Introduction
Developed countries (DCs) are those countries that create new products and new production methods through technological innovations. Owing to their advanced stage of development, they are also the nations with human resources capable of effectively harnessing existing and emerging technologies.
Less developed countries (LDCs), on the other hand, not only have relatively lower incomes, but are also characterized by attempts to use existing technologies efficiently. This means that the greatest labor requirement for LDCs is not creative mental labor (CML) that creates new technology, but skilled mental labor (SML) that uses existing technologies effectively.
People in rich countries cannot continue to ignore or overlook the fact that plenty of their neighbors (people in poor countries) have impoverished lives. Unless swayed by some self-proclaimed idea that they deserve a better standard of living, rich countries must urgently do something to change the prevailing unfair conditions. They cannot continue to live in peace and comfort forever while their neighbors continue to live poor and destitute.
To change their unfavorable conditions, developing countries need access to “knowledge of production”—i.e., technology—along with a skilled and educated labor force capable of effectively implementing these advancements.
An old Turkish proverb says:
The Purpose of the Article
As we all know very well, there is a giant gap between the standards of general and vocational education in DCs and LDCs. Consequently, there is also a giant gap in the number of “well-educated and trained” members of the labor force between DCs and LDCs. The critical question at hand pertains to whether this gap is narrowing or widening as time progresses.
Decision-makers in LDCs undoubtedly take numerous measures and precautions to reduce and ultimately eliminate the disparities, both qualitatively and quantitatively. However, the prevailing conditions in terms of institutional infrastructure and the qualitative and quantitative features of educational materials are all insufficient and inadequate. How can a rational and fair mind expect the gap to narrow under these circumstances?
The challenges within the educational infrastructure extend beyond mere insufficiencies and deficiencies. In particular, the most highly educated students in LDCs, notably those with promising futures, often opt to leave their respective countries in pursuit of improved living standards elsewhere. Regrettably, these invaluable and indispensable assets are frequently drained by more affluent nations.
In the context of fostering the development of LDCs and narrowing the gap with DCs, a pivotal question arises. Which group, DCs or developing countries, has a greater need for skilled labor?
Undoubtedly, the evident answer lies in favor of LDCs. They possess a significantly greater need for the SML they cultivate compared to DCs. This discrepancy is highlighted by the generous strategies frequently employed by DCs to facilitate the transfer of the most skilled labor, which we refer to as “the plunder of the most valuable assets of LDCs by DCs.”
In light of the reality of “plunder,” this article seeks to illustrate that LDCs emerge as significant losers, while DCs stand as substantial beneficiaries, capitalizing on the most valuable assets of LDCs. DCs’ exploitation of SML from LDCs is free of charge for DCs. Costs accrue to LDCs, while DCs get the crème de la crème. This is neither economically justifiable nor ethical, and change is imperative if the goals are set on “bridging” global incomes and eliminating poverty in LDCs.
The answers to the following questions are rather critical for global prosperity. (1) What measures can or should LDCs take to prevent the migration of SML? (2) What measures can or should DCs take to prevent the permanent migration of SML into their countries? (3) What can DCs do to increase the number of skilled mental laborers in LDCs? (4) What measures can be taken to reverse the brain drain in LDCs?
The following analysis is based on the “labor theory of value,” as the fundamental starting point, where a laborer (worker) is considered to be the only productive factor that can “add or create value.” Let us start by clarifying what we mean by concepts such as CML and SML.
New Concepts 1
Since, in the real world, there is no laborer with zero skills, throughout this article we will make new but realistic and rational classifications of labor (L): (1) CML inventing technologies—i.e., LCM; and (2) SML implementing technologies—i.e., LSM.
SML can be further divided into three subcategories. (2a) Highly skilled labor (SMLhs) consists of people educated in high-tech implementation fields, such as engineers, technicians, and AI and IT experts, including doctors and nurses. (2b) Skilled labor (SMLs) consists of those who have obtained vocational school-level or equivalent formal/informal education. (2c) Ordinary skilled labor (SMLo) comprises the rest of the total labor force, equipped with “general” knowledge acquired through formal and/or informal education specific to the country. No labor is zero-skilled.
To put it differently, L comprises CML, SMLhs, SMLs, and SMLo.
Or
Human skills hold a central position in all economic theories, especially those pertaining to long-term growth. They serve as the sole source for all new technologies, also referred to as “new ideas,” originating from the CML 2 of the human mind. To put it differently, “given” natural inputs and skilled laborers, i.e., SML, CML is the only source of all added value. Technology-inventing CML is essential to long-run economic growth and the reason the rate of profit does not fall to zero, as predicted by Marx.
The concepts of CML and SML have some similar features; however, they are essentially different. CML “invents” new technologies, while SML “uses” and/or “implements” old and new technologies.
If an economy does not have access to SML endowed with appropriate skills in sufficient numbers, it cannot use existing technologies efficiently and achieve the expected result in terms of output and value. We frequently see examples of this in DCs. Therefore, the SML of laborers is a “must” for production to effectively take advantage of technologies.
One should also note that the concepts of “labor” and “laborer” also have different meanings.
Some Facts about Migration
According to the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
In 2019, international migrants constituted 4.3 per cent of the working age population (aged 15 and over) while migrant workers constituted 4.9 per cent of the labour force of destination countries. Despite the global rise in the number of migrant workers over time, their share among migrants of working age is decreasing. In 2013, migrant workers constituted 72.7 per cent of migrants of working age but 70.0 per cent in 2017 . . . Their share in 2019 is estimated at 69.0 per cent. The decreasing share of migrant workers could be attributed to the continuous rise in the number of migrants of working age and a decline in their labour force participation. (ILO 2021, 21; see Table 1)
Global Estimates of International Migrant Workers 2019 (in Millions)
| Total | |
|---|---|
| Migrant workers | 169 |
| Non-migrant workers | 3313 |
Source: ILO (2021, 21, Table 2–1).
India tops the list of countries with the highest number of emigrants, with 17.9 million, followed by Mexico with 11.1 million, Russia with 10.8 million, and China with 10.5 million (see Table 2).
Top Ten Countries with the Highest Number of Emigrants
| 1 | India | 17.9 million |
| 2 | Mexico | 11.1 million |
| 3 | Russia | 10.8 million |
| 4 | China | 10.5 million |
| 5 | Syria | 8.5 million |
| 6 | Bangladesh | 7.4 million |
| 7 | Pakistan | 6.3 million |
| 8 | Ukraine | 6.1 million |
| 9 | Philippines | 6.1 million |
| 10 | Afghanistan | 5.9 million |
Source: United Nations (2020).
The countries with the highest number of immigrants are as follows: the USA, Germany, Saudi Arabia, and Russia (see Table 3).
Top Ten Countries with the Highest Number of Immigrants
| 1 | USA | 50.6 million |
| 2 | Germany | 15.8 million |
| 3 | Saudi Arabia | 13.5 million |
| 4 | Russia | 11.6 million |
| 5 | United Kingdom | 9.4 million |
| 6 | United Arab Emirates | 8.7 million |
| 7 | France | 8.5 million |
| 8 | Canada | 8.0 million |
| 9 | Australia | 7.7 million |
| 10 | Spain | 6.8 million |
Source: United Nations (2020).
Table 4 shows the list of the top countries for tertiary-educated emigration as a percentage of the total. Guyana tops the list with 93%, followed by Haiti with 75.1%, Trinidad and Tobago with 68.2%, and Barbados with 66.1%. The ratings reveal how serious the migration problem is among tertiary-educated people from these countries.
Top Emigration Countries of the “Tertiary-Educated” 2010–2011
| Migration rate as percentage of total | |
|---|---|
| Guyana | 93.0 |
| Haiti | 75.1 |
| Trinidad and Tobago | 68.2 |
| Barbados | 66.1 |
| Jamaica | 48.1 |
| Tonga | 48.1 |
| Mauritius | 43.8 |
| Zimbabwe | 43.6 |
| Congo | 37.4 |
| Malta | 36.5 |
Source: World Bank (2016, 10).
Remittances sent to home countries by migrants constitute a significant portion of foreign earnings and reserves. Table 5 shows that India tops the list, with about USD 83 billion between 2005 and 2020, followed by China with about USD 59 billion and Mexico with about USD 43 billion.
Top Ten Countries Receiving International Remittances (2005–2020) (in billions of current US$)
| 1 | India | 83.15 |
| 2 | China | 59.51 |
| 3 | Mexico | 42.88 |
| 4 | Philippines | 34.91 |
| 5 | Egypt | 29.60 |
| 6 | Pakistan | 26.11 |
| 7 | France* | 24.48 |
| 8 | Bangladesh | 21.75 |
| 9 | Germany* | 17.90 |
| 10 | Nigeria | 17.21 |
Source: United Nations (2022, 41, Table 3).
Note: The majority of the inflows are from the salaries of cross-border workers who work in Switzerland while residing in France or Germany.
On the Importance of Skilled Labor
Regardless of whether it is a DC or an LDC, all countries require SML to use technologies effectively to attain economic growth and development. Without appropriate SML, in terms of both quality and quantity, no country can make the optimum use of its production units.
Raising the quality and quantity of SML up to globally effective levels is a long and costly process. It requires not only basic education, but also secondary education, vocational training, and higher education. Therefore, the process of improving the faculties of SML through formal or informal training requires a continued investment in individuals, and during this period, individuals are, in general, only consumers of resources. Time and investment are the requirements, but these are not sufficient. Education and training must be at a level where contemporary technologies can be used effectively so that the highest benefit can be given to society.
However, we know from the results of the Programme for International Student Assessment 3 data that education in LDCs is often not at the level it should be. For example, if an LDC trains 100 engineers per year, only a small fraction of them will be endowed with skills at the international level. This fact shows that there is a serious problem with LDCs’ educational infrastructures and programs in terms of raising SML with contemporary abilities.
There is a seriously disturbing aspect relevant to our issue: despite a significant shortage of SML with contemporary skills in LDCs, a considerable portion, if not the majority, of such skilled individuals exhibit a strong eagerness to migrate to DCs in pursuit of a better living standard, often seeking the quickest path available. On the other side, decision-makers in DCs seem more than eager to wait with open arms to welcome “the best” of the potential migrants, at no cost.
DCs seem to have found a good excuse for this kind of exploitation, saying that “We need SML.”
That is correct; DCs need SML. But the relevant/critical questions are: (1) What about LDCs—do not they also need SML? (2) Which countries have a greater need for SML—DCs or LDCs?
It is a well-established fact that both CML and SML serve as the perpetual wellspring of the accumulated pool of knowledge. It is also a well-established fact that the pivotal factor in determining the living standards of people worldwide lies in the advancement of knowledge pertaining to technologies. Furthermore, it is evident that countries with laborers endowed with higher levels of skills exhibit elevated standards of living. Therefore, considering economic growth and development, access to “productive knowledge”—i.e., technology—and a properly qualified labor force are sine qua non inputs, 4 both in DCs and LDCs.
Migration Is Beneficial, but for Whom?
SML is an essential and irreplaceable input for supplying modern products and sustainable economic growth and development in all nations. A relevant and crucial issue to consider is the willingness of the skilled mental laborer in an LDC, especially at a young age, to migrate to a DC. This tendency can stem from a multitude of reasons, including political, cultural, and other motivations.
Regarding the migration issue, the approach of DCs to the migration of SML is of paramount importance from a global perspective. In principle, DCs have a tradition of preventing the mobility of low SML from LDCs. However, DCs that strongly object to the mobility of low-skilled people radically change their standpoint when the issue is the migration of skilled—especially highly skilled—people from LDCs. They swiftly alter their restrictions and build exceptionally accommodating paths for the migration of SML with potential suitable for their interests.
The Cost of Improving Skills in LDCs 5
Having re-emphasized the essential role of SML for the supply of modern products, let us now assess the cost of raising SML endowed with contemporary knowledge and experience. Investing in knowledge implies the need for substantial financial resources. In addition to time, starting from the pre-school period, investments are made until the ages of approximately 18–22 years, when school or university education is completed. During that time, individuals are, generally, just consumers. Though the process of education is financially quite costly, requiring scarce resources, LDCs have no choice but to allocate large resources for education to bridge the gap in income levels between them and DCs. Every investment made to improve the skills of people is of vital importance. Otherwise, it will be impossible to catch up with DCs.
Table 6 shows the expenditure on education as a percentage of total expenditure in selected countries. Zimbabwe tops the list, with 30%.
Government Expenditure on Education as a Percentage of Total Government Expenditure in Selected Countries
| Nepal | 2015 | 15 |
| Côte d’Ivoire | 2014 | 21 |
| Zimbabwe | 2014 | 30 |
| Guinea | 2014 | 12 |
| Viet Nam | 2013 | 20 |
| Senegal | 2014 | 21 |
| Lao PDR | 2014 | 13 |
| Uganda | 2014 | 12 |
Source: UNESCO (2016, 4, Figure 4).
According to Table 7, the education cost per student at the undergraduate level was US$3,428 in Turkey, while the corresponding cost was US$5,801 in India, in constant 2009 US dollars (see Table 8), and US$15,000–25,000 in the USA (see Table 9).
Higher Education Cost per Student in Turkey in 2021
| Cost per student | |
|---|---|
| Bachelor’s degree | US$3,428 |
Source: TSI (2021).
Note: The cost in Turkish Lira was TL 28,597, while the exchange rate was US$1=TL 13.61, as of December 2021.
Education Cost in India
| Education level | Typical age group | Total education cost |
|---|---|---|
| University (undergraduate) | 18–21 years | US$5,801 |
Source: Winthrop et al. (2013, 26, Table 1).
Note: Figures are at purchasing power parity in constant 2009 US dollars.
Average Cost of Education in the USA in 2024
| Bachelor’s level | US$15,000–25,000 |
| Master’s level | US$15,000–50,000 |
Source: Prosper Overseas (n.d.).
The following question is quite critical. What can DCs do to contribute to the development efforts of LDCs in terms of improving SML? Unfortunately, DCs, far from supporting LDCs, implement migration policies that harm them.
Can the Migration of SML Be Stopped?
Yes, migration can be stopped to a large extent through appropriate measures introduced and implemented by decision-makers in both DCs and LDCs.
The first-best and optimal policy for LDCs would be to retain skilled individuals in their home country, where they were born, raised, and educated. Even if this means such individuals accepting a lower income due to the specific conditions prevailing in their countries, their priority should be the development of their home country. Skilled mental laborers in LDCs acquire their skills as a result of financing from the scarce resources of their country, and just because of this fact, they owe their people and country. After all, the future of LDCs depends on their contributions.
Yet, we frequently observe skilled mental laborers seeking every opportunity to migrate, mainly on economic grounds, and to have a higher standard of living for themselves. This is an unfortunate fact. As long as DCs warmly embrace the skilled mental laborers most conducive to their interests, coupled with the eagerness of individuals in LDCs to achieve higher living standards swiftly, the complete prevention of migration appears challenging. Given the global circumstances of today, forcing skilled mental laborers to stay at home does not appear to be an effective measure to curb their migration.
How can the economies of LDCs catch up with DCs if this trend persists?
Is it fair and rational, from a global perspective, to disregard the problems arising from the migration of skilled mental laborers, which clearly harms LDCs? 6
The second-best policy would be for DCs to help LDCs strengthen the skills and size of the labor force.
A Proposal for Global Benefit
DCs—such as Germany, France, and Britain—can alleviate the SML drain by enhancing vocational training and higher education within LDCs, while continuing the exploitation of them. This can be achieved through financial, organizational, and teaching support to improve their educational and training infrastructure. DCs indeed possess the required human and nonhuman resources to contribute to making the world a better place for all countries and their residents.
Naturally, some skilled mental laborers endowed with contemporary knowledge provided by DC resources would still have a strong tendency to seek opportunities to migrate. But some, willingly or unwillingly, would stay in their home country and contribute to the development of the domestic economy with qualifications provided by DCs. Those who remain in their home countries are highly likely to get higher-paying jobs, compared to average wages, offered by foreign direct investors establishing production units in LDCs.
All countries, whether developed or less developed, are likely to benefit from the increased supply of SML endowed with contemporary skills provided by DCs.
Would It Be Enough if the Migration of Skilled Mental Laborers Stopped?
Let us assume that due to measures being implemented, the brain drain from LDCs to DCs was stopped. Would this be sufficient for LDCs to catch up with DCs in terms of income and development? Certainly not!
DCs are generally those countries that create new products through technological innovations, owing to their advanced stage of development, including human resources capable of effectively harnessing existing and emerging technologies.
LDCs, on the other hand, can be defined as countries that implement existing technologies rather than creating new ones. This means that the biggest requirement for LDCs is not CML that creates new technologies, but SML that uses existing technologies effectively.
Let us assume that new migration measures were initiated in favor of LDCs and prevented the outflow of SML. Would all barriers to growth and development in LDCs be removed, paving the way for income convergence? In other words, would this be enough to ensure continued growth and development in LDCs and usher in “rosy days”?
Unfortunately, the answer to this critical question is no.
The prevention of the migration of skilled mental laborers would be the most significant positive change in the right direction. Most LDCs lack “globally competitive firms and products.” In addition, LDCs, in general, lack the necessary technological, financial, political, and cultural infrastructure and institutions.
Last but definitely not least, LDC decision-makers do their utmost to bring into their countries foreign direct investments (FDIs). However, due to “global technology market imperfections,” FDIs are not rose gardens without thorns. If not always, the disadvantages of FDIs often outweigh the advantages.
Reversing the “Brain Drain”
There is a considerable gap between LDCs and DCs, and this gap is not easy to close. LDCs urgently require SML to increase productivity and incomes. Improved and extended education and training are the right measures for long-term targets, but it takes time to educate and train. There is, however, a potential remedy: a reversed brain drain of skilled migrants.
Reversing the Brain Drain of Migrants to “Home” Countries 7
There is great potential for qualified human resources that LDCs can utilize in the short term: the qualified migrants living in DCs. If these people can be encouraged to return home to the country emigrated from, they can make a significant contribution to the development of an LDC economy with the knowledge and experience acquired in DCs. With proper assistance and guidance from institutional infrastructure, this process of reversed brain drain can produce valuable results.
Addressing patriotic and cultural emotions or providing financial incentives can be useful in reversing the brain drain. But they would not be sufficient. There are many “other” issues to be properly dealt with first. One of them involves the ill-defined duties and responsibilities. Another involves the physical facilities at the workplace. The sardonic attitudes of colleagues towards the person or the job done can also be a serious problem. Unless properly tackled, these kinds of issues can make the migrant decide to leave. Therefore, the expectations of the homecoming migrants and the working conditions offered should be carefully studied. In other words, if appropriate measures are not taken, the great potential benefits expected from the reversed brain drain can produce undesired results.
Brain Drain: Migration from DCs to LDCs
The idea of the migration of DC citizens to LDCs might seem like an optimistic expectation at first. However, a “temporary” migration policy through appropriate institutions can easily be implemented. As a matter of fact, there are some highly educated volunteers already working in LDCs, organized by international and/or national institutions. Although “temporary,” they have the potential to make a considerable contribution to the development of the local economy and the country. The contributions of the voluntary but temporary migrants can easily be extended to cover all areas of development.
For some, FDIs in LDCs contribute to a brain drain into LDCs. The idea is that an FDI brings not only physical and financial inputs for production into the recipient country, but also highly trained technical and administrative personnel, usually for a specific period. It is true that “those qualified migrants” bring their valuable knowledge and experience to the recipient country. But the relevant and critical question is: how much of this knowledge, especially knowledge of production (e.g., technology), is being transferred to the recipient country?
The evidence indicates that a “non-transfer” of technology seems to be occurring rather than an “actual transfer” of technology (see Gürak 2015).
The potential for brain drains through FDI seems highly exaggerated. In contrast to optimistic expectations, foreign subsidiary firms can easily serve as institutions, attracting highly qualified native personnel to work for them (brain drain). The people employed by foreign firms are expected to have only one mission: to serve the interests of the foreign owner. Any deviation from this mission—say, giving precedence to national economic interests—would not be welcome, to say the least.
Brain Drains of “Senior Citizens” 8
As life expectancy increases, the number of retired people increases accordingly, implying that more and more highly educated and well-qualified people with experience are leaving the active labor force of DCs. We will refer to them as “senior citizens” who have the potential to carry out active work. If the right policies are designed and implemented, these senior citizens with precious qualifications can still make a giant contribution to the development of LDCs as part-time, full-time, temporary, or permanent personnel. Such policies would serve the interests of LDCs and make these people feel that they can still be effective.
Some nonprofit institutions have already been established with the purpose of helping the seniors’ brain drain. One of them is the International Executive Service Corps, founded in 1964. LDCs should not hesitate to design migration policies in order to benefit from such an immense human resource. But if the senior citizens should continue their organic ties with their home-country institutions with the purpose of serving their own national interests, the presumed benefits would be limited, and the effect would be detrimental to LDC economies. Therefore, it seems wiser and more logical that LDCs found their institutions to maximize their gains and avoid any future conflicts of interest.
Concluding Remarks
The subject of this article has been SML migration from LDCs to DCs and its effects on the respective economies.
When examining the perspectives of Western decision-makers and researchers on the migration process, the initial impression often leans toward acknowledging the significant benefits the brain drain has brought to LDCs. The migration process appears to unfold as a success story, as it not only diminishes unemployment rates, but also results in the substantial accrual of foreign currency through remittances, a valuable resource that is often scarce.
On the other hand, DCs are also contented because, through migration, they get what they highly need, SML, with no costs of raising, educating, or training. In the absence of SML migration, their economies would be vulnerable to global competition, and the “welfare state” would not be able to supply some services. In addition, migrants also play a role in enriching culture on a broader scale.
As long as the personal aspirations of skilled mental laborers in LDCs continue to involve better living conditions in richer countries, preventing migration completely cannot be achieved. On the other side, as long as the self-serving interests of DCs persist in seeking SML migrants, they are likely to maintain an open-door policy for SML from LDCs, often at the expense of zero-cost education and training.
The inescapable consequence of these realities implies an ongoing depletion of the most valuable asset—namely, SML—to the detriment of LDCs. What could be more beneficial for DCs while harming the development efforts of LDCs?
Looking for better living conditions through migration is an understandable but selfish attitude. The skilled mental laborers of LDCs owe their status to the country that has raised and educated them. Therefore, they should feel obliged to contribute to the society that has nurtured them.
Decision-makers in DCs are well aware of the importance of skilled mental laborers to preserve their welfare state and the global competitiveness of firms. So the migration of skilled mental laborers from LDCs is a kind of “gift from heaven” for them, at zero cost.
- (1)
Do the decision-makers in DCs comprehend the global issues arising from the migration of skilled mental laborers from LDCs?
- (2)
Do they genuinely prioritize current and future global issues?
- (3)
Do they ever sincerely attempt to empathize with LDCs?
- (4)
Do decision-makers in DCs think that their people, by birth or any other criteria, deserve a higher and better standard of living than those in LDCs?
Unfortunately, the decision-makers in DCs seem only to pay lip service to global issues. LDCs lose their most valuable assets, and DCs just look the other way, pretending not to see the related problems. The situation has persisted until now, but it cannot be sustained in the future; it ought not to.
It is an undeniable fact that DCs need SML. However, LDCs also need SML. The requirement for SML in LDCs is far greater and more urgent than the requirement in DCs.
DCs should cease exploiting the most valuable asset of LDCs—namely, SML. Instead, they should explore ways to assist LDCs in advancing their domestic economies through altruistic policies.
