Competing for talent on the battlefield of the Global South

More than half a century ago, when universities around the world were beginning to focus on the various aspects of internationalisation, especially student mobility, most of those engaged in this nascent academic enterprise saw it as a way of providing students with an international experience and building global understanding.

At about the same time, what we now term globalisation – increased interlinking of economies, more trade and the beginnings of the ‘global knowledge economy’ – was gaining steam. Higher education and research became core elements of all of these developments.

In 1965, there were approximately 250,000 globally mobile students – a number that has grown to 5.6 million today. At the same time, broader aspects of globalisation were beginning to emerge, including labour mobility.

Many analysts and educators, especially on the left of the political spectrum, began to criticise the advanced economies of Europe and North America, accusing them of luring talented professionals away from low-income countries, many of which had only recently emerged from colonial rule.

The term ‘brain drain’ was used to reflect that movement. (Interestingly, ‘brain drain’ was originally coined by the Royal Society in the United Kingdom and referred to the migration of scientists and academics from Britain and continental Europe to the United States in the post-war years.)

Underlying the idea of brain drain was the assumption that talented and highly educated people from low-income countries, who were attracted to industrialised nations either after having been educated at home or after studying abroad, were a direct loss to their countries of origin.

This highly educated population was a key social capital and offered relevant skills that would contribute to development and prosperity at home. Many argued that the rich world had a responsibility to ensure that graduates of their universities returned home to contribute to the tasks of development.

Over time, there was less discussion of the brain drain, although massive numbers of professionals, researchers and other highly educated people from what has come to be known as the Global South, moved to Europe, Australasia and North America.

An increasing number went abroad for advanced education and never returned, while others were hired directly from the Global South by universities and industries after graduation in their home country.

Increasing the stay rate

In the 21st century, what used to be labelled brain drain is seen as a normal pattern of global mobility – although the result remains deeply problematic for sending countries. Other terms, such as brain gain and brain circulation, imply that student, scholar and researcher mobility may have positive dimensions.

These concepts are connected to commercialisation and market orientation in international education and assume that the needs of developing economies are irrelevant. They are also reflected in policies by governments of the Global North, which have been extending the stay rate of international students in order to strengthen the numbers of skilled labour contributing to their economies and to compensate for the greying of their societies.

By 2009, this had resulted in an OECD average stay rate of 25%, which sharply increased in the following years. Studies on Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands give percentages of 40% to 60%. Other studies show that 70% or more of graduates from China and India who earn doctoral degrees in the United States remain there.

It is certainly the case that individuals gain impressively from mobility and making careers in countries that provide greater remuneration than their home countries. In some cases, the skills learned overseas may not be easily transferred home and those returning are not always welcome.

It is also the case that many who graduate continue to advanced degrees and-or embark on careers that take them to several other countries. Further, there is an increasing focus on the role of diasporas and their potential contributions to economic and social development back in their home countries.

Economic and social impact of mobility

The economic and social impact of student and graduate mobility in the age of globalisation is complex. There is undoubtedly a significant economic advantage for individuals benefiting from mobility – while the loss of skilled talent to the home country may not be complete since many send remittances home and an increasing number participate in economic and other activities in their countries of origin.

But mobility has certainly contributed to increased inequality between those who are able to be mobile and the vast majority of students and academics who are not, and between countries that receive and retain graduates – and the large majority of countries that lose them.

“By accelerating the brain drain in Africa and Asia we are weakening their institutional capacities. It means that places like hospitals and universities will not be able to deal with these huge challenges like pandemics and climate change and inequality,” observed Adam Habib, a South African who is now director of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, in The Guardian recently.

The problem is more challenging than that.

Institutions of higher education and national governments in the Global North appear to be scarcely aware of the challenges mentioned by Habib and have strengthened their recruitment efforts to attract students from the Global South – in particular, making it much easier for foreign graduates to enter the workforce and eventually earn citizenship.

A good example: Canada has announced that it would extend post-graduation work permits for recent international graduates and that those whose permits have expired, or will expire this year, would be eligible for an additional open work permit of 18 months.

“With the economy growing faster than employers can hire new workers, Canada needs to look at every option so that we have the skills and labour needed to fuel our growth,” said Immigration Minister Sean Fraser.

Talent Partnerships

The European Commission’s new immigration policy is proposing legal skilled labour immigration from Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia through so-called ‘Talent Partnerships’.

Other countries, including Bangladesh, Nigeria, Pakistan and Senegal, are also targeted for such partnerships. As a result of the war, there is now a growing pool of skilled and talented refugees from Ukraine. European Union authorities do not call it ‘brain drain’, but ‘brain gain’ because development cooperation will also be included.

At the same time, this project is part of the EU’s aggressive stance to prevent illegal immigration at its borders. Talent Partnerships was launched on 11 June 2021, with European Commissioner Ylva Johansson stating: “We need legal migration: Europe’s working age population is shrinking and many key sectors face skills shortages, like healthcare and agriculture.

“Talent Partnerships will help match the skills of candidates to work in Europe with labour market needs. Talent Partnerships will also give Europe a great tool to work together with our partner countries on all aspects of migration, something that’s been missing up to now.”

Some say that branch campuses and franchise programmes might be the way forward to overcome these challenges, but in these models, Western dominance and revenue generation are more important than addressing the social needs of the countries where they are located.

The post-World War II capacity development programmes, funded by development cooperation and implemented by organisations and higher education institutions, undoubtedly had their limitations. Yet, they contributed to significant institutional strengthening in the higher education sectors of partner countries.

With approaches such as sandwich programmes, South-South cooperation and the use of hybrid and distance technologies, they provided effective ways of combating brain drain.

The European Commission states that its Talent Partnerships programme will result in brain gain. But capacity development programmes are increasingly skewed towards benefiting the Global North – by grooming talent in the South for employment in the North, the main objective of the EU policy.

There is undeniably enormous value to educating and training human resources locally rather than displacing them. But in view of the considerable needs of the Global South, the financial resources provided by Global North governments and the EU are vastly insufficient and their need for talents much bigger.

Africa, in particular, has become a battlefield where Western countries, China and Russia compete for dominance to access and drain talents.

Philip G Altbach (e-mail altbach@bc.edu) is research professor and distinguished fellow and Hans de Wit (e-mail dewitj@bc.edu) is professor emeritus and distinguished fellow at the Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, United States.