Tag: Global Elite

Brain Drain: Undermining economic and social rights through neocolonialism

Matt Annunziato (GISD Student ’18)

A map of the world showing the country of origin of immigrants of the United States
A map showing the country of origin of immigrants of the United States in 2000 by country of birth (Wikimedia Commons)

“Brain drain” is a popular concept in the modern international neoliberal economy. It occurs when skilled workers are lost from one country to another. Examples include doctors leaving sub-Saharan Africa and tech-professionals leaving south and east Asia.

It is rooted in the international labor market and in skilled workers’ ability to take their talents anywhere they please. On the bright side, it enables workers to find higher wages and employers to pay less for international employees. Unfortunately, this practice can also be exploitative. But what many people don’t realize is that it often affects human rights. Immigration policies in high labor-demand economies that actively attract skilled workers impose huge training costs on source countries. These costs undermine social services and therefore many economic and social rights.

In 2014, The Nation published an article called “Brain Drain and the Politics of Immigration.” The authors of the article call attention to the inverse relationship between US immigration policies, which lure the most talented and qualified candidates from least-developed countries (LDCs) and USAID programs, which (unsuccessfully) try to foster better social conditions and retain talent in the same LDCs.

The policies undermine one another and ultimately encourage conditions in which professionals can make more money by moving abroad.

The policies undermine one another and ultimately encourage conditions in which professionals can make more money by moving abroad.

My sticking point with the article is its assertion that push factors in LDCs are the sole responsibility of the countries themselves.

“Ensuring that skilled workers have opportunities to flourish at home is ultimately a challenge for source countries, not the richer countries that absorb them when they leave,” Natalie Baptiste and Foreign Policy in Focus.

Time after time, we hear discourse on the failings of countries in the global south. Lack of opportunity, low pay for skilled professionals, horrid social and financial situations, and other colonialist views inappropriately tinge our perceptions of these vibrant and diverse spaces. Reality is often different from this colonial mindset. Rwanda, for example, has a Universal Healthcare System even in a context where the GDP per capita is only $702.84 (compared to nearly $57,500 in the US). Cuba’s life expectancy is higher than the US while it spends less than one-tenth as much per person on healthcare. It also manages to send tens of thousands of doctors a year abroad while retaining one of the highest doctor to patient ratios in the world.

We constantly hear information about cash-strapped LDCs, even as their governments and residents innovate and they develop at a much more rapid pace than either the US or Western Europe has developed in the past. The difference between my views and those of Baptiste and Foreign Policy in Focus can be attributed to human rights.

All rights – including economic and social rights – are universal and inalienable. All countries have a responsibility to respect, protect, and fulfill these rights both at home and abroad.

All rights – including economic and social rights – are universal and inalienable. All countries have a responsibility to respect, protect, and fulfill these rights both at home and abroad.

For example, Switzerland’s financial secrecy laws have repeatedly been cited as illegal by the UN Committee that oversees compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. When money is hidden in Swiss accounts, it escapes domestic taxation. This escape directly undermines realization of economic and social rights in those countries. Universal healthcare, equitable education, decent work, and all other economic and social rights depend on public policy that is funded by a robust tax base. Why is luring away taxpayers treated any differently than Switzerland luring away money? Both instances deprive source countries of income.

Even in 2006, the lifetime cost (education paid for by the state and lost returns on investment by the state) of a doctor leaving Kenya was $517,931 – this figure doesn’t even take into account the lost tax revenue that would have been paid by the doctor over the course of their career. As many doctors leave source countries every year, the losses add up and actively undermine the health, education, and work programs in those countries: Health systems lose doctors whose education was paid for as a right by the state, education systems are overburdened by doctors who have no plans to work in their home country, and work initiatives suffer from the lack of an adequate tax base. As the US and other states in the global north draw migrants from source countries, they actively undermine the economic and social rights of remaining citizens.

Although there is a clear connection between the so-called brain drain as a tax burden and violations of international law, there are several other rights at play. Outward migration cannot be restricted, because everyone has a right to the unrestrained freedom of movement (ICCPR article 12). It is also clearly not a negative thing for professionals to seek out higher salaries. But the question remains: Whose responsibility is it to ensure better conditions in source countries?

While duty to reduce push factors ultimately falls on governments in LDCs, they cannot provide for their citizens while they are being actively undermined by foreign governments. Host countries should be held accountable for the way they undermine rights.

For example, when the US lures a doctor away from Kenya, it should repay Kenya for the doctor’s education and for the state’s lost return on their investment.

For example, when the US lures a doctor away from Kenya, it should repay Kenya for the doctor’s education and for the state’s lost return on their investment.

Better yet, USAID funding should follow a more rights-based formula than the current model. USAID vaccinations only go so far when it refuses to pay for a right-to-health based system. In other words, when the US increases pull factors here, it also needs to help reduce push factors abroad. Continued neo-colonial exploitation of southern labor should not continue.

When paying attention to rights it is clear that developed countries have a duty to fund economic and social rights everywhere. We need to shift our discourse from one of “aid” and “immigration” to one of rights.

Regardless of one’s location, everyone deserves a life of dignity. All US policies should reflect these values.

How to make it in a global city (chances are you can’t…)

Jack Carolan
PhD student in Urban Planning

An image of a renovated home in East Austin, Texas.
A renovated home in a gentrifying neighborhood of East Austin, Texas (Wikimedia Commons)

“If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere,” said someone once about the prospect of making a living in New York City.  Whom exactly they were referring to is becoming more and more unclear as the dynamics of not just New York, but other global cities continue to evolve and change.  

I used to hear that statement and assume it was referring to young adults, just out of college, and living on their own for the first time. What I failed to acknowledge though in my initial interpretation is the fact that New York City isn’t just made up of young adults fresh out of college trying to make it on their own for the first time. On the contrary, New York City and other global cities are made up of an extremely diverse group of people of varying backgrounds and income levels. However, the concept of “making it” in NYC or other global cities is becoming more and more unlikely given the rise of the global elite and increasing rates of gentrification.

…the concept of “making it” in NYC or other global cities is becoming more and more unlikely given the rise of the global elite and increasing rates of gentrification.

The term gentrification originally appeared in 1964 when sociologist Ruth Glass coined the term to describe the process she witnessed in East London wherein a number of middle class people began to move into older, low income, working class districts, and began renovating the buildings in the neighborhood which led to the displacement of the original occupants (Hamnett, 2003). While the essence of that definition still holds true to this day, it is no longer the middle class who are doing the displacing but instead the emerging global elite class.  

It can be argued that the driving force behind urbanization and city growth is profit (Busa, 2017). Therefore, from a bottom-line perspective, it makes sense why those in power push for the redevelopment of “underperforming” areas and neighborhoods into high end luxury living spaces for those with the most capital. This process is magnified in global cities such as New York City, London, and Paris. In these global financial capitals where there is an immense concentration of wealth, gentrification is occurring at an alarming rate. Many large areas of these cities are turning into playgrounds that only the ultra-wealthy can afford. Is this what we want our cities to look like?

This new class of global elites is not just reshaping our cities physically but socially and culturally.  This new form of immigration is having a major impact on not just low and middle-income residents but even upper-middle and upper-class residents are finding it harder and harder to make it in the cities they used to thrive in.

Gentrification has been historically-viewed as a more localized issue where existing middle-class residents displace existing low-income residents. This is no longer the case. It is no longer an issue of being displaced to a different part of the city but being displaced out of the city all together.

As a PhD student in the Urban Planning program, I find this issue to be extremely interesting as well as important. I love cities and the unique character and “feel” each city has.  That “feel” and character is predominantly a reflection of the people and cultures who inhabit each city. With the new trend of global elites taking over large areas of our cities, it is going to be near impossible for 99% of the population to feel anything other than I don’t belong here.

With the new trend of global elites taking over large areas of our cities, it is going to be near impossible for 99% of the population to feel anything other than I don’t belong here.

The idea of being able to “make it” in the city is becoming less and less of a reality for not only more and more people but also people of different racial, ethnic and social groups. However, there are steps that can be taken to try and stave off this new wave of gentrification. It is imperative to become an active community member and to make your voice heard when it comes to planning and development issues in and around your communities. Groups such as Right to the City are advocates for social justice and fair housing and have chapters here in Boston as well as across the United States.  I also believe that it is important to strike a balance: I don’t believe that redevelopment is bad, but it needs to be done with community engagement and in a way that is fair and equitable for all.   

References

Busa, A. (2017, September 19). The trouble with elite cities [Web log post]. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from https://blog.oup.com/2017/09/the-trouble-with-elite-cities/

Hamnett, C. (2003). Gentrification and the Middle-class Remaking of Inner London, 1961-2001. Urban Studies, 40(12), 2401-2426. doi:10.1080/0042098032000136138