Policy implications of the U.S. brain drain's changing face

Within the initial paradigm of a brain drain, there was a clear answer to the question of who wins and who loses. Namely, it was generally accepted that the countries of origin suffered from the brain drain, while host countries benefited by experiencing a “brain gain”.

During the 1960s and 1970s, much discussion and analysis took place about the mobility of highly skilled professionals. Interest in this topic subsequently dropped as a combined result of economic recession and limitations in the analysis of the problem.

But in recent years the issue has returned to the spotlight, largely due to growing interest in the so-called global knowledge-based economy. As a result, it is now widely debated, as reflected in various recent international official publications and meetings. [1,2,3,4] The debate has focused on the nature and impact of the mobility of such professionals, and in particular its negative or positive effects on both their countries of origin and their host countries.

Until the early 1990s, the “brain drain” was the predominant (if controversial) concept used to frame such discussions. This implied a one-way, definitive and permanent migration of skilled people from developing to industrial countries. It had a basically negative connotation, namely that it involved a loss of vital resources. However it was also argued that – at least in the developing world – it avoided a “brain waste”.

More recently, however, the idea has been gaining momentum among scholars, decision makers and journalists that policy makers should characterise the issue in terms of a “circulation” of skills and manpower. Certainly the conditions that govern mobility have changed dramatically, in terms of new forms of communication, transportation, geopolitics, intercultural relationships and commerce.

To read the rest of this article here's the link.