This fear is misplaced. At the outset, we have to distinguish between “need” and “demand.” Yes, many African countries need skills. But they are unable to absorb them, owing to several factors associated with economic backwardness.
In India in the 1950’s and 1960’s – a time when many professionals were emigrating – working conditions were deplorable. Bureaucrats decided whether we could go abroad for conferences. Heads of departments carried inordinate power. So, no surprise, many of us left. We Hindus may believe in an infinity of lifetimes, but we maximize our welfare in this one, just like everyone else.
Besides, simply holding people back, even if feasible, would do little for their countries. The “brain” is not a static concept. Trapped in Kinshasa, under appalling conditions, the brain will drain away in less time than it takes to get to New York.
Moreover, keeping people at home is easier said than done. In many poor countries, except those like India and South Korea, which have now developed superb educational institutions, the brightest citizens receive their education abroad. The challenge, then, is to prevent them from staying there and settling down.
But, in any event, emigration restrictions today would violate a human right enshrined in current international treaties. But would immigration restrictions work instead, as proposed by some developed-country organizations, which worry about the “brain drain”?
Here, human-rights concerns pose serious difficulties. Could we really say to a Ghanaian doctor that she must return to her country while an immigrant Russian doctor is allowed to settle down and start a new life? This is likely to run afoul of anti-discrimination principles and constitutional provisions in countries like the United States.
The proper response to the outflow of skilled manpower from poor countries, especially those in Africa, is to be found in a different direction. Given that outflows of skilled workers cannot be restricted – and, indeed, should not be – we must devise institutional mechanisms to work with it. This means adopting a “diaspora” model, which implies four policy proposals.
First, stop crying over the fact that the diaspora is not returning home. Instead, nurture the loyalty of professionals settling abroad, so that they assist their home countries in a variety of ways. Thus, they may be offered voting rights. Restrictions on investment and land purchases can be dropped. And immigration experts like me have proposed since the 1970’s that schemes be developed to enable the academic diaspora to run workshops aimed at bringing teachers up to the best international standards.
Second, while the diaspora should be integrated through more rights, its members also ought to accept obligations that put them on an equal footing with those who remain behind. I suggested in the 1970’s that a tax be levied on citizens abroad. Known as the “Bhagwati Tax,” it is of course “the American way”: US citizens and permanent residents abroad, like those at home, must pay federal taxes.
Third, because skills are necessary for nearly all activities in most of Africa, here and now, we need to organize ways to supply such skills to these countries. I have long argued that, because many in rich countries are retiring while still in sound health, and because altruism increases with age, we could organize a Grey Peace Corps of senior citizens to share their skills in countries whose own trained professionals prefer to settle abroad.
Finally, foreign aid should be used to expand training massively for Africans in all the essential fields in rich countries like the US, the United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands. They would add to the diaspora, while the Grey Peace Corps would help to fill current needs. When development has taken off, and conditions have improved sufficiently to attract people back to their homelands, the hugely increased diaspora would indeed return, as they have done in India, South Korea, and China.
Together, these policies would benefit Africa both immediately and in the long run. Sentimental handwringing over the “brain drain,” and foolish attempts at restricting people’s mobility, will not.
Jagdish Bhagwati, Professor of Economics and Law at Columbia
University and Senior Fellow in International Economics at the Council on
Foreign Relations, recently edited, with Gordon Hanson, Skilled Migration
Today.
Jagdish Bhagwati: 「人才流失」擔憂卷土重來
紐約—發達國家正在為來自發展中國家的無技能非法移民而焦慮，但非洲國家卻在面臨另一種擔憂，即有技能（甚至高技能）公民合法移民至發達國家。這種流出被認為是具有傷害性的新型「人才外流」，即發達國家積極地吸取貧窮國家所急需的技能。
這一擔憂可謂使錯了力。從一開始，我們就應該區分「需要」和「需求」。誠然，眾多非中國家需要技能。但因為諸多與經濟落后有關的因素，它們無法吸收這些技能。
印度在20世紀五六十年代經歷過大量專業人員的外流，當時，印度的工作環境相當惡劣。官僚決定著我們是否可以出國參加會議。行政部門頭腦掌握著無上的權力。因此，毫不奇怪，我們當中有許多人決定離開。我們印度人信仰「生也無涯”，但與其他人
一樣，我們也會設法最大化這輩子的財富。
況且，僅僅把人留住，即使成功了也對國家助益有限。「人才」並不是靜態的概念。身處金沙薩壓抑的環境中，人才流失會比讓他們前往紐約更快。
此外，把人留在國內說起來容易做起來難。在許多貧窮國家（印度和韓國除外，它們已經發展起了優秀的教育制度），最聰明的公民往往都是在國外接受的教育。於是，挑戰就變成了如何防止他們留在國外，在國外定居。
但是，無論如何，在今天，移民限制違反了被國際法視為至高無上的人權。但是，一些擔心「人才流失」的發達國家組織所實施的限制外來移民政策是否有效呢？
在這方面，人權方面的顧慮相當棘手。我們真的可以對加納博士說，你必須返回你的國家，而一轉身又允許俄羅斯博士定居開始新生活嗎？在美國等國家，這可能有違反歧視原則和憲法相關規定。
應對貧窮國家（特別是非洲國家）技能人力外流的合理措施應該另辟蹊徑。技能工人的外流是不能加以限制的，事實上，也不應該加以限制，因此我們必須設計能合理處理這一現象的國際機制。這意味著採取一種「流散猶太人」的模式，其中包括四大政策方案。
首先，停止抱怨外流人才不回國的現象，而代之以培育海外專業人士僑民的忠誠度，讓他們在諸多方面為祖國效力。因此，他們應該被授予選舉權。投資和購置土地方面的限制也可以解除。而移民專家（比如我）從20世紀70年代便開始建議應該發展相應的機制方便學術人才回國舉辦培訓班，培養本土符合國際最高標准的師資。
其次，在用更多的權利團結外流人才的同時，也應該讓他們接受相應的義務，使他們和留在國內者處於平等地位。我在20世紀70年代時曾建議對僑民征稅。這一「巴格瓦蒂稅」顯然是相當「美國」的：在外永久定居的美國公民與國內公民一樣，都必須繳納聯邦稅。
第三，在非洲，幾乎所有領域的活動都急需技能，因此我們需要組織向這些國家供給所需技能的渠道。我很早就指出，發達國家有大量高技能人才退休時身體健康，精神矍鑠，而且人年紀越大，越有助人為樂的精神，因此我們可以組織一支由高端人才組成的「灰色和平部隊」（Grey Peace Corps），與自身訓練有素的專業人士更喜歡移民海外的國家分享技能。
最後，對於像美國、英國、法國和荷蘭這樣的發達國家，應該把對外援助用於大規模擴大在各基本領域非洲人培訓。這些非洲人會加入外流人才行列，而灰色和平部隊能填補當前需要。當非洲國家發展起來之後，國內狀況會得到足夠的改善，吸引人才流回祖國，數量大增的流失人才的確實是會回去的，印度、韓國和中國就是明証。
這四大政策的綜合效果將使非洲在即期和長期均獲得巨大的好處。對「人才流失」怨天尤人以及愚蠢地限制人口流動是不會有效果的。
Jagdish
Bhagwati是哥倫比亞大學經濟學和法律教授，外交關系委員會國際經濟學高級研究員，最近和戈登·漢森合編有《當今世界的技能人口遷移》。