totalled approximately 20% of the entire East German population.[125] The emigrants tended to be young and well educated, leading to the brain drain feared by officials in East Germany.[121] Yuri Andropov, then the CPSU director of Relations with Communist and Workers' Parties of Socialist Countries, decided on 28 August 1958 to write an urgent letter to the Central Committee about the 50% increase in the number of East German intelligentsia among the refugees.[126] Andropov reported that, while the East German leadership stated that they were leaving for economic reasons, testimony from refugees indicated that the reasons were more political than material.[126] He stated, "the flight of the intelligentsia has reached a particularly critical phase."[126] The direct cost of labour force losses has been estimated at $7 billion to $9 billion, with East German party leader Walter Ulbricht later claiming that West Germany owed him $17 billion in compensation, including reparations as well as labour force losses.[125] In addition, the drain of East Germany's young population potentially cost it over 22.5 billion marks in lost educational investment.[127] In August 1961, East Germany erected a barbed-wire barrier that would eventually be expanded by construction into the Berlin Wall, effectively closing the loophole.[128]

By region

[edit]

Europe

[edit]

Human capital flight in Europe fits into two distinct trends. The first is an outflow of highly qualified scientists from Western Europe mostly to the United States.[129] The second is a migration of skilled workers from Central and Southeastern Europe into Western Europe, within the EU.[130] While in some countries the trend may be slowing,[131][132] certain South European countries such as Italy continue to experience extremely high rates of human capital flight.[133] The European Union has noted a net loss of highly skilled workers and introduced a "blue card" policy—much like the American green card—which "seeks to draw an additional 20 million workers from Asia, Africa and the Americas in the next two decades".[134]

Although the EU recognizes a need for extensive immigration to mitigate the effects of an aging population,[135] national populist political parties have gained support in many European countries by calling for stronger laws restricting immigration.[136] Immigrants are perceived both as a burden on the state and the cause of social problems such as increased crime rates and the introduction of major cultural differences.[137]

The EU lags significantly behind the US and China in venture capital investments, with the EU capturing only 5% of global venture capital compared to 52% in the US and 40% in China. A high percentage of EU scale-ups involve foreign lead investors, and many end up being acquired by foreign entities or listed on foreign stock exchanges. This trend contributes to a brain drain and the relocation of innovative firms outside the EU. Promising companies and talent to relocate overseas. This undermines the local business environment and hampers Europe's capacity to retain industry leaders and foster new technological advancements.[138][139][140]

Western Europe

[edit]

In 2006, over 250,000 Europeans emigrated to the United States (164,285),[141] Australia (40,455),[142] Canada (37,946)[143] and New Zealand (30,262).[144] Germany alone saw 155,290 people leave the country (though mostly to destinations within Europe). This is the highest rate of worker emigration since reunification, and was equal to the rate in the aftermath of World War II.[145] Portugal has experienced the largest human capital flight in Western Europe. The country has lost 19.5% of its qualified population and is struggling to absorb sufficient skilled immigrants to compensate for losses to Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Germany, United Kingdom and Austria.[146]

United Kingdom

[edit]

Business industries expressed worries that Brexit poses significant risk of causing brain drain.[147]

Central and Eastern Europe

[edit]

Central and Eastern European countries have expressed concerns about extensive migration of skilled labourers to Ireland and the United Kingdom following the creation of the Schengen Agreement. Lithuania, for example, has lost about 100,000 citizens since 2003, many of them young and well-educated, to emigration to Ireland in particular.[citation needed] (Ireland itself previously experienced high rates of human capital flight to the United States, Great Britain and Canada before the Celtic Tiger economic programs.) A similar phenomenon occurred in Poland after its entry into the European Union. In the first year of its EU membership, 100,000 Poles registered to work in England, joining an estimated 750,000 residents of Polish descent.[148] However, with the rapid growth of salaries in Poland, its booming economy, the strong value of the zloty, and decreasing unemployment (which fell from 14.2% in May 2006 to 8% in March 2008[149]), the flight of Polish workers slowed.[150] In 2008 and early 2009 people who came back outnumbered those leaving the country. The exodus is likely to continue, however.[151] According to IMF, the emigration of high skilled labour has adversely affected growth in Eastern Europe and slowed down convergence in per capita income between high and low income EU countries.[71]

Russia

[edit]
Immigration to Israel in the 1990s post-Soviet aliyah led to the Yozma program to kick start venture capital and take advantage of the immigration talent.[152]
  Total immigrants
  Immigrants from the USSR and post-Soviet states

After Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, there was a major exodus of skilled workers and potential draftees. Most international companies operating in Russia departed, taking their skilled experts with them. Studies report that this would have a demographic effect especially in Russia lasting much longer than the conflict will take place, and much longer than Vladimir Putin will remain president.[153][154][155][156]

The invasion of Ukraine in 2022 caused tens of thousands of tech workers to flee Russia.[157][158] In 2024, the website of the science journal Science stated that Russia experienced a multi-year brain drain in the science profession.[159] In 2024, the London Business School indicated that Russia's brain drain has become its economies biggest problem.[160]

According to BBC News:[161]

They come from different walks of life. Some are journalists like us, but there are also IT experts, designers, artists, academics, lawyers, doctors, PR specialists, and linguists. Most are under 50. Many share western liberal values and hope Russia will be a democratic country one day. Some are LGBTQ+. Sociologists studying the current Russian emigration say there is evidence that those leaving are younger, better educated and wealthier than those staying. More often they are from bigger cities.

According to Johannes Wachs, "The exodus of skilled human capital, sometimes called brain drain, out of Russia may have a significant effect on the course of the war and the Russian economy in the long run."[162]

Southeastern Europe

[edit]

The rapid but small-scale departure of highly skilled workers from Southeastern Europe has caused concern about those nations developing deeper integration in the European Union.[163] This has given rise to programs to curb the outflow by encouraging skilled technicians and scientists to remain in the region to work on international projects.[164]

Serbia is one of the top countries that has experienced human capital flight due to the fall of Yugoslavia and its successive civil wars. In 1991, people started emigrating to Italy and Greece, and then began going farther, to the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. In the last ten years,[when?] educated people and professionals have been leaving the country and going to other countries where they feel they can have improved possibilities for better and secure lives. According to a report on "migration and brain drain" in the Western Balkans, published in 2024, "young people leave these countries not only because of low salaries and economic issues but also because of corruption, crime, political instability and lack of security."[165]

A major cause of human capital flight in countries like Moldova and Ukraine is lack of economic opportunities and corruption. The higher economic class in the country, filled with local and Russian oligarchs, has control over the whole economic system. Young, educated people have few economic opportunities unless they have connections to individuals from the higher class. This encourages them to emigrate and seek opportunities elsewhere.[166]

Greece

[edit]

While Greece experienced a significant "brain drain" during its financial crisis, with an estimated 600,000 professionals emigrating, a noticeable reversal—termed "brain gain"—has emerged in recent years. According to Eurostat data from 2025, approximately 350,000 of the 600,000 Greeks who left between 2010 and 2021 have since returned.[167]

The country's net migration balance turned positive in 2023 for the first time since 2008. Official figures from the Hellenic Statistical Authority (ELSTAT) reported a net migration of +42,658, resulting from 118,816 arrivals versus 76,158 departures.[168]

Key drivers for this reversal include strong economic growth and targeted government policies. These incentives feature a notable 50% income tax cut for seven years for repatriating professionals, a measure that has already benefited around 6,000 individuals. Additionally, targeted initiatives such as the Rebrain Greece platform have been established to connect returning talent with the domestic job market.[169][170]

Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain

[edit]

Many citizens of the countries most stricken by the economic crisis in Europe have emigrated to countries such as Australia, Brazil, Germany, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Chile, Ecuador, Angola and Argentina.[171][172]

Africa

[edit]

Countries in Africa have lost a tremendous amount of their educated and skilled populations as a result of emigration to more developed countries, which has harmed the ability of such nations to climb out of poverty. Nigeria, Kenya and Ethiopia are believed to be the most affected. According to the United Nations Development Programme, Ethiopia lost 75% of its skilled workforce between 1980 and 1991.[citation needed]

Then South African Deputy President Thabo Mbeki said in his 1998 "African Renaissance" speech:

"In our world in which the generation of new knowledge and its application to change the human condition is the engine which moves human society further away from barbarism, do we not have need to recall Africa's hundreds of thousands of intellectuals back from their places of emigration in Western Europe and North America, to rejoin those who remain still within our shores!

I dream of the day when these, the African mathematicians and computer specialists in Washington and New York, the African physicists, engineers, doctors, business managers and economists, will return from London and Manchester and Paris and Brussels to add to the African pool of brain power, to enquire into and find solutions to Africa's problems and challenges, to open the African door to the world of knowledge, to elevate Africa's place within the universe of research the information of new knowledge, education and information."

Africarecruit is a joint initiative by NEPAD and the Commonwealth Business Council to recruit professional expatriate Africans to take employment back in Africa after working overseas.[173]

In response to growing debate over the human capital flight of healthcare professionals, especially from lower-income countries to some higher-income countries, in 2010 the World Health Organization adopted the Global Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel, a policy framework for all countries for the ethical international recruitment of doctors, nurses and other health professionals.

African human capital flight has begun to reverse itself due to rapid growth and development in many African nations, and the emergence of an African middle class. Between 2001 and 2010, six of the world's ten fastest-growing economies were in Africa, and between 2011 and 2015, Africa's economic growth was expected to outpace that of Asia. This, together with increased development, introduction of technologies such as faster internet access and mobile phones, a better-educated population, and the environment for business driven by new tech start-up companies, has resulted in many expatriates from Africa returning to their home countries, and more Africans staying at home to work.[174]

Ghana

[edit]

The trend for young doctors and nurses to seek higher salaries and better working conditions, mainly in higher-income countries of the West, is having serious effects on the health care sector in Ghana. Ghana currently has about 3,600 doctors—one for every 6,700 inhabitants. This compares with one doctor per 430 people in the United States.[175] Many of the country's trained doctors and nurses leave to work in countries such as Britain, the United States, Jamaica and Canada. It is estimated that up to 68% of the country's trained medical staff left between 1993 and 2000, and according to Ghana's official statistics institute, in the period 1999 to 2004, 448 doctors, or 54% of those trained in the period, left to work abroad.[176]

Nigeria

[edit]

South Africa

[edit]

Along with many African nations, South Africa has been experiencing human capital flight in the past 20 years, since the end of apartheid. This is believed to be potentially damaging for the regional economy,[177] and is arguably detrimental to the wellbeing of the region's impoverished majority, which is desperately reliant on the health care infrastructure because of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.[178] The skills drain in South Africa tends to reflect racial contours exacerbated by Black Economic Empowerment policies, and has thus resulted in large White South African communities abroad.[179] The problem is further highlighted by South Africa's request in 2001 of Canada to stop recruiting its doctors and other highly skilled medical personnel.[180]

For the medical sector, the loss of return from investment for all doctors emigrating from South Africa is $1.41 billion. The benefit to destination countries is huge: $2.7 billion for the United Kingdom alone, without compensation.[181]

More recently, in a case of reverse brain drain a net 359,000 highly skilled South Africans returned to South Africa from foreign work assignments over a five-year period from 2008 to 2013. This was catalysed by the 2008 financial crisis and perceptions of a higher quality of life in South Africa relative to the countries to which they had first emigrated. It is estimated that around 37% of those who returned are professionals such as lawyers, doctors, engineers and accountants.[182]

Asia

[edit]

Middle East

[edit]
Arab world
[edit]

By 2010, the Arab countries were experiencing human capital flight, according to reports from the United Nations and Arab League.[citation needed] About one million Arab experts and specialists were living in developed countries, and the rate of return was extremely low. The reasons for this included attraction to opportunities in technical and scientific fields in the West and an absence of job opportunities in the Arab world, as well as wars and political turmoil that have plagued many Arab nations.[183]

In 2012, human capital flight was showing signs of reversing, with many young students choosing to stay and more individuals from abroad returning. In particular, many young professionals are becoming entrepreneurs and starting their own businesses rather than going abroad to work for companies in Western countries. This was partially a result of the Arab Spring, after which many Arab countries began viewing science as the driving force for development, and as a result stepped up their science programs. Another reason may be the ongoing global recession.[184][185]

Iraq
[edit]

During the Iraq War, especially during the early years, the lack of basic services and security fed an outflow of professionals from Iraq that began under Saddam Hussein, under whose rule four million Iraqis are believed to have left the country.[186] In particular, the exodus was fed by the violence that plagued Iraq, which by 2006 had seen 89 university professors and senior lecturers killed.[187]

Iran
[edit]

In 2006, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) ranked Iran "first in brain drain among 61 developing and less developed countries (LDCs)".[188][189][190] In the early 1990s, more than 150,000 Iranians emigrated, and an estimated 25% of Iranians with post-secondary education were residing in developed countries of the OECD. In 2009, the IMF reported that 150,000–180,000 Iranians emigrate annually, with up to 62% of Iran's academic elite having emigrated, and that the yearly exodus is equivalent to an annual capital loss of $50 billion.[191] Better possibilities for job markets is thought to be the motivation for absolute majority of the human capital flight while a small few stated their reasons as in search of more social or political freedom.[192][193]

Israel
[edit]

Israel has experienced varying levels of emigration throughout its history, with the majority of Israeli expatriates moving to the United States. Currently, some 330,000 native-born Israelis (including 230,000 Israeli Jews) are estimated to be living abroad, while the number of immigrants to Israel who later left is unclear. According to public opinion polls, the main motives for leaving Israel have not been the political and security situation, but include desire for higher living standards, pursuit of work opportunities and/or professional advancement, and higher education. Many Israelis with degrees in scientific or engineering fields have emigrated abroad, largely due to lack of job opportunities. From Israel's establishment in May 1948 to December 2006, about 400,000 doctors and academics left Israel. In 2009, Israel's Council for Higher Education informed the Knesset's Education Committee that 25% of Israel's academics were living overseas, and that Israel had the highest human capital flight rate in the world. However, an OECD estimate put the highly educated Israeli emigrant rate at 5.3 per 1,000 highly educated Israelis, meaning that Israel actually retains more of its highly educated population than many other developed countries.

In addition, the majority of Israelis who emigrate eventually return after extended periods abroad. In 2007, the Israeli government began a program to encourage Israelis living abroad to return; since then, the number of returning Israelis has doubled, and in 2010, Israeli expatriates, including academics, researchers, technical professionals and business managers, began returning in record numbers. The country launched additional programs to open new opportunities in scientific fields to encourage Israeli scientists and researchers living abroad to return home. These initiatives have since succeeded in luring many Israeli scientists back home.[194][195][196][197][198]

Turkey
[edit]

In the 1960s, many skilled and educated people emigrated from Turkey, including many doctors and engineers. This emigration wave is believed to have been triggered by political instability, including the 1960 military coup. In later decades, into the 2000s, many Turkish professionals emigrated, and students studying overseas chose to remain abroad, mainly due to better economic opportunities. This human capital flight was given national media attention, and in 2000, the government formed a task force to investigate the "brain drain" problem.[199]

Southeast Asia

[edit]
Indonesia
[edit]

While there is no empirical data about human capital flight from Indonesia, the brain drain phenomenon in Indonesia was estimated to reach 5%. After the May 1998 riots of Indonesia, many Chinese Indonesians decided to flee to other countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, Australia, the Netherlands, and the United States which severely contributes to brain drain within the country. Indonesian Aerospace laid off some two thirds of its workforce after the 1997 Asian financial crisis, leading many workers to leave their country to find a better career overseas. As of 2018, there are at least 60 Indonesians graduated from local or overseas universities working at Boeing and Airbus, with half of them holding middle management positions.[200]

In 2023, it was reported that over 4,000 Indonesians acquired Singaporean citizenship between 2019 and 2022. Most of these are young people, students in the ages 25 – 35 and degree holders.[201] The main reasons given were better job prospects, scholarships, better healthcare, higher salaries and a good public transport.

In addition, 413 of the 35,536 recipients of the state and tax funded Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP) did not return to Indonesia between 2013 and 2022.[202] They were required to return and work in Indonesia for several years after they concluded their studies.

Malaysia
[edit]

There have been high rates of human capital flight from Malaysia. Major pull factors have included better career opportunities abroad and compensation, while major push factors included corruption, social inequality, educational opportunities, racial inequality such as the government's Bumiputera affirmative action policies. As of 2011, Bernama has reported that there are a million talented Malaysians working overseas.[203] Recently human capital flight has increased in pace: 305,000 Malaysians migrated overseas between March 2008 and August 2009, compared to 140,000 in 2007.[204] Non-Bumiputeras, particularly Malaysian Indians and Malaysian Chinese, were over-represented in these statistics. Popular destinations included Singapore, Australia and the United Kingdom.[205] This is reported to have caused Malaysia's economic growth rate to fall to an average of 4.6% per annum in the 2000s compared to 7.2% in the 1990s.[206]

Philippines
[edit]
Post-colonial Philippines
[edit]

In 1946, colonialism in the Philippines ended with the election of Manuel Roxas.[207] The Philippines' infrastructure and economy had been devastated by World War II, contributing to serious national health problems and uneven distribution of wealth.[208] As part of reconstruction efforts for the newly independent state, education of nurses was encouraged to combat the low ratio of 1 nurse per 12,000 Filipinos[209] and to help raise national health care standards. However Roxas, having spent his last three years as the secretary of finance and chairman of the National Economic Council and a number of other Filipino companies, was particularly concerned with the country's financial (rather than health) problems.[208] The lack of government funding for rural community clinics and hospitals, as well as low wages, continued to perpetuate low retention rates for nurses in rural areas and slow economic recovery. When the United States relaxed their Immigration Act laws in 1965, labour export emerged as a possible solution for the Philippines.

Labour export from the 1960s onwards
[edit]

Since the 1960s and 1970s, the Philippines has been the largest supplier of nurses to the United States, in addition to export labour supplied to the UK and Saudi Arabia.[210] In 1965, with a recovering post-WWII economy and facing labour shortages, the United States introduced a new occupational clause to the Immigration Act.[211] The clause encouraged migration of skilled labour into sectors experiencing a shortage,[211] particularly nursing, as well relaxing restrictions on race and origin.[212] This was seen as an opportunity for mass labour exportation by the Philippine government, and was followed by a boom in public and private nursing educational programs. Seeking access through the Exchange Visitors Program (EVP) sponsored by the US government, workers were encouraged to go abroad to learn more skills and earn higher pay, sending remittance payments back home.[213] As nursing was a highly feminized profession, labour migrants through the beginning of the 1980s were predominantly female and young (25–30 years of age).[214]

Pursuing economic gains through labour migration over infrastructural financing and improvement, the Philippines still faced slow economic growth during the 1970s and 1980s.[215] With continuously rising demand for nurses in the international service sector and overseas, the Philippine government aggressively furthered their educational programs under Ferdinand Marcos, president at the time. Although complete statistical data are difficult to collect, studies done in the 1970s show 13,500 nurses (or 85% of all Filipino nurses) had left the country to pursue work elsewhere.[216] Additionally, the number of existing public and private nursing school programs multiplied from a reported 17 nursing schools in 1950, to 140 nursing schools in 1970.[217]

Remittances
[edit]

Studies show stark wage discrepancies between the Philippines and developed countries such as the US and the UK. This has led Philippine government officials to note that remittances sent home may be seen as more economically valuable than pursuit of local work. Around the turn of the 20th century, the average monthly wage of Filipino nurses who remained in their home country was between 550–1,000 pesos per month (roughly US$70–140 at that time).[218] In comparison, the average nurse working in the US was receiving US$800–400 per month.[218]

However, scholars have noted that economic disparities in the Philippines have not been eased in the past decades. Although remittance payments account for a large portion of Filipino GDP (US$290.5 million in 1978, increased to US$10.7 billion in 2005),[219] and are therefore regarded as a large economic boost to the state, Filipino unemployment has continued to rise (8.4% in 1990, increased to 12.7% in 2003).[219] Here scholars have begun to look at the culture of nurse migration endorsed by the Philippine state as a contributing factor to the country's economic and health problems.

Education industry
[edit]

In addition to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) run by the government that serves as both a source of overseas recruitment agreements and as a marketer of Philippine labour overseas, private nursing schools have acted as migration funnels, expanding enrolment, asserting control over the licensure process, and entering into business agreements with other overseas recruitment agencies.[220] However, retaining qualified instructors and staff has been reported to be as problematic as retaining actual nurses, contributing to low exam pass rates (only 12 of 175 reporting schools had pass rates of 90% or higher in 2005,[221] with an average pass rate of 42% across the country in 2006).[222] Private schools have also begun to control licensure exam review centres, providing extra preparation for international qualification exams at extra cost and with no guarantee of success.[222] It is estimated that between 1999 and 2006, US$700 million was spent on nursing education and licensure review courses by individuals who never took the licensing exams or completed the programming.[222]

Discrepancies in wages between Philippine nurses working at home and those working abroad, as noted above, provide clear economic incentives for nurses to leave the country; however, physicians have also been lured into these promises of wealth through the creation of "Second Course" nursing programs.[223] Studies comparing wages of Philippine nurses at home and abroad from 2005 to 2010, showed at-home nurses receiving US$170 per month, or $2,040 per annum, compared to US$3,000–4,000 per month in the US, or $36,000–48,000 per annum.[224] Philippine physician salaries for those working at home are not much more competitive; they earn on average US$300–800 per month, or US$3,600–9,600 per annum.[224] Although it is important to note along with such discrepancies that the costs of living are also higher in the US, and that remittance payment transfers back home are not free, there is still evidently a large economic pull to studying as a nurse and migrating overseas.

Vietnam
[edit]

According to Viet Nam News, 70% of Vietnamese students abroad did not return to Vietnam. The New York Times described Barack Obama's remarks at the Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative on conditions that cause brain drain as "slyly" describing Vietnam, with corruption, pollution and poor education.[225][226]

More recent news suggests that a so-called brain gain may be occurring. A 2016 study found that 70% of overseas professionals were interested in returning to Vietnam, with many thousands already having done so.[227]

South Asia

[edit]
India
[edit]

India has seen massive emigration since the 1980s, and most Indian scholars seek to settle abroad for better opportunities. Major push factors include a lack of research facilities, low ease of doing business, and fewer opportunities due to a lack of skills and innovation. [citation needed]

Studies have found that, since 2014, 23,000 millionaires and, since 2019, nearly 7,000 millionaires (2% of India's High-net-worth individuals at the time) have emigrated from India.[228]

Nepal
[edit]

Every year, 250,000 youths are reported to leave Nepal for various reasons. They seek opportunity in its various manifestations—higher living standards, employment, better income, education, an alluring western lifestyle, stability and security.[229]

Pakistan
[edit]

According to the Pakistan Economic Survey for 2023-24, over 13.53 million Pakistanis have officially emigrated to over 50 countries for work by April 2024.[230] Pakistan has been seeing a large number of its educated youth immigrating to foreign countries, more particularly to the Gulf and west, since the change of Government in April 2022. A major contributor for this is corruption, political instability, better living standards and more opportunities. Immigration rate had slowed during PM Imran Khan's reign but rapidly increased after the change of Government in April 2022.

Sri Lanka
[edit]

Sri Lanka has lost a significant portion of its intellectuals, mainly due to civil war and the resulting uncertainty that prevailed in the country for the thirty-year period prior to the end of the conflict in 2009.[citation needed] Most of these sought refuge in countries such as the United States, Australia, Canada and Great Britain. In recent years, many expatriates have indicated interest in returning to Sri Lanka, but have been deterred by slow economic growth and political instability. Both the government and private organizations are making efforts to encourage professionals to return to Sri Lanka and to retain resident intellectuals and professionals.[citation needed]

China

[edit]

With rapid GDP growth and a higher degree of openness towards the rest of the world, there has been an upsurge in Chinese emigration to Western countries—particularly the United States, Canada and Australia.[231] As of 2013, 4% of the world's migrants came from China.[232] According to the official Chinese media, in 2009, 65,000 Chinese secured immigration or permanent resident status in the United States, 25,000 in Canada and 15,000 in Australia.[231] The largest group of emigrants consists of professionals and experts with a middle-class background,[231] raising concerns about a "brain drain" of the people who contribute most to the development of China.[232] According to a 2007 study, seven out of every ten students from China who enroll in an overseas university never return to live in their homeland.[233]

Australasia

[edit]

Pacific Islands

[edit]

The post-WWII migration trends in the Pacific Islands have essentially followed this pattern[citation needed]:

  • Most Pacific island nations that were formerly under UK mandate have had migration outflows to Australia and New Zealand since the decolonisation of the region from the 1960s to the 1990s. There has only been a limited outflow from these islands to Canada and the UK since decolonisation. Fiji, Tonga and Samoa also have had large outflows to the United States.
  • Most Pacific islands administered by France (like Tahiti) have had an outflow to France.
  • Most Pacific islands under some kind of US administration have had outflows to the US and, to a lesser extent, Canada.

New Zealand

[edit]

During the 1990s, 30,000 New Zealanders were emigrating each year. An OECD report released in 2005 revealed that 24.2% of New Zealanders with a tertiary education were living outside of New Zealand, predominantly in Australia.[234] In 2007, around 24,000 New Zealanders settled in Australia.[235]

During the 2008 election campaign, the National Party campaigned on the ruling Labour Party's inability to keep New Zealanders at home, with a series of billboards announcing "Wave goodbye to higher taxes, not your loved ones".[236] However, four years after the National Party won that election, the exodus to Australia had intensified, surpassing 53,000 per annum in 2012.[237] Prime Minister John Key blamed the 2008 financial crisis for the continuing drain.[238]

It was estimated in December 2012 that 170,000 New Zealanders had left for Australia since the Key government came to power in late 2008.[239] However, this net migration was reversed soon after, with a net migration gain of 1,933 people achieved in 2016.[240] Economist Paul Bloxham described New Zealand's strong economy, with a housing and construction boom at the time.[241] Australia's weaker economy and reduced investment in mining industries during this time were also mentioned as key factors.

New Zealand enjoys immigration of qualified foreigners, potentially leaving a net gain of skills.[242] Nevertheless, one reason for New Zealand's attempt to target immigration at 1% of its population per year is because of its high rate of emigration, which leaves its migration balance either neutral or slightly positive.

North America

[edit]

Canada

[edit]

Colonial administrators in Canada observed the trend of human capital flight to the United States as early as the 1860s, when it was already clear that a majority of immigrants arriving at Quebec City were en route to destinations in the United States. Alexander C. Buchanan, government agent at Quebec, argued that prospective emigrants should be offered free land to remain in Canada. The issue of attracting and keeping the right immigrants has sometimes been central to Canada's immigration history.[243]

In the 1920s, over 20% of university graduating classes in engineering and science were emigrating to the United States. When governments displayed no interest, concerned industrialists formed the Technical Service Council in 1927 to combat the brain drain. As a practical means of doing so, the council operated a placement service that was free to graduates.[citation needed]

By 1976, the council had placed over 16,000 men and women. Between 1960 and 1979 over 17,000 engineers and scientists emigrated to the United States. However, the exodus of technically trained Canadians dropped from 27% of graduating classes in 1927 to under 10% in 1951 and 5% in 1967.[citation needed]

In Canada today, the idea of a brain drain to the United States is occasionally a domestic political issue. At times, brain drain is used as a justification for income tax cuts. During the 1990s, some alleged a brain drain from Canada to the United States, especially in the software, aerospace, health care and entertainment industries, due to the perception of higher wages and lower income taxes in the US.[244] Some also suggest that engineers and scientists were also attracted by the greater diversity of jobs and a perceived lack of research funding in Canada.

The evidence suggests that, in the 1990s, Canada did lose some of its homegrown talent to the US.[245] Nevertheless, Canada hedged against these losses by attracting more highly skilled workers from abroad. This allowed the country to realize a net brain gain as more professionals entered Canada than left.[245] Sometimes, the qualifications of these migrants are given no recognition in Canada (see credentialism), resulting in some—though not all—highly skilled professionals being forced into lower paying service sector jobs.

In the mid-2000s, Canada's resilient economy, strong domestic market, high standard of living, and considerable wage growth across a number of sectors, effectively ended the brain drain debate.[246][247] Canada's economic success even prompted some top US talent to migrate north.[246][247][248][249][250] Anecdotal evidence also suggests that stringent US security measures put in place after the 9/11 attacks have helped to temper the brain drain debate in Canada.[251]

Caribbean

[edit]

Many of the Caribbean Islands endure a constant and substantial emigration of qualified workers. Approximately 30% of the labour forces of many islands have left, and more than 80% of college graduates from Suriname, Haiti, Grenada and Guyana have emigrated, mostly to the United States.[252] Over 80% of Jamaicans with higher education live abroad.[253] However, it is noted that these nationals pay valuable remittances. In Jamaica, the money sent back amounts to 18% of GNP.[254]

United States

[edit]

The 2000 United States Census led to a special report on domestic worker migration, with a focus on the movement of young, single, college-educated migrants.[255] The data show a trend of such people moving away from the Rust Belt and northern Great Plains region towards the West Coast, Southwestern and Southeast United States. The largest net influx of young, single, college-educated persons was to the San Francisco Bay Area.

Many predominantly rural communities in the Appalachia region of the United States have experienced a "brain drain" of young college students migrating to urban areas in and outside of Appalachia for employment, political reasons and opportunities offered in urban areas that rural communities are currently unable to.[256][257]

The country as a whole does not experience large-scale human capital flight as compared with other countries, with an emigration rate of only 0.7 per 1,000 educated people,[258] but it is often the destination of skilled workers migrating from elsewhere in the world.[259]

Regarding foreign scholars earning their degrees in the United States and returning to their home country, Danielle Guichard-Ashbrook of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been quoted as stating "We educate them, but then we don't make it easy for them to stay".[260]

South America

[edit]

Colombia

[edit]

In recent years, many people from younger generations (people born from 1994 onwards) have migrated out of Colombia. Many of them are looking for better employment opportunities elsewhere due to the political turmoil that has been going on in the past decades. In many cases, the flight of educated people from Colombia does not occur, due to a lack of economic resources from the people and no governmental support in any extracurricular endeavors (sports or liberal arts). Even though, Colombia has recently implemented programs to benefit people that have higher scores in the ICFES (a national exam mandated for every high-schooler in the country before graduation), such as the ICETEX (Instituto Colombiano de Crédito Educativo y Estudios Técnicos en el Exterior) scholarships; many people who score highly on these mandate exams end up migrating to other countries for higher education. Some may argue, including those who have scored highly in the ICFES, that they are taking the place of someone less fortunate who deserves, wants and will use an ICETEX scholarship.

Cuba

[edit]

In 1997, Cuban officials claimed that 31,000 Cuban doctors were deployed in 61 countries.[261] A large number practice in South America. In 2007, it was reported that 20,000 were employed in Venezuela in exchange for nearly 100,000 barrels (16,000 m3) of oil per day.[262]

However, in Venezuela and Bolivia, where another 1,700 doctors work, it is stated that as many as 500 doctors may have fled the missions in the years preceding 2007 into countries nearby.[261] This number increased dramatically, with 1,289 visas being given to Cuban medical professionals in the United States alone in 2014, with the majority of Cuban medical personnel fleeing from Venezuela due to poor social conditions and not receiving adequate payment; the Cuban government allegedly receives the majority of payments while some doctors are left with about $100 per month in earnings.[263]

Venezuela

[edit]

Following the election of Hugo Chávez as president and his establishment of the Bolivarian Revolution, millions of people emigrated from Venezuela.[264][265][266] In 2009, it was estimated that more than 1 million Venezuelans emigrated since Hugo Chávez became president.[265] It has been calculated that from 1998 to 2013, over 1.5 million Venezuelans, between 4% and 6% of the Venezuela's total population, left the country following the Bolivarian Revolution.[266] Academics and business leaders have stated that emigration from Venezuela increased significantly during the last years of Chávez's presidency and especially during the presidency of Nicolás Maduro.[267]

An analysis of a study by the Central University of Venezuela titled "Venezuelan Community Abroad. A New Method of Exile" states that the Venezuelan refugee crisis was caused by the "deterioration of both the economy and the social fabric, rampant crime, uncertainty and lack of hope for a change in leadership in the near future".[264] The study states that of the more than 1.5 million Venezuelans who had left the country following the Bolivarian Revolution, more than 90% of those who left were college graduates, with 40% holding a master's degree and 12% having a doctorate or post doctorate.[266][268] The Wall Street Journal stated that many "white-collar Venezuelans have fled the country's high crime rates, soaring inflation and expanding statist controls".[269] Reasons for leaving cited by the former Venezuelan citizens studied included lack of freedom, high levels of insecurity and lack of opportunity in the country.[266][268] Some Venezuelan parents have encouraged their children to leave the country.[266]

2019 Venezuelan blackouts, which affected more than 30 million people nationwide and occurred intermittently over several months, sometimes lasting for days at a time, exacerbating the ongoing socioeconomic and political crisis, have been attributed by experts and the state-owned power company Corpoelec to a lack of maintenance and technical expertise in the country as a result of a brain drain.[270]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Human capital flight, also termed brain drain, denotes the substantial emigration of skilled, educated, or professionally trained individuals from their country of origin—typically less developed or unstable—to destinations providing superior , institutional support, or personal , thereby depleting the origin nation's pool of productive talent and expertise. This process manifests as a transfer of investments, often publicly funded, to receiving economies, where migrants contribute disproportionately to and growth. Predominantly affecting developing regions such as , , and parts of , human capital flight arises from push factors like , governance failures, and conflict, compounded by pull incentives including wage premia exceeding 200-300% in host countries for comparable roles. Empirical assessments, drawing on cross-country panels and natural experiments, reveal that for most origin countries—particularly small or low-income ones—the direct costs outweigh indirect gains, curtailing growth by 0.5-2% annually through reduced technological diffusion and fiscal returns on . While remittances and potential returnees offer partial mitigation, and select cases exhibit "brain gain" via heightened education enrollment spurred by migration prospects, causal evidence underscores that such positives are rare and conditional on scale, policy responsiveness, and networks, failing to reverse the core of foregone domestic . Controversies center on whether liberal migration policies inadvertently exacerbate global inequalities by subsidizing talent extraction from fragile states, with orthodox models predicting persistent absent compensatory mechanisms like skill importation or international aid tied to retention.

Definition and Terminology

Core Definition and Concepts

Human capital flight, commonly termed brain drain, denotes the large-scale emigration of individuals possessing advanced skills, , or from one country or region to another, typically resulting in a net loss of productive talent for the origin location. This phenomenon primarily affects sectors such as , , healthcare, and , where the departing professionals hold specialized expertise critical to and economic output. The term emphasizes the "flight" aspect, highlighting how such migration drains the invested in by the origin country through public and training systems, often without commensurate returns. At its core, human capital encompasses the economic value derived from an individual's acquired attributes, including education, training, skills, experience, health, and innate abilities like intelligence, which enhance productivity and contribute to goods and services production. In economic theory, it is treated as a form of capital akin to physical assets, where investments in schooling or vocational development yield returns through higher wages and output, but its mobility via migration introduces externalities such as forgone societal benefits in the sending nation. Unlike physical capital, human capital is embodied in people and thus inherently portable, enabling rapid shifts across borders in response to incentives like superior remuneration or research opportunities. Key concepts in human capital flight include its distinction from general population migration, as it specifically targets high-skill cohorts—often defined by levels or professional qualifications—whose departure can exacerbate skill shortages and hinder long-term development in origin economies. Measurement typically involves tracking net outflows of skilled workers, such as the proportion of emigrants with advanced degrees relative to inflows, revealing imbalances like the overrepresentation of leavers in knowledge-intensive fields. This selective migration underscores causal dynamics where disparities in economic opportunities, institutional stability, or environments propel the movement, framing brain drain not merely as individual choice but as a systemic transfer of value from lower- to higher-productivity locales. Human capital flight specifically refers to the of highly skilled or educated individuals, such as scientists, engineers, physicians, and academics, who possess specialized knowledge and training that contributes disproportionately to economic and in their origin countries. This selective outflow contrasts with general , which encompasses broader movements including unskilled or low-skilled laborers driven by factors like or , without the same emphasis on irreplaceable expertise. For instance, while general emigration may dilute a workforce numerically, human capital flight depletes the qualitative stock of talent essential for sectors like , potentially stunting long-term growth rates by 0.5-1% annually in affected developing economies, as modeled in endogenous growth frameworks. Unlike , which involves the rapid transfer of financial assets abroad to evade economic instability, taxation, or —totaling an estimated $1-2 trillion from developing countries between 1970 and 1998—human capital flight entails the physical relocation of people whose cannot be easily liquidated or repatriated. Both phenomena respond to failures, such as weak property rights or , but primarily erodes investable funds for , whereas human capital flight reduces the effective labor supply in knowledge-intensive fields, leading to persistent shortages; empirical analyses of 48 countries from 1970-1998 show these as parallel portfolio decisions under uncertainty, yet human outflows impose higher fixed costs due to training investments sunk in the origin country. Human capital flight differs from brain circulation, a dynamic process where skilled migrants temporarily relocate, acquire advanced skills or networks abroad, and return to apply them domestically, often amplifying origin-country through knowledge diffusion and remittances exceeding $700 billion globally in 2022. In contrast, pure brain drain assumes low return rates—below 20% for many developing nations' graduates—and minimal compensatory inflows, resulting in net losses; studies indicate that while circulation can boost origin GDP by 1-2% via returnee , sustained one-way flight correlates with 10-15% lower accumulation in source countries over decades. This distinction hinges on migration duration and selectivity: circulation thrives in open economies with ties, like India's IT sector, whereas flight dominates in closed regimes with exit barriers. Refugee migration, often involuntary and triggered by conflict or persecution, diverges from human capital flight's predominantly voluntary nature motivated by economic incentives or professional opportunities. Refugees face legal restrictions on return and settlement, leading to permanent displacement without the skill-selectivity of brain drain; for example, while Syrian refugee flows post-2011 included some professionals, the majority lacked advanced training, imposing humanitarian rather than purely economic costs, unlike the targeted talent loss in voluntary skilled emigration from stable but underinvesting economies. Data from 100+ countries show refugee outflows reduce origin human capital less selectively, with average education levels 2-3 years below those of economic migrants, underscoring flight's focus on high-value, mobile expertise.

Brain Drain Versus Brain Gain Debate

The brain drain versus brain gain debate centers on whether the of skilled workers from developing or less prosperous countries represents a net loss or potential benefit to origin nations. Proponents of the brain drain perspective argue that the departure of high-skilled individuals depletes stocks, reduces innovation capacity, and imposes fiscal burdens, as public investments in yield returns primarily in destination countries. For instance, empirical estimates indicate that lost approximately 20,000 qualified health professionals between 2000 and 2010, exacerbating shortages in critical sectors like healthcare. This view, rooted in early analyses from the and , emphasizes direct losses without sufficient offsetting mechanisms, particularly in small economies where skilled labor constitutes a small absolute number. Counterarguments framing as brain gain highlight indirect positive effects that can enhance origin countries' over time. These include incentive effects, where anticipated migration opportunities boost educational investments; for example, studies of countries like and show that higher emigration prospects for skilled workers increase secondary and tertiary enrollment rates by 5-10% in affected cohorts. Remittances from skilled migrants, often exceeding those from unskilled ones by 20-30%, fund household and , while return migration transfers enhanced skills and capital; data from indicate that 20-30% of emigrants return within a decade, bringing productivity gains equivalent to 10-15% higher wages upon reintegration. networks further facilitate knowledge spillovers, trade, and , as evidenced by India's software sector, where returning emigrants and non-resident connections contributed to a 15-20% annual export growth in IT services from the onward. Recent empirical syntheses suggest that brain gain effects often outweigh direct drain losses in middle-income countries with large populations, though outcomes vary by context. A 2025 review in Science analyzed over 50 studies and found net human capital increases in origin countries due to combined incentive, remittance, and return effects, particularly when emigration rates remain below 10-15% of the skilled workforce. However, in least-developed nations with high emigration proportions—such as Guyana, where over 80% of tertiary-educated citizens reside abroad—fiscal and innovation losses dominate, underscoring the absence of scale for compensatory mechanisms. Policies like circular migration programs or diaspora engagement initiatives, as implemented in countries like the Philippines, can amplify gains by encouraging temporary outflows and knowledge repatriation. Overall, the debate resolves toward conditional optimism: brain drain is not inherently zero-sum, but realizing gains requires origin-country investments in education absorption and migrant linkages, rather than relying solely on uncontrolled outflows.

Causes

Push Factors: Failures in Origin Countries

Economic failures in origin countries, such as stagnant growth, high unemployment, and low returns on investment, compel skilled workers to by diminishing domestic opportunities relative to global alternatives. In developing nations, underdeveloped private sectors and inefficient public bureaucracies fail to absorb educated talent, resulting in persistent wage gaps; for instance, in lag far behind those in countries, exacerbating incentives. Empirical data from small, low-income states reveal rates exceeding 80% for tertiary-educated individuals in countries like and , driven by poverty traps and liquidity constraints that limit local . Institutional weaknesses, including and fragile property rights, erode incentives for skill accumulation and retention by reducing expected returns on and fostering over productive investment. Cross-country analyses using demonstrate a positive between corruption levels—measured via indices like the —and skilled migration outflows, as graft undermines institutional trust and diverts resources from merit-based advancement. In high-corruption environments, skilled individuals face diminished prospects for fair , prompting exit; studies confirm corruption acts as a push factor, with migration flows higher from more corrupt to less corrupt destinations. Political instability and repression further propel human capital flight by creating environments of uncertainty, discrimination, and curtailed freedoms that disproportionately affect educated professionals. Governance failures, such as authoritarian policies and civil unrest, correlate with elevated brain drain rates; in politically volatile regions like sub-Saharan Africa, repression and ethnic discrimination drive outflows from countries including Liberia and Sierra Leone. Empirical models link political risks to skill losses, with unstable regimes witnessing sharp declines in key sectors—for example, Zambia's physician count fell from 1,600 to 400 amid turmoil, while 60% of Ghana's 1980s-trained doctors emigrated. Violence and conflict amplify these effects, as heightened security risks compound opportunity deficits in origin states.

Pull Factors: Opportunities in Destination Countries

Higher in destination countries serves as a dominant pull factor for skilled professionals, driven by substantial differentials relative to origin nations. Economic analyses consistently identify expected gains as a key motivator, with migrants often realizing 2-5 times higher incomes in countries compared to equivalent roles in developing economies. For example, in sectors like , professionals from and are drawn to the , where median salaries for software developers exceed $120,000 annually as of 2023, versus under $15,000 in many origin contexts. These disparities reflect not only absolute pay levels but also merit-based compensation structures that reward more effectively than in bureaucratic or underfunded systems prevalent in sending countries. Advanced professional and research environments further incentivize migration by offering access to superior infrastructure, funding, and collaborative networks unavailable in origin countries. Destination hubs such as in the United States or the Cambridge-MIT ecosystem in provide state-of-the-art laboratories, resources, and ecosystems that enable innovation unattainable elsewhere. Studies on skilled migration highlight how these facilities amplify career trajectories; for instance, researchers in the U.S. benefit from grants averaging over $500,000 per project, fostering breakthroughs that enhance personal prestige and employability. In , programs like the have attracted thousands of principal investigators from developing regions annually since 2007, with grants supporting cutting-edge work in fields like and AI. Such opportunities correlate with higher patent outputs and publications for migrants, reinforcing the appeal through tangible professional gains. Robust labor markets in destination countries, characterized by high demand for specialized skills, create additional pull through job availability and upward mobility. In the U.S. tech sector, H-1B visas facilitated the entry of over 85,000 skilled workers in fiscal year 2023, predominantly from and , to fill roles in and amid domestic shortages. This demand stems from industries investing billions in R&D—U.S. firms alone spent $600 billion on such activities in 2022—yielding positions with rapid promotion ladders and equity incentives. Similarly, in , skilled migration policies have boosted innovation productivity, with migrants in high-tech jobs contributing to a 10-15% increase in firm-level outputs according to analyses. These structural advantages, underpinned by legal frameworks ensuring rights and enforcement, contrast sharply with origin-country constraints like limited venture funding or regulatory hurdles, making relocation a rational for bearers seeking maximized returns on their expertise.

Effects

Negative Impacts on Origin Countries

Human capital flight deprives origin countries of their most productive workers, leading to shortages in critical sectors and diminished overall economic output. In developing nations, where public investments in and are substantial relative to GDP, the emigration of tertiary-educated individuals results in unrecouped fiscal costs and reduced returns on development. Empirical analyses show that countries with high skilled rates—particularly small economies in , the , and —experience losses exceeding 30% of their skilled labor force, correlating with slower GDP per capita growth due to forgone gains. Sector-specific disruptions amplify these effects, notably in healthcare, where physician shortages elevate mortality rates and strain public systems. For example, in , the brain drain of 167 medical doctors generated an estimated economic loss of US$86.5 million, factoring in training costs and lost service provision, while masking rural healthcare deficits despite urban concentrations of remaining facilities. Similar patterns in contribute to higher infant and maternal mortality, as departing professionals reduce the density of skilled caregivers below sustainable thresholds. In and -driven fields, the outflow hampers output and firm competitiveness, with short-term declines in scientific observed following spikes in high-skilled departures. Developing countries with brain drain indices above 5.0—indicating elevated of talent—face persistent innovation gaps, as remaining workers shoulder increased loads without commensurate transfers. This dynamic exacerbates inequality, concentrating skilled labor in urban elites while rural and less-educated populations bear the brunt of diminished services and slower structural transformation.

Positive and Neutral Impacts on Origin Countries

Remittances from emigrants, including skilled workers, provide a significant influx of capital to origin countries, often exceeding and in scale. In 2023, global remittances reached $860 billion, with developing economies receiving over 70% of this total, representing more than 3% of GDP in over 60 such countries, including small states where the figure exceeds 20%. These transfers support household consumption, , and investments, leading to improved human development outcomes like higher school enrollment and reduced rates. While skilled migrants remit at lower rates per capita than unskilled ones due to higher earnings and integration abroad, their absolute contributions remain substantial and can foster when channeled into productive uses. Emigration opportunities incentivize greater investment in formation at home, as prospective migrants pursue higher education anticipating better returns abroad. Empirical analyses of data from over 100 show that a 10% increase in rates correlates with a 2-5% rise in tertiary enrollment and years of schooling, particularly in low-income settings with initial human capital below a threshold of about 7 years of average . This "brain gain" effect outweighs direct losses in some cases, boosting overall and potential without requiring public subsidies. Return migration and brain circulation further mitigate losses by repatriating enhanced skills and networks. Among high-skilled migrants to countries, approximately 38% return to their origin within 10 years, often with accumulated savings, advanced expertise, and entrepreneurial experience that triples their likelihood of employing others compared to non-migrants. Returnees in countries like and have driven startup ecosystems, with diaspora ties facilitating technology transfer and foreign investment; for instance, returned engineers from contributed to over 20% of 's IT sector growth in the . Diaspora networks enable neutral or positive spillovers through trade and knowledge diffusion, even without physical return. Skilled emigrants expand by 10-20% via informational advantages and trust-based connections, while fostering ; studies of African and Asian origins find that a 1% increase in skilled stock raises FDI inflows by up to 5%. These channels integrate origin economies into global value chains, enhancing productivity without depleting local talent pools entirely.

Benefits to Destination Countries and Global Economy

Destination countries experience direct gains from human capital flight through the importation of skilled labor that addresses shortages in specialized fields such as , , and healthcare. High-skilled immigrants often exhibit higher labor force participation and rates compared to natives, thereby expanding the productive workforce and stimulating economic output. In the United States, for example, immigrants contribute disproportionately to , with evidence showing they boost productivity growth via and patenting activity. This influx promotes regional by enhancing the economic potential of local firms through knowledge spillovers and complementary skills. Studies demonstrate that high-skilled migrants, particularly those with advanced degrees, significantly increase indigenous innovation in host countries by fostering collaborative . For instance, policies attracting skilled workers, such as the U.S. program, have been linked to higher wages for native workers in complementary occupations and overall GDP expansion, as immigrants fill roles that leverage their expertise in high-return activities. On a global scale, human capital flight enables more efficient allocation of talent toward regions with superior institutions, , and market opportunities, yielding net welfare improvements across borders. Empirical analyses indicate that increased labor mobility from such migration generates substantial gains for the , as skilled individuals produce higher marginal output in destination economies than they would domestically. This reallocation mitigates underutilization of in origin countries with weak incentives, contributing to elevated global and growth rates without commensurate losses elsewhere. Overall, the phenomenon supports a Pareto-like enhancement in resource use, where destination gains outweigh origin-specific drains when viewed through aggregate economic lenses.

Outcomes for Individual Migrants

High-skilled migrants in human capital flight scenarios often realize substantial economic returns, with empirical studies documenting wage premiums that substantially exceed origin-country earnings. Analysis of migration data reveals an average wage gain upon relocation equivalent to 38% of the cross-country gap in GDP per worker, reflecting the valuation of skills in more productive markets. These gains stem from access to higher , advanced technology, and merit-based labor markets in destinations like the and , enabling migrants to leverage their education and expertise more effectively. Beyond immediate income boosts, individuals frequently advance professionally through superior opportunities, ecosystems, and networking, leading to patents, publications, and roles unattainable domestically. For example, in the U.S. IT sector has been shown to enhance for returning migrants in , with one year abroad yielding wage increases 59 to 204% greater than comparable domestic tenure. Return migration, common among the highly skilled, amplifies these benefits by transferring enhanced back to origin countries, often at elevated pay scales. Quality-of-life improvements accompany these economic and career gains, including better healthcare, for children, and personal safety in stable institutions, though these vary by destination policies and individual circumstances. Remittances sent home further extend personal outcomes, supporting family welfare and , with global flows from skilled migrants contributing to consumption and in origins. Challenges persist, however, as many skilled migrants face or "brain waste," where foreign credentials go unrecognized, confining professionals to lower-skilled roles. In , up to 40% of overqualified immigrants work in mismatched jobs, exacerbated by language barriers, bureaucratic hurdles, and . Cultural , social , and family disruptions also impose psychic costs, with some studies noting higher stress and strains among expatriates. Despite these, net outcomes remain predominantly positive for selected migrants, as self-selection favors those with resilience and adaptability to capitalize on opportunities.

Measurement and Empirical Data

Key Indices and Metrics

The Human Flight and Brain Drain (HFBD) indicator, part of the annual compiled by the Fund for Peace, quantifies the scale of human capital flight by evaluating the economic consequences of driven by economic or political factors, including the loss of skilled professionals and associated capital outflows. Scores range from 0 (minimal impact) to 10 (severe vulnerability), with higher values reflecting greater of qualified individuals relative to and its detrimental effects on development. In recent assessments, the global average HFBD score stands at approximately 4.98, with small island nations like registering the maximum score of 10 due to disproportionate outflows of educated workers, while stable economies such as score as low as 0.3. Beyond composite indices, empirical measurement of brain drain often relies on direct emigration rates of highly skilled individuals, defined as the percentage of a country's tertiary-educated residing abroad. Datasets from the World Bank and , drawing on records and immigrant surveys from host countries like the and OECD members, estimate these rates; for instance, low-income countries exhibit average skilled emigration rates exceeding 20% for those with post-secondary , compared to under 5% in high-income nations. These metrics are derived from bilateral migration matrices, such as those developed by Docquier and Marfouk, which track international mobility by using age-of-entry data for over 77% of skilled immigrants to OECD destinations. Additional quantitative approaches include net brain drain calculations, which subtract inflows of skilled migrants from outflows to assess overall loss, and productivity-adjusted measures focusing on the departure of top-tier talent in fields like and . For example, studies using and data compute gross brain drain as the difference between the share of highly educated emigrants and the share of educated stayers, revealing permanent per capita income reductions of up to 1-2% annually in high-drain origin countries. These indicators prioritize verifiable migrant stocks over flows, as long-term settlement data better capture sustained impacts, though challenges persist in undercounting undocumented or short-term movements. Empirical measurement of human capital flight relies on datasets tracking by , such as the Docquier-Marfouk , which estimates emigration stocks and rates for over 190 in 1990 and 2000, focusing on tertiary-educated individuals. This and subsequent updates reveal that, by 2000, approximately 20 million high-skilled immigrants (foreign-born with higher education) resided in , marking a 70% increase from 1990 levels, with two-thirds originating from developing or transition economies. Average rates of tertiary-educated workers from developing hovered around 5-10%, though rates exceeded 30% in many sub-Saharan African and small island nations, with extreme cases like and losing over 80% of their college graduates. Trends indicate acceleration in skilled outflows since the , with the proportion of foreign-born residents in high-income countries tripling overall and high-skilled from low-income origins intensifying through the and beyond. Recent data show high-skilled permanent inflows reaching 5.1 million in 2023, comprising 31% of total immigrants—a rising share driven by labor demands in sectors like and healthcare—while global skilled migration stocks have expanded, with the tertiary-educated share among migrants climbing from 28% in 2000 to 38% by 2020. Gender-disaggregated analyses highlight higher brain drain rates among women (5.7% for highly educated vs. 4.6% for men), correlating with origin-country gaps and contributing to an increasing female share in skilled immigration stocks over the past two decades.
Region/GroupTertiary Emigration Rate (circa 2000)Notable Examples
Developing Countries (Average)5-10%Varies by income; lower in populous nations
10-20%+, : 33-50%
Small Island/Up to 80%+, : >80% of graduates
These patterns persist, with less than 10% of the most educated migrating from most origin countries, though selective policies in destinations amplify flows from politically unstable or low-human-capital environments. Overall, while aggregate global migration grew to 304 million by recent estimates (3.8% of ), skilled components disproportionately burden origin stocks in low-resource settings.

Historical Examples

Ancient and Medieval Cases

In , the Persian conquest beginning in 525 BCE under introduced a period of foreign domination (Twenty-seventh Dynasty, 525–404 BCE) marked by rebellions and administrative disruptions, which prompted the flight of skilled artisans and craftsmen. Archaeological , such as a 2,400-year-old from el-Meleq displaying amateurish and asymmetrical hieroglyphs atypical of prior Saite Period precision, indicates a "brain drain" where expert scribes and decorators either emigrated, perished in conflicts, or were conscripted into Persian service, degrading local production quality. This loss of exacerbated Egypt's cultural and under Achaemenid rule, as Persian overseers prioritized resource extraction over sustaining indigenous expertise. Fewer documented cases exist for , though elite migrations within the , such as administrators and scholars relocating from unstable provinces to the secure eastern heartlands like during the Crisis of the Third Century (235–284 CE), hinted at selective outflows of talent amid invasions and civil wars. However, these movements often represented internal reallocations rather than permanent net losses, with the Empire's integrated structure mitigating widespread drain until later fragmentation. In medieval , the Ottoman capture of on May 29, 1453, triggered a notable exodus of Byzantine intellectuals, including figures like Cardinal Bessarion and , who fled to such as , , and . Carrying manuscripts of , , and other classical authors preserved in the East, these migrants—estimated at several hundred scholars and their entourages—transmitted Hellenistic knowledge westward, fueling the through teaching at nascent academies and translations that bridged Latin and Greek traditions. This represented a clear human capital flight from the collapsing , depleting its remaining scholarly centers while enriching Western 's intellectual revival. The of March 31, 1492, issued by and , expelled approximately 200,000 practicing from by July 31, compelling many to convert or emigrate to , , or the . Among the deportees were disproportionately skilled professionals—physicians, astronomers, cartographers, financiers, and translators—who had contributed to 's medieval advancements in medicine (e.g., ' influence) and . Historians attribute subsequent economic setbacks in Castile and , including slowed innovation in crafts and trade, to this loss of educated labor, as replacement pools lacked comparable expertise. 's failure to fully recover from this drain is evidenced by persistent reliance on foreign merchants and a relative lag in scientific output compared to rising powers like the , where expelled resettled and prospered.

Early Modern and 19th Century Migrations

The revocation of the via the on October 22, 1685, prompted the exodus of an estimated 140,000 to 200,000 —predominantly skilled artisans, merchants, professionals, and entrepreneurs—from over the subsequent decade. This migration represented a substantial brain drain, as comprised a disproportionate share of 's educated and technically proficient population, including experts in textiles, glassmaking, , and clockmaking, whose departure hampered industrial development and contributed to in affected regions. Host countries such as , , and the gained significantly; for instance, Prussian King Frederick William I actively recruited Huguenot refugees, who boosted manufacturing output and introduced advanced techniques, with Berlin's population of skilled weavers increasing markedly. In the broader Early Modern context, religious persecutions and wars facilitated similar outflows of across , though the Huguenot case stands out for its scale and targeted loss of productive talent. Smaller migrations, such as skilled Dutch artisans fleeing Spanish Habsburg rule in the 16th century or Protestant craftsmen relocating from the amid the (1618–1648), similarly transferred knowledge and labor to emerging Protestant strongholds like and the , underscoring how ideological conflicts often accelerated the diffusion of expertise at the expense of origin states. These movements exemplified early instances of human capital flight driven by intolerance rather than purely economic incentives, with long-term costs to senders including depleted innovation capacity and fiscal revenues from high-value taxpayers. The 19th century witnessed intensified human capital flight from Europe to the United States amid industrialization, political upheavals, and opportunity differentials, with over 30 million Europeans emigrating between 1815 and 1915, including substantial numbers of skilled workers whose departure strained origin economies. A key episode was the post-1848 emigration from German states following the failed revolutions, involving thousands of intellectuals, professionals, and artisans—the so-called "Forty-Eighters"—who fled repression, resulting in a profound cultural and intellectual brain drain that Germany struggled to recover from, as these migrants filled critical roles in American academia, journalism, and engineering. German emigration peaked in the 1850s, with skilled tradesmen comprising a notable fraction of the roughly 1.5 million departures to the U.S. by 1860, exacerbating labor shortages in nascent German industries. British efforts to curb the outflow of mechanics and engineers highlight concerns over brain drain during this era; between the and 1850s, enacted temporary bans on emigration to protect textile and machinery secrets, yet thousands of skilled workers still relocated to U.S. factories, accelerating American technological catch-up at Britain's expense. Similarly, Scandinavian and Irish professionals—doctors, teachers, and engineers—emigrated in growing numbers, contributing to a net transfer of expertise that bolstered U.S. industrialization while leaving European peripheries with skill gaps; for example, Norwegian engineers aided Midwestern infrastructure projects, reflecting how economic pull factors amplified outflows beyond political refugees. Overall, these migrations shifted westward, with European governments lamenting lost productivity, though some remittances and knowledge spillbacks mitigated impacts unevenly.

20th Century Conflicts and Ideological Flights

The ascent of the Nazi regime in triggered a massive of Jewish scientists and intellectuals, exemplifying human capital flight induced by ideological and . In the initial purges following Adolf Hitler's appointment as chancellor on January 30, 1933, approximately 1,600 Jewish educators, scholars, and librarians were dismissed from positions, comprising about one-fourth of the nation's physicists. This exodus included prominent figures such as , who departed for the in October 1933, depriving of key expertise in physics and related fields. By 1941, an estimated 300,000 had emigrated from and annexed , with many highly educated professionals contributing to scientific advancements in recipient nations like the U.S. and Britain, including contributions to the atomic bomb project. Communist regimes in the mid-to-late similarly drove skilled emigration through enforced ideological orthodoxy, purges, and suppression of dissent. In the , political restrictions and demands for conformity prompted thousands of scientists and intellectuals to defect or emigrate during the era, with the U.S. benefiting from this influx via enhanced academic competition and . Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, economic collapse triggered a massive brain drain in the 1990s, involving hundreds of thousands to millions of skilled experts emigrating, which severely weakened domestic research institutions; primary destinations were Israel—receiving over 60% of Jewish emigrants—the United States, and Germany. Notable cases included ballet defector in 1974 and various researchers fleeing Lysenkoism's dominance in biology from onward. Following the 1959 Cuban Revolution under , radical nationalizations and ideological shifts prompted an exodus of professionals and middle-class managers, expanding from initial political opponents to skilled workers disillusioned by economic policies. Between 1959 and 1962, programs like enabled the departure of over 14,000 unaccompanied Cuban children to the U.S., many from educated families anticipating further repression. This early wave depleted Cuba's technical and managerial capital, with subsequent migrations continuing the pattern into the 1970s via the , which saw 125,000 leave in 1980, including disproportionate numbers of professionals. In , Soviet interventions stifled reform and spurred intellectual flights. After the 1956 Hungarian Revolution's suppression, roughly 200,000 , including students, professionals, and anti-communist thinkers, escaped to and beyond, representing a significant loss of young talent to the regime. Similarly, the 1968 ended the Prague Spring's liberalization, leading to the emigration of tens of thousands of intellectuals and dissidents before borders tightened, with many relocating to and the U.S. for . Post-1975 Vietnam witnessed a comparable outflow after the communist victory in the . An estimated 1.5 million "boat people," disproportionately urban, educated southerners including professionals, engineers, and military officers, fled via perilous sea routes to and beyond between 1975 and 1995, evading re-education camps and collectivization policies. This transferred to countries like the U.S., , and , while exacerbating Vietnam's skilled labor shortages amid reconstruction. The construction of the on August 13, 1961, epitomized ideological barriers to flight from , halting a pre-wall exodus of over 2.7 million citizens—many skilled workers and professionals—seeking Western opportunities, and underscoring the scale of attempted escape under communist rule.

Contemporary Examples

Africa and Middle East

In sub-Saharan Africa, human capital flight manifests prominently through the emigration of healthcare professionals, engineers, and tertiary-educated individuals to and , driven by inadequate , governance failures, and . The World Bank reports that sub-Saharan Africa's human capital index stands at 0.4—the lowest among global regions—implying that economic output per worker could nearly double without such constraints, with emigration compounding skill shortages in critical sectors like . By 2024, the sub-Saharan African immigrant population in the United States had tripled from 2000 levels to 2.5 million, with a disproportionate share holding advanced degrees and working in high-skill fields, reflecting selective migration patterns that deplete origin countries' capacities. African migration to rose 30% from 2010 to 2020, though 80% of outflows remain intra-continental; skilled workers disproportionately target destinations for superior remuneration and stability. Nigeria and South Africa exemplify the scale: Nigeria loses thousands of doctors annually to the UK's , where African-trained physicians comprise over 10% of the workforce, exacerbating domestic shortages amid a physician-to-population ratio of 1:2,500. Political instability and accelerate this trend, as evidenced by structural patterns of annual increases in skilled linked to abusive governance. In , experiences outflows of engineers and IT specialists to Gulf states and , with emigration rates for tertiary-educated reaching 15-20% in recent cohorts, though remittances partially offset economic losses. In the , brain drain indices rank (6.8/10), (6.2/10), and (5.9/10) highest in 2024, propelled by protracted conflicts, , and repression that erode professional opportunities. Iran's outflows intensified post-2019, with 180,000 educated professionals emigrating that year alone—ranking second globally—fueled by , dissent crackdowns, and affecting 40% of graduates; by 2023, 30% of Iranians expressed intent, with 62% of leavers citing no return plans due to systemic barriers. 's 2019-2023 crisis prompted a surge in skilled departures, including bankers and physicians, doubling asylum claims in to over 40,000 by 2022 before a slight 2023 dip, as hyperinflation and influence dismantled viable careers. 's displaced 6.8 million externally by 2023, including disproportionate numbers of engineers and doctors who sought refuge in , , and , hindering post-conflict reconstruction. Regional factors like low R&D and further incentivize flight to destinations offering merit-based absorption.

Asia and Latin America

In , human capital flight has manifested prominently through the emigration of highly skilled professionals, particularly in and sectors, to destinations such as the , , and the . As of 2023, more than 2.9 million Indian immigrants resided in the US, with Indian nationals receiving 72.3% of all H-1B visas issued for 2022-2023, underscoring the scale of skilled labor outflow. Over 1.25 million Indians awaited employment-based green cards in 2024, reflecting sustained demand for their expertise amid domestic opportunities constrained by regulatory hurdles and infrastructure limitations. This migration has depleted India's talent pool in critical STEM fields, though remittances exceeding $100 billion annually in recent years provide partial economic offset. In , patterns of human capital flight have shifted toward partial reversal in the , driven by domestic incentives like state-funded research programs and geopolitical tensions abroad. While approximately 2.4 million Chinese immigrants lived in the as of 2023, over 83% of Chinese nationals earning and PhDs between 2017 and 2019 returned home, contributing to a "brain gain" in high-tech sectors. Since 2012, return rates for students have exceeded 80%, up from 30.6% in 2007, fueled by policies attracting talent amid visa restrictions and funding cuts. Unlike the Soviet Union's post-dissolution brain drain in the 1990s, which involved massive outflows of hundreds of thousands of experts due to economic collapse, severely weakening domestic research—with main destinations Israel (over 60% for Jewish immigrants), the US, and Germany—China's has been more gradual, driven by educational opportunities, with recent shifts to brain circulation and reverse inflows via domestic development; destinations focus on the US for elite research and Western countries for studies, resulting in net benefits like innovation from returnees rather than sustained losses. Nonetheless, net outflows persist in select fields, exacerbating shortages in academia and innovation hubs. Across other Asian economies, such as the and , emigration of nurses, engineers, and IT specialists to wealthier nations has intensified labor shortages in healthcare and technology. The , for instance, exports over 20,000 nurses annually to the and , leading to domestic hospital understaffing ratios as high as 1:50 patients per nurse in public facilities as of 2022. In , skilled professionals in tech and increasingly seek opportunities abroad, contributing to a brain drain that hampers productivity in key industries. In , exemplifies acute human capital flight triggered by economic collapse and political instability since 2015, with over 7.3 million citizens emigrating by 2023, including disproportionate numbers of professionals. Between 2015 and 2020 alone, more than 5 million departed, encompassing physicians, engineers, and academics fleeing exceeding 1 million percent in 2018 and shortages of basic goods; healthcare sector losses reached 75% of specialists by , crippling public services. This exodus, the largest in Latin American history, has concentrated in destinations like , , and the , where Venezuelan migrants' skills bolster host economies while remittances—totaling $4 billion in 2022—fail to fully compensate Venezuela's depleted institutional capacity. Mexico has experienced ongoing skilled to the , particularly among scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs, amid , , and limited R&D below 0.5% of GDP as of 2023. Approximately 10.7 million Mexican immigrants resided in the in , with high-skilled flows via H-1B and TN visas contributing to a "brain drain" that has reduced Mexico's global scientific output to under 1% despite its population size. Factors include NAFTA-era policy attractions in the and insecurity, prompting outflows of talent that have historically saved Mexico from deeper stagnation by enabling knowledge transfers via returnees and remittances surpassing $60 billion annually. In broader , similar dynamics affect and , where ideological policies have driven professionals abroad, eroding in education and health sectors.

Europe and North America in the 21st Century

In the 21st century, human capital flight from has primarily manifested as intra-continental migration from Eastern and Southern member states to wealthier Western countries, driven by economic disparities, EU enlargement in 2004, and the . Eastern European countries experienced significant outflows of skilled workers post-accession; for instance, emigration from new EU states like and led to losses estimated at 2-4% of the highly educated workforce by the early 2010s, with destinations including and the . Southern Europe saw intensified brain drain during the sovereign debt crisis, as in where over 427,000 young, educated individuals emigrated between 2008 and 2016 at a rate exceeding 100,000 annually, primarily to , the , and other EU nations. Similarly, Italy lost approximately 100,000 skilled professionals abroad from 2008 to 2015, fueled by rates above 30% and limited merit-based opportunities. France has faced outflows of high earners and entrepreneurs due to elevated tax burdens, with 3,744 individuals earning over €100,000 annually departing in 2013—a 40% rise from 2012—often to , , or the for lower effective tax rates on income and capital. In the UK, post-Brexit uncertainties accelerated of highly educated Britons to countries, with UK-to-EU migration rising about 30% compared to pre-2016 levels by 2020, particularly among academics and professionals citing funding disruptions and regulatory barriers. European outflows to , while smaller, involved select skilled cohorts; U.S. census data from 1980-2006 indicate European emigrants were 3-5 times more likely to hold college degrees than stayers, representing 0.2-0.6% of source-country , with concentrations in and roles. In , has sustained a notable brain drain to the throughout the , primarily among highly educated professionals seeking higher salaries and career advancement. This trend, persisting from the , saw accounting for 6.4% of global inventor as of recent analyses, with outflows including STEM graduates and executives drawn by U.S. opportunities in tech hubs like . Annual of skilled to the U.S. hovered around 20,000-30,000 in the , narrowing slightly post-2020 due to bilateral policy changes but remaining a concern amid 's challenges. The , typically a net importer, has experienced marginal skilled outflows to in response to instability, with reports in 2025 highlighting potential departures of amid funding uncertainties, though these remain limited relative to inflows. Overall, these patterns reflect push factors like fiscal pressures and in origin countries, contrasted with pull factors of ecosystems elsewhere.

Policy Implications and Debates

Retention and Reversal Strategies

Retention strategies for human capital flight emphasize addressing root causes such as , inadequate , and institutional weaknesses that drive skilled . Governments have implemented fiscal incentives, including tax reductions and subsidies for high-skilled workers, alongside investments in to enhance domestic opportunities. For instance, improving and reducing can signal long-term stability, making retention more viable than outbound migration. Empirical analyses indicate that broad-based , rather than targeted handouts, correlates with sustained talent retention by fostering job creation in knowledge-intensive sectors. Reversal strategies focus on repatriating expatriates through diaspora engagement programs that offer financial incentives, professional networks, and streamlined reentry processes. These include grants for returning entrepreneurs, priority access to roles, and policies facilitating from abroad. Success depends on credible commitments to rights and merit-based advancement, as expatriates often weigh host-country advantages like higher salaries against homeland risks. Studies show that such programs yield partial gains when paired with macroeconomic reforms, though they rarely attract elite talent without underlying productivity growth. Ireland's experience during the era (approximately 1995–2007) exemplifies effective reversal through market-oriented policies. By maintaining a 12.5% rate and attracting , Ireland achieved average annual GDP growth of over 6%, transforming net into net ; between 1996 and 2006, the grew by 20%, with returning emigrants and inflows bolstering the skilled workforce in technology and finance. This shift reversed decades of brain drain, as outbound migration rates fell sharply amid rising employment opportunities. China's , initiated in 2008, targeted scientists and engineers with subsidies up to 1 million yuan and research funding, recruiting over 7,000 participants by 2018. Evaluations reveal it successfully nurtured mid-tier talent, increasing publication outputs and patents among returnees, but struggled to repatriate top global performers due to persistent issues like constraints and preference for established networks abroad. The related Young Thousand Talents program, analyzed through 2019 data, boosted recruit quality in STEM fields yet showed limited impact on Nobel-level innovators. Taiwan's initiative, launched in the 1980s by the , incentivized returns via equity stakes in startups and government contracts, attracting over 1,000 engineers and scientists by the early . This contributed to Taiwan's dominance, with returnees founding firms like , though long-term success hinged on export-led industrialization rather than incentives alone. Similar efforts in , such as reintegration schemes under the Ministry of External Affairs, have supported returning migrants through skill-matching portals, but quantitative impacts remain modest without deeper labor market reforms.

Critiques of Interventionist Policies

Interventionist policies aimed at retaining skilled workers, including financial subsidies, bonding requirements for publicly funded , and emigration restrictions, have been critiqued for their limited efficacy in addressing human capital flight. Empirical analyses indicate that such measures often fail to produce sustained retention, as migrants continue to respond to persistent disparities in opportunities, wages, and between origin and destination countries. For instance, a critical review of financial in the health sector found that bonding schemes—requiring service periods in exchange for training—are rarely effective in stemming brain drain, with many professionals evading or completing bonds only to emigrate shortly thereafter. Similarly, studies on programs, such as subsidies, demonstrate limited long-term impact, as they do not resolve underlying institutional weaknesses like inadequate or failures. Critics argue that these policies impose significant economic costs without commensurate benefits, diverting scarce resources from structural reforms that could enhance competitiveness. Subsidies to retain talent can strain public budgets, particularly in low-income countries, where fiscal capacity is limited; for example, bonding enforcement requires administrative overhead, legal pursuits for defaulters, and potential losses if professionals abscond without repayment. Moreover, such interventions may distort labor markets by artificially inflating domestic wages or creating dependency on state support, discouraging investment in development. In cases like Malawi's health sector, implemented retention measures, including incentives and contracts, showed negligible effects on reducing outflows, underscoring how interventions overlook root causes such as low pay and poor working conditions relative to international standards. Emigration restrictions, such as exit taxes or bans, face particularly sharp rebukes for infringing on individual liberties and , including the enshrined in international agreements like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Historical precedents, including the Soviet Union's and East Germany's barriers to departure—which culminated in events like the construction of the in 1961—illustrate how coercive retention fosters resentment, underground evasion networks, and diminished among coerced workers, ultimately contributing to systemic collapse rather than prosperity. Economists and philosophers contend that restricting exit signals policy failure and perpetuates inefficiency, as it prevents the market signal of brain drain from prompting necessary reforms; instead, allowing incentivizes origin countries to improve conditions to attract returnees or prevent flight. Libertarian perspectives emphasize that government interference in personal economic decisions undermines incentives for skill acquisition and innovation, potentially exacerbating the very conditions driving outflows. Furthermore, interventionist approaches risk being counterproductive by signaling weakness to potential investors and skilled workers, reinforcing perceptions of . Data from developing nations reveal that heavy reliance on retention subsidies correlates with continued high rates, suggesting that without complementary investments in education quality, , and , such policies merely postpone inevitable losses while incurring deadweight costs. Proponents of minimal intervention advocate addressing causal factors through market-oriented reforms, arguing that favors voluntary returns—facilitated by diasporas and remittances—over forced retention, which often yields net negative outcomes in utilization.

Ethical and Ideological Controversies

The emigration of skilled professionals raises ethical questions about the balance between individual rights to seek better opportunities and the collective obligations to one's home country, particularly when public funds subsidize education in developing nations. Proponents of restricting emigration argue that brain drain imposes uncompensated costs on origin countries, as taxpayers bear the expense of training—estimated at $21,000 to $62,000 per medical professional in sub-Saharan Africa—only for host nations like the United States and United Kingdom to reap the benefits without reimbursement. This view posits a moral duty for emigrants to repay societal investments through service, akin to a social contract, with some ethicists contending that developed countries engage in exploitation by actively recruiting such talent via visa programs and higher salaries. Conversely, defenders emphasize the human right to emigrate, enshrined in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, asserting that coerced retention violates personal autonomy and that empirical evidence shows brain drain often yields remittances—$83 billion to low-income countries in 2022—and knowledge spillovers upon potential return, mitigating net losses. Ideologically, brain drain controversies pit libertarian emphases on free mobility against collectivist concerns over national development and inequality. From a market-oriented perspective, migration reflects rational individual choice in response to institutional failures in origin countries, such as or poor , rather than predation by hosts; studies indicate that high-skilled outflows correlate more with domestic policy shortcomings than foreign poaching, with open borders potentially alleviating through global efficiency gains. Critics from progressive or statist viewpoints frame it as neocolonial exploitation, where wealthy states perpetuate underdevelopment by draining from the Global South, exacerbating global inequities; this narrative, prevalent in academic discourse despite limited causal evidence linking migration directly to origin-country stagnation, advocates compensatory mechanisms like levies on host employers. Such positions often overlook countervailing data, including brain circulation effects where emigrants return with enhanced skills—observed in 30-50% of cases for Indian and Chinese professionals—suggesting that ideological priors may overstate harm to prioritize redistribution over . Debates intensify over policy responses, with some proposing emigration taxes or service bonds to enforce duties, yet these risk entrenching authoritarian controls, as seen in historical Soviet restrictions that suppressed without halting outflows. Empirical analyses reveal that such interventions frequently fail, as skilled workers evade them or innovate less under duress, underscoring a core tension: while origin states claim sovereignty to retain talent, unrestricted mobility aligns with causal drivers of , challenging ideologies that subordinate individuals to national imperatives.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.