By Laura Lakics
Many European countries experience a brain drain. This is either the permanent or temporary emigration of students, academics and skilled workers from one country to another – such as international students studying abroad and staying there – and is characterised by East to West movements, from “less developed” to “more developed” countries. Since Eastern Europeans in ex-Soviet territories gained the opportunity to work abroad, approximately 18 million people (6% of the region’s population) have been lost to migration. For students, moving abroad provides a chance to experience a better life and new cultures. However, the loss of skilled workers can also set their home countries back, posing a threat to growth and stability.
The most obvious reasons for brain drain are economic: better education, higher wages, better job opportunities. After receiving quality education abroad, students are offered work with better conditions – there are around 80,000 Central Eastern Europeans working in the British healthcare, education and public sector alone. This is in part due to the conditions of the health systems of their own countries, which are often characterised by limited development infrastructure and financial backing. However, brain drain is more than an economic issue. A recent survey in Hungary concluded that 57% of young people envision a future abroad within a decade, while only 6% definitely want to stay. For Hungary, the driving force behind much of the desire to leave the country is political. Like many of its neighbours, it is plagued with alleged corruption, misuse of EU funds, dwindling LGBTQ+ rights and government support for Russia. It is not shocking, then, that young people vote with their feet by relocating to the West. There is perhaps a degree of illusion behind this: grass is always greener on the other side, and living abroad diminishes the need to care about local politics. Cultural reasons such as idealisation of the West may play a part, as well as the desire of students to experience new cultures and better weather.
While new host countries benefit from new skills and economic development, the home country loses their educated and skilled workers in key sectors. This can create a deadly cycle for a country with an ageing population, as moving abroad for better opportunities can lead to the creation of fewer opportunities for the people remaining, and the country may fall further behind. The people it needs to escape poverty are exactly the ones utilising their skills abroad instead. Brain drain also reduces the pool of skilled professionals and educated workers that countries rely on to attract investment in knowledge-intensive industries (like medicine or education) and raise national wage levels. However, in 2011 the Economist argued remittances from migrants somewhat make up for the lost skills as money is still gained from those who have moved abroad, citing that Romanian migrants returning home brought more value to the economy as well as earning on average 12-14% more than similar people who stayed at home. But remittances stop after a while, so it seems the question is one of attracting people to return home and utilise skills learnt abroad.
Policies have already been implemented to minimise the negative impacts of brain drain, with a focus on enticing students to work at home. Portugal has promised a decades-long tax exemption for young people, with those earning under a certain amount (€28,000, with Portugal’s average annual salary being €20,000) paying nothing at all, including foreigners. It is an important aim for Portugal to gain back what it has lost to brain drain: around 30% of young people (around 850,000) now live abroad, citing low wages and poor working conditions at home as the driving forces. However, Portugal does attract foreigners, with some people moving over recent years due to nice weather and affordable rents; policies that work in a warm, Western country may not work the same in the East. Tax cuts do not address the reason for moving abroad for better opportunities, nor do they promise a better life once the worker has passed the age of 35 and is no longer exempt from tax.
To observe an example of an Eastern European country, Hungary has implemented a twofold solution. On the one hand, they solved the problem by importing workers from South Asian countries and providing them with notably lower incomes. This is not a global solution, as the brain drain moves further East, and the countries they import from could be faced with similar issues. On the other, Hungary seems to be promoting the idea that international students should feel a duty to return home. Along with Turkey, the countries offer a scholarship that allows free education abroad (after a selection process) with the catch that the students are obligated to work at home once their degree is completed. While free education opens many opportunities, is it fair to ask something this significant, restricting free movement and the choice of where one works? Or are Hungarians and Turks moving abroad ungrateful for the opportunity and not patriotic enough? To retain any workers, these countries may have to focus on the appeal of staying and working there instead, creating economic and political spheres that are more favourable to the students making these decisions.
Perhaps the best solution for Eastern Europe, then, would be a long-term one of developing better opportunities and higher pay to catch up with the West. Higher public investment in education and better university infrastructure is the first step to providing a viable option for young workers, as well as creating a more favourable political climate to increase retention of skilled professionals. But this is limited exactly by the cycle of moving abroad, as investment for education is in short supply if people are choosing to study abroad instead. Due to differences between countries, it is hard to recommend one policy that fits all. However, minimising the negative impacts of brain drain is something that may be achieved by EU cooperation, to balance the benefits of migration without draining talent from certain countries. Progress can be seen in some Central European cases, with Czechia now experiencing low unemployment and a well-integrated foreign workforce – coinciding with a decrease in brain drain – but it is still plagued with inflation and limited real income growth, curbing its advancement toward Western European standards. This goes to show that brain drain is not an inevitable part of development, and it is possible for home countries to address the issue successfully.
Photo by Erik Odiin via Unsplash
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own, and may not reflect the opinions of The St Andrews Economist.