Brain Gain

Monday, 23 August 2010 00:00

Written by Louie C. Montemar

In the 1970's, the phenomenon that is international migrant work started to become most palpable to us who are in their late 30's and 40-somethings as indicated by the rise of recruitment agencies, the proliferation of fixers and illegal recruiters, a ditty by the loony trio of Tito, Vic and Joey (“The Middle East Connection,” a spoof of the “Rainbow Connection” by that 70’s Muppet icon Kermit the Frog), and the many sob stories of those who used to be called Overseas Contract Workers or OCWs illustrated for instance by some lines in the song “Napakasakit Kuya Eddie.”

Former Assemblyman 'Kuya Eddie' Ilarde has long since passed away; Tito Sen is, well, back in the Senate after a brief hiatus; and, OCWs are now referred to as OFWs — Overseas Filipino Workers, for political correctness, since not all Filipino migrant workers have contracts; many, in fact, are illegally recruited and start out as illegal aliens in their countries of destination. In but a few decades the world has changed much. In fact, what used to be called “brain drain” has been posited as a possible “brain drain.”

But how real is this theorized change regarding the impact and potential of migrant work? Brain drain simply refers to the observed loss in terms of human resources when a country like ours bleeds out talent, knowledge and skills, especially with the migration of skilled and educated people. In 2002 however, one Uwe Hunger, has argued in an academic piece that there is such a thing as “brain drain.” The brain drain hypothesis predicts “long-term positive effects in case of a return or network building processes of the emigrated Third World elites.” The view argues that what initially may be a resource loss (”brain drain”) “can be converted into a long-term resource profit (”brain drain”) for the developing country.”

Oh how optimistic a view! To argue his point, Hunger has pointed to the rather peculiar case of India whose information technology (IT) sector has reportedly benefitted much from the “remigration” (or return and productive reintegration, whether temporary or permanent) and entrepreneurial spirit of its scientists and engineers. How did such come to pass? In the case of India, Hunger distilled five stages in a “brain drain” development scheme, to wit:

1st stage: Investments on education in the source country. After independence in 1947, the Indian government increased investments on the education system as part of its self-reliance-strategy; elites left the country in the 1960s due to its lack of opportunities.

2nd stage: Initial loss (the “brain drain” period) for the source country. India was then perceived to be suffering most from “brain drain.” The emigration was particularly headed to the USA. In the traditional brain drain literature, the USA, as host country, was thus seen as having benefited from India's loss

3rd stage: Successful integration (relative brain drain) for the host country. Indians are now regarded as one of the minority groups which have best integrated into North American society. With good education, Indians were able to establish themselves extremely well especially in the IT sector.

4th stage: Attracting remigrants to the source country: In the 1980s India introduced an IT-policy that attracted emigrated Indian elites from the USA.

5th stage: draining from remigration (the mature “brain drain” period). In the course of over five decades, return migration, including its attendant network building processes gave particular hope to the source country that suffered initially from “brain drain.”

On an optimistic note, Hunger tells us that future research needs to address this question: how can “brain drain” be quickly realized for other countries? Following the “brain drain” hypothesis, Hunger specifically mentions, among others, Mexico and the Philippines—both strongly described to be affected by “brain drain”— to “have a chance for a future brain drain.”

Hunger hastened to hypothesize that “the reason that there has not been a ‘brain drain’ so far, might be, that the attractiveness of these countries [Philippines and Mexico], i.e., [their] level of the safety of investments, is too low... In this case it would be necessary to increase the safety of investment (in political and economic respect) in these countries first, and then – in a second step – develop policies that motivate the elites to return home.”

In other words, it may be said that the lack of a strong domestic development policy framework, political instability, economic security or, generally, the weakness of the political structure of the country keeps us from reaping the full drains or positive impact of the projected and real remigration of our more talented, skilled, and knowledgeable migrant workers — our migrant elites.

Government has been but feebly trying to attract some of our best and brightest to come back from other countries to once more serve their nation. For instance, since the mid-1970’s, we have had a Balik-Scientist Program through the Department of Science and Technology (DOST). Of the 300 or so scientists and knowledge workers who have come back somehow through this program, it is claimed that we have already drained much. We did? But how much? Parang hindi obvious.

It's August 21 as this piece is being crafted and with the last point above, the image of the most famous-but-tragic Filipino balikbayan Ninoy Aquino comes to mind. Just like Jose Rizal, another exemplar among migrant elites, he was but a victim of the deadly politics of his time. Historically, the instability of non-democratic politics has been bleeding us weak of our most brilliant and potential leaders.

It is time we craft a comprehensive development agenda that builds on the strength of the responsible elites of this country. It is time for the development scheme and politics of brain drain.