Ironically, even as we speak, the season of Japa has set in, a season characterized by wild celebrations of visa lottery results. It’s like nobody is making it here and so everybody is emigrating-confirming Aminu as an anointed devilish soothsayer. ... Brain drain can be extremely harmful if you live in an African nation with a limited pool of qualified individuals to begin with.
ADEREMI MEDUPIN
An uncomfortable reality-with a dominant directional flow
Now, as if it’s just yesterday, I remember Professor Jubril Aminu who, as the then Nigeria’s Minister of Education, in response to one major reason advanced by the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) for the emigration of colleagues and a factor in their strike, as being the decaying condition of their institutions, quipped: Those who can make it, emigrate; those who cannot, agitate. The statement hit my soul in a violent manner and it pushed me to the realization that most Nigerian leaders care little beyond their immediate families about citizens’ education. Ironically, even as we speak, the season of Japa has set in, a season characterized by wild celebrations of visa lottery results. It’s like nobody is making it here and so everybody is emigrating-confirming Aminu as an anointed devilish soothsayer. The unfolding phenomenon is known in full as geographic brain drain, and it occurs when highly qualified individuals leave their home region or country in search of better career prospects and it is assuming a widespread and rising profile, especially in Africa.
Scope of the brain drain phenomenon
According to the United Nations Global Migration Database, the number of international migrants increased from 75 million in 1960 to 214 million in 2010. In the calculation of an analyst, this about parallels the growth in the world population, so the world migration rate increased only slightly in relative terms, from 2.5% to 3.1% of the world population. As correctly observed in their Cambridge University Press online publication on May 6, 2016 entitled: “What Is to Be Done? A Look at Some Causes and Consequences of the African Brain Drain”, George J. Sefa Dei and Alireza Asgharzadeh, brain drain occurs in three settings, namely: internal, regional, and global; furthermore, it occurs in almost all societies, initially from poorer and impoverished rural areas to relatively rich and developing urban centres within national boundaries and later (or sometimes concurrently) to more developed and wealthy regions and neighboring countries. In his own contribution, Robyn Iredale- associate professor of geography at the School of Geosciences, University of Wollongong, Australia, categorized brain drain across countries into three types as follows:
- First Category-Those that have experienced a significant brain drain, with little brain circulation or few returnees. This category includes many developing countries in South and East Asia, such as Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Nigeria and perhaps several other African countries definitely fall into this category.
- Second category includes countries experiencing a more modest level of brain drain, together with some returnees and temporary inflows of non-nationals. These include the more industrialized Asian countries – such as Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore – as well as South Africa.
- The third category includes countries that experience significant brain drain as well as large numbers of returnees and high levels of brain circulation. Taiwan is one. As its economy took off in the 1980s, Taiwan started to attract back skilled emigrants. Between the 1950s and the 1990s, around 20 per cent of student emigrants returned. They were encouraged by a range of policies – from providing incentives and covering the costs of moving back, to support for business development, such as the creation of science parks that form hubs of innovative, cutting-edge technology and manufacturing
Note: One can see from the above that for developing countries, Taiwan could offer a useful model for long-term management of brain drain. The country’s experience shows that relevant policies must be wide-ranging, covering economic, environmental, social and political aspects.
In an online publication on Spring Link platform posted on October 24, 2013 titled: “The African Brain Drain: Causes, Costs, and Consequences”, Brij Maharaj made the following point of relevance to our theme’s background, which is that: Globalization of the world markets has paved the way for the movement of people with scarce skills across national boundaries with relative ease. Professionals have been extremely susceptible, given their particular knowledge and skills base. The trend is for such professionals from developing countries to fill the gaps in the labour market in developed countries. Africa has not been immune to these trends and losing skilled migrants has serious implications for development. Given that the African continent is uniquely hit by the brain drain wind, the imperative of highlighting its case registers forcefully.
Africa’s experience
Records shared on the platform of Mo Ibrahim Foundation show that in 2015, the number of African-trained International Medical Graduates (IMGs) practising in the US alone reached 13,584 – a 27.1% increase from 2005. This is equivalent to about one African-educated physician migrating to the US per day over a period of one decade. In that year-2015, 86.0% of all African-educated physicians working in the US were trained in Egypt, Ghana, Nigeria and South Africa. The African Union estimates that about 70,000 skilled professionals emigrate from Africa every year. Currently, Africa is the world’s youngest continent, with an estimated 10 to 12 million young Africans joining the labour force each year. Yet the continent is able to create only about 3 million jobs annually. With limited economic opportunities, many young Africans are migrating to Europe and America for economic opportunities. As shared on the BBC News platform in 2018,
In October 2016, a report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecast that “migrants from sub-Saharan Africa in Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries could increase from about 7 million in 2013 to about 34 million by 2050,” The migration of young and educated workers takes a large toll on a region whose human capital is already scarce.
According to a January 2014 World Bank report, African migrants doubled between 1980 and 2010 reaching 30.6 million, which represents around three percent of the continent’s total population. As acknowledged by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in its October 2016 World Economic Outlook, “brain drain is particularly acute in sub-Saharan Africa,” The African Union estimates that about 70,000 skilled professionals emigrate from Africa every year. UNESCO has reported how, in Africa, the concentration of migrants among those who are educated is higher than in other developing economies. The migration of highly-skilled workers entails a high social cost, as is evidenced by the departure of doctors and nurses from Malawi and Zimbabwe, which may mean welfare losses beyond those that are purely economic. Nine countries, namely: Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe – have lost more than $2.0 billion since 2010 from training doctors who then migrated. Annually, it is estimated that Africa loses around $2.0 billion through brain drain in the health sector alone. Yet, a country’s true strength is its people. As recalled by a 2013 United Nations report, one in nine Africans with a tertiary education – 2.9 million people- were living in developed countries in Europe, North America and elsewhere. To Africa’s dismay, the continent continues to suffer a brain drain where the highly educated and skilled leave for greener pastures.
As far back as 2010, Jessica Adejoké Adefusika University of Rhode Island, in that year’s Senior Honors Projects. Paper 164, on: “Understanding the Brain-Drain in the African Diaspora: Focusing on Nigeria”, had shown how the mass departure of Africa’s intellectual and skilled population to Western nations has been one of the greatest obstacles to the development of the continent. In 2013, Stella Capuano and Abdeslam Marfouk, in their Paper: “African Brain Drain and Its Impact on Source Countries: What Do We Know and What Do We Need to Know?” published in Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, Vol. 15, No. 4, 297–314, documented how, “a high percentage of highly educated Africans migrate oversees. For example, between 1990 and 2000, the stock of high-skilled immigrants from African countries residing in the OECD countries increased by 90 per cent. As a consequence, a number of African countries lost a significant proportion of their highly educated labour force”. In other words, a considerable brain drain from Africa is taking place, a phenomenon that is likely to worsen the already worrying situation of the African continent in terms of human capital. Unfortunately, while there appears to be deep and growing concern for the brain drain from Africa, lack of adequate data has so far prevented a comprehensive analysis of its magnitude and its impact on source countries. The concern derives especially from the fact that “nowadays, emigration from Africa is increasingly a question of mobility of highly skilled persons”.
Take Nigeria as a typical example, the country is suffering from the shortage of professionals and skillful individuals necessary for the advancement of the nation’s human capital. A study carried out by Oyowe in 1996 estimated that there were more than 21,000 Nigerian medical doctors practicing in the United States alone. Meanwhile, Nigeria domestically falls short of the minimum World Health Organization standard of 20 Physicians per 100,000 people. Wikipedia provides a more current, factual and graphic description of the situation as it notes: Brain drain from Nigeria, nicknamed Japa (meaning run or to flee in Yoruba) is the exodus of middle-class and highly skilled Nigerians which has been occurring in waves since the late 1980s. This trend was initially restricted to certain professions but has now become free for all with the introduction of visa programmes in order to fill workforce gaps in developed nations.
In a 2017 survey carried out by Nigeria's polling agency, NOI Polls, in conjunction with Nigerian Health Watch, it was found that most doctors seek opportunities abroad as 88 percent of doctors were considering work opportunities abroad. On average, 12 doctors a week move to the UK. Meanwhile, Nigeria is one of the African countries with the worst indices for health.
In a paradoxical move in the context of the observed crisis of Africa’sbrain drain, the government of Uganda initiated a move to send health specialists to the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. Not surprising, as reported in BMJ journal published on March 9, 2015, the move met a “strong resistance within the country, because of the perceived local need for doctors, nurses, and midwives. A local think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, actually took the Ugandan government to court over the issue. In the view of a blogger, “brain drain can be extremely harmful if you live in an African nation with a limited pool of qualified individuals to begin with. The World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report 2014-2015 showed Burundi as the African country least able to hold on to its top talent. Algeria, Mauritania, Chad and Guinea round out the top five countries unable to retain their top talents.
Any attempt to address the brain drain challenge must logically begin with a good understanding of its causes and consequences.
Causes and consequences of brain drain
Some of the main reasons why people choose to leave their home countries/regions have been traced to the following, namely: economic opportunities-including new and better jobs, higher standards of living, access to housing and health care, political strife and instability, and persecution based on religion or gender.
In the specific case of Nigeria, the main causes of brain drain have been identified variously as: i) mass unemployment; ii) poor salaries; iii) poor working conditions; iv) mass poverty; v) religious crises; vi) communal crises; vii) political crises; and viii) lack of quality education. Narrowed down to health workers as Wikipedia did, paucity of healthcare resources and poor funding of the health sector leading to frequent strikes has also been identified as a factor affecting brain drain in Nigeria. As illustration, in 2019, of Nigeria's annual budget of N8.8trn for the year, only 3.6% was allocated to healthcare. Consequently, as the online educational platform reported, medical doctors have identified poor working conditions and low remuneration as reasons for emigrating to nations with better working environment such as the UK, US and Canada, as well as opportunities for career progression and an overall improved quality of life. The point here-as bemoaned on the MO Ibrahim Foundation platform- is that the impact of brain drain is particularly pervasive when it comes to public service delivery in the health sector. In too many African countries, there are more locally born physicians residing outside their country than in it. This puts an enormous strain on public health delivery on the continent, especially considering that there are not enough physicians to attend to citizens in most African countries.
More generally, it should be obvious to the reader how brain drain can have a negative impact on the sending region or country, such as reduction of human capital, limited capacity to innovate, reduced economic growth, demographic shifts, and a higher cost of public goods. Thus, without any doubt, by depriving African countries of one of their scarcest resources, i.e. human capital, brain drain can negatively affect the continent’s economic performance and growth prospects. A legitimate issue for investigation is: Do brain-exporting countries gain from the whole transaction?
Gains from brain drain
There have been theoretical and empirical studies which highlight how a limited but positive high-skilled emigration rate can be beneficial for the sending countries. In other words, a nuanced reading of the situation will show that net emigration is not without benefits; the most obvious example is that migrants send money back to their country and they can return with improved skills and knowledge of business. One notable study in this genre is the 2007: “Is the Brain Drain Good for Africa?” by William Easterly and Yaw Nyarko-of New York University, with the contentious submission that:
Contrary to a lot of the worries expressed in the media and in aid agencies, the Brain drain is probably a net benefit to the source countries. We make several arguments: (1) the African brain drain is not large enough to have much effect on Africa’s skill gap relative to the rest of the world. Since other regions had a larger brain drain, the skill gap between Africa and the rest would actually be larger in a counterfactual world of NO brain drain with the same amount of skill creation. (2) The gains to the migrants themselves and their families who receive indirect utility and remittances more than offset the losses of the brain drain. According to one of our calculations, the present value of remittances more than covers the cost of educating a brain drainer in the source country. (3) Brain drain has a positive effect on skill accumulation that appears to offset one for one the loss of skills to the brain drain. Hence it is not surprising that we fail to identify any negative growth effect of the brain drain.
While the duo cited above explicitly acknowledge the negative consequences of brain drain as highlighted earlier, they proceeded to list what they described as “Pluses (case for letting the Brain Drain happen without restrictions)” as being the following:
- The migrants themselves are better off, by revealed preference since migration is voluntary.
- Family members left behind may derive indirect utility from the greater well-being of the migrants (and if the migration decision was made by the family as a whole, the family is also better off by revealed preference)
- The migrants may send remittances back to boost the incomes of those left behind.
- The home country population may have stronger incentives to invest in human capital if they have opportunity to migrate.
- The migrants may have a positive effect on politics or institutions from abroad.
- The threat of migration may serve as a check on the behaviour of rulers at home (one specific example: it may change government’s behavior in excessively taxing or paying low salaries to professionals)
- The migrants may return home permanently or temporarily, bringing back technology
- The migrants may facilitate trading networks that increase source country exports to the destination country
- Individual freedom is enhanced by giving individuals opportunities to migrate.
My reaction to these and allied submissions is that the issue should be seen from two levels of analysis and evaluation: i) the micro-level of the migrating individual; and ii) the macro-level of the brain-exporting country or region. Viewed this way, the obviously positive outcome for the individual may not register so positively on a net basis on the home country especially in a situation where the number of returnees is relatively low, thus constituting a challenge for redress. An incontestable fact is that, unless the developing countries can either reverse some of the flow, or find ways of joining major knowledge networks, the sustainable development of these nations will be increasingly threatened. This is the logic advanced by Frédéric Docquier-Université Catholique de Louvain, and National Fund for Scientific Research, Belgium, and IZA, Germany-writing on: “The brain drain from developing countries”, with the conclusion that “the brain drain produces many more losers than winners in developing countries”. The kernel of his balanced submission is that: “The impact of the brain drain on a source country’s welfare and development can be beneficial or harmful. The evidence suggests that there are many more losers than winners among developing countries. Whether a country gains or loses depends on country-specific factors, such as the level and composition of migration, the country’s level of development, and such characteristics as population size, language, and geographic location. Policymakers should gauge the costs and benefits of the brain drain in order to design appropriate policy responses”.
Addressing the brain drain challenge
Needless to emphasize, migration of skilled African nationals, especially young professionals, does not only result in the depletion of the continent's skilled manpower but as already noted, Africa also loses billions of dollars in cost of training these people who then migrate to seek better opportunities elsewhere. This calls for urgent action to reverse the trend. In this vein, national policies are clearly essential; however, these will need to be complemented by international initiatives “to encourage receiving countries to stop tapping the skills of poorer regions – and to consider compensating them for loss of skilled personnel”. Towards this end, the former Committee on Science and Technology in Developing Countries of the International Council for Science has proposed. “the establishment of an Intellectual Resources Management Fund (IRMF) to address two issues in developing countries, namely: (i) losses from brain drain; and (ii) improving the standards of science and technology professionals”. But there is the problem of political will as Robyn Iredale projected:
The fundamental obstacle to initiating such approaches is a lack of political will – at both national and international levels. But without action, the highly skilled in science and technology will continue to move on to richer economies, with only a small number of developing countries peripherally tied into this system. The remainder will be relegated to the margins, and their basic infrastructure and social services – in particular health and education – will deteriorate even further.
Coming specifically to Africa’s case, as recalled by Richard Kweitsu in his opinion piece, “Brain Drain: a bane to Africa’s potential”, published on the Mo Ibrahim platform on August 9, 2018, “the African Union Migration policy framework (2018-2027) makes several recommendations on how to curb brain drain on the continent. These include generating gender-responsive economic development programmes to provide gainful employment, professional development, and educational opportunities to qualified nationals in their home countries.
While African countries must put in place the necessary mechanisms to implement these recommendations, they will have to be complemented by adherence to meritocratic recruitment procedures, development of infrastructure and provision of incentive mechanisms to attract and retain highly qualified African nationals”. As President of the African Development Bank, Akinwumi Adesina, remarked at the G7 Summit in 2017: The future of Africa’s youth does not lie in migration to Europe; it should not be at the bottom of the Mediterranean; it lies in a prosperous Africa. We must create greater economic opportunities for our youth right at home in Africa. Ultimately, as President Obama said in during his visit to South Africa: If we have African leaders, governments and institutions which are creating a platform for success and opportunity, then you will increasingly get more talent wanting to stay. Once you reach a tipping point, not only will you stop the brain drain, then it will start reversing. Let those who have ears, listen. I come in peace, please.
Comments powered by CComment