Panic and panacea: brain drain and science and technology human capital policy
Introduction
Nations increasingly view technology transfer as primarily a people-oriented phenomenon and fear they might lose their competitive edge in what seems like a global competition for skills. Immigration is thus, increasingly becoming an inseparable segment of national technology policies. (Mahroum, 2000)
Scientific and technical human capital (STHC) encompasses individual human capital characteristics but also includes social capital, “for knowledge creation is neither a solitary nor singular event” (Bozeman et al., 2001). From a policy perspective then, STHC is not of interest solely as an individual concept but also for its collective attributes. The diffusion of scientists and technologists from one research setting to another, including between nations, has significant policy implications.
‘Brain drains’ between home and host nations are perhaps the most widely recognised of demographic STHC diffusion trends. Even though it can take many guises, ‘brain drain’ as a phenomenon has been a common issue for debate in many countries around the world (e.g., Beine et al., 2001, Carrington and Detragiache, 1999, Kesselman, 2001). This paper will explore the ‘brain drain’ phenomenon as it relates to collective as well as individual STHC. Firstly the origins of the term ‘brain drain’ and its application will be canvassed. Whilst the reasons behind the human capital migration trends that underpin the brain drain are not new, the framing of the brain drain in relation to STHC has heightened its prominence at national levels and resulted in a variety of policy responses. Brain drain crises appear to engender a sense of urgency in political circles and society at large about the need for action to stem the flow of human capital, particularly expensively trained STHC.
The paper will then briefly outline a case study of panic around a perceived brain drain in 2000 in New Zealand. Of particular interest to STHC discussion is that the brain drain panic created a public environment ripe for a policy ‘cure-all’, a panacea to what was perceived as partly a STHC issue. The policies that were mooted in response, which were implemented in two distinct phases, a ‘control’ phase and a ‘stimulation’ phase, will have great ramifications for New Zealand’s current and future STHC. In conclusion, the implications of such changes in policy for STHC development will be discussed.
Section snippets
The brain drain
The term ‘brain drain’ has come to be synonymous with the movement of human capital in which the net flow of expertise is heavily in one direction (Salt, 1997). The use of the word ‘brain’ pertains to any skill, competency or attribute that is seen as a potential asset. ‘Drain’ implies that this rate of exit is at a greater level than ‘normal’ or than might be desired. Linking the two implies the departure at an appreciable rate of the most talented (Bushnell and Choy, 2001).
The British Royal
Case study: New Zealand’s 2000 brain drain
In 2000, a young, would-be New Zealand entrepreneur, Richard Poole, published a letter of concern to government ministers about the ‘brain drain’, featuring the signatures of 600 young New Zealanders living and working overseas, in a national newspaper advertisement headed “Lost Generation?”. Even though it later emerged that the advertisement was backed by the conservative Business Roundtable which was ‘well-known’ to be generally opposed to current government policy, the content of the letter
Research approach
A case study of the New Zealand brain drain debate was constructed from print media articles during 2000 and early 2001, collected from local media databases. This material was augmented with analyses of the debate in local journals and policy documents. Interviews were carried out with a select group of relevant policy officials regarding their perspectives on the brain drain debate and plans for policies in their jurisdictions. Whilst the case study was constructed in sequential fashion, for
Volatility
Perhaps the most obvious element of a moral panic is volatility, described as the sudden eruption and subsiding of concern about a newly perceived threat to society from a category of people regarded as moral deviants. One simple measure of the volatility is a count of media articles that used the phrase ‘brain drain’ to refer to people leaving New Zealand during the period of debate. Fig. 1 shows such measures for two New Zealand media databases, with the database carrying the daily newspapers
Putting the panic in perspective
The moral panic framing, particularly the disproportionality criterion, has highlighted several interesting dimensions and paradoxes in the New Zealand brain drain debate. First, the actual migration statistics indicated that, while there was a temporary, and some would say very minor, net outflow of people, when considered in the context of several decades of migration volatility, this drain period was neither exceptional nor excessive. In addition, the statistical evidence provided little
The panacea
Once it became apparent to the government that the brain drain was an issue that was generating considerable concern in the electorate, the response shifted from attempts at denial to initiatives aimed at potential policy solutions. There were two identifiable phases of responses to the brain drain debate. The first were the immediate political responses that often drew criticism as having not been properly thought through. The second phase, which emerged with some time delay after the
Migration policy
The first phase of brain drain responses, targeted primarily at migration and tertiary education, were the harbingers of where the main policy initiatives would come that would ‘address’ the brain drain. A ‘talent initiative’ was launched between the government and business, aimed at issues of retaining and regaining talented people and attracting talented immigrants to the country. “Our immigration policies must become talent recruitment policies” (SIAC, 2001). In late 2001, the government
Tertiary research policy
The other primary area of policy responses targeted the tertiary education sector as much of the blame for the brain drain (Table 1) was attributed to the state of this sector. The calls for reform were usually coupled with discussion of the ‘knowledge economy’ and the need to invest in research:
National leaders are now aggressively promoting investment in higher education as a way to slow down the country’s brain drain and to seize the international momentum of developing and applying new
Is policy a brain drain panacea?
In this case study, two phases of policy responses to the brain drain can be identified, the first, which could be called a ‘control’ phase, involved quickly implementable policies targeting specific talented individuals, either those funded by public scholarships or those migrants that could have their passage into the country accelerated. The panic surrounding the ‘brain drain’ provided an initial climate ripe for regulation of the behaviour of the nation’s publicly educated (tax-payer
Conclusion
So what might be concluded from this study of brain drain panic and STHC policy panacea? What is very clear from the panic analysis is that brain drain debates, such as that played out in New Zealand in 2000, are very rarely about net migration numbers or skill levels, STHC or otherwise. Brain drain debates appear to reflect a common societal perception that the nation in question is losing to other countries, for good, larger numbers than normal of publicly educated, young and highly skilled
References (40)
- et al.
Brain drain and economic growth: theory and evidence
Journal of Development Economics
(2001) - Anonymous, 2001. Otago Professor Warns of Major Exodus. Salient 22, p....
Reflections on the spatial odysseys of New Zealanders
New Zealand Geographer
(2001)- Beggs, M., 2001. A generation lost? Alternative Calendar. Victoria University of Wellington Students Association,...
- Belich, J., 2001. Presenting a past, In: Proceedings of Catching the Knowledge Wave Conference, Auckland, New Zealand,...
- et al.
Scientific and technical human capital: an alternative model for research evaluation
International Journal of Technology Management
(2001) - Bushnell, P., Choy, W.K., 2001. Go west, young man, go west!? Treasury Working Paper, 01/07 (Treasury,...
- et al.
That was then
Listener
(2000) - et al.
International migration and the “brain drain”
The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies
(1999) Brain culture
New Zealand Education Review
(2000)
Switching from sheep to computers: New Zealand seeks a knowledge economy
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Social capital: its relationship to innovation in science and technology
Science and Public Policy
Cited by (64)
International mobility characteristics, effects of, and effects on elite scientists
2024, Journal of InformetricsRethinking the brain drain: A framework to analyze the future behavior of complex socio-economic systems
2022, FuturesCitation Excerpt :While the word "brain" implies any skill, competency, or attribute that is considered as a potential asset, "drain" expresses that the level of exit rate is greater than "normal" or than what might be an acceptable level. Using these two words at the time describes the movement of the most talented individuals at an appreciable rate from their homeland (Davenport, 2004). The remainder of the paper is as follows.
The many faces of mobility: Using bibliometric data to measure the movement of scientists
2019, Journal of InformetricsCitation Excerpt :This brain drain/gain perspective conceives mobility as a phenomenon of national disparities (Cañibano & Woolley, 2015), where elite countries tend to attract talent to the expense of peripheral countries (Scott, 2015). It is therefore common to find studies on scientific diasporas and brain drain (Davenport, 2004); the influence of immigration in national systems (Levin & Stephen, 1999); and scientists’ reasons for immigrating (Stephan, Franzoni, & Scellato, 2016; Ioannidis, 2004), emigrating (Ackers, 2008), or returning to their home country (Jonkers & Tijssen, 2008). An alternative perspective considers mobility as ‘[a]n expanded version of the network approach to the migration of highly skilled individuals’ (Meyer, 2001, p. 105), in which mobile scientists serve as a bridge between countries.
High-level talent flow and its influence on regional unbalanced development in China
2018, Applied GeographyWage heterogeneity in the graduate market: Industry and public-private differences in Chile
2024, Journal of Adult and Continuing Education