The Hindu Business Line : Start viewing global Diaspora as a brain bank

Multiculturalism is a good thing because it reflects the reality that society is culturally diverse — not just because of immigration — and because tolerance of differences within the framework of liberal democracy is the basis for peaceful co-existence. — PHILIPPE LEGRAIN, A LONDON-BASED JOURNALIST AND AUTHOR

The developed economies, especially in Europe, have long been a haven for immigrants from the developing world in search of opportunity and growth. But the events of September 11, 2001 and subsequent attacks in London and riots in France and Australia have brought the immigration question into sharp focus. The issue has also begun to figure prominently during election time, most recently seen in France.

People have begun to question the value that immigrants bring to an economy and the need for multiculturalism in society. Philippe Legrain, a London-based journalist and author of Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them, which makes the case for freer international migration, says that the benefit an immigrant brings to a country cannot be crudely measured in terms of how much money they make. "People contribute to society in all sorts of ways."

In an e-mailed interview to Business Line on immigration and why developed nations should shed their opposition to it, he says the fact that immigrants often come from countries that hardly practise multiculturalism does strengthen the hands of the anti-immigrant political right in Western countries. "But it is a bogus argument. Just because China or Zimbabwe have nasty repressive regimes that do not tolerate dissent does not mean Britain — or India — should emulate them," says Legrain, who considers himself British (his father is French and mother Estonian-American).

Powerful co-existence

"Multiculturalism is a good thing because it reflects the reality that society is culturally diverse — not just because of immigration — and because tolerance of differences within the framework of liberal democracy is the basis for peaceful co-existence."

But countries receiving immigrants could be tempted to restrict immigration from a select set of nations, keeping their track record and background in consideration.

"Even if it were true that one group tends to do better than another, it would be wrong to discriminate on that basis," says Legrain. "Besides, it does not mean that all individuals will do better or that all individuals from a group should be excluded altogether." He goes on to add: "People are individuals; they are not wholly defined by one characteristic, be it ethnic origin, race, religion or political affiliation."

On the impact of educated citizens leaving a country, which would have spent a lot in subsidising their education, Legrain says that there would be a problem only if too many educated people leave. "India has long had a surplus of engineers who could not be gainfully employed in the economy; their moving abroad was not a problem."

He adds that the remittances that migrants send home, and the new ideas and capital returning migrants bring back with them, benefit the economy as a whole. In any case, countries don't own people, "even if governments have subsidised their education. People have a right to emigrate, as set out in the UN Declaration of Human Rights."

Taxing idea

Instead of trying to curb emigration, countries should try to make the most of their Diaspora network, he suggests. "They should encourage the emigrants to maintain ties with their roots and ultimately return home with new skills and capital."

Prof Jagdish Bhagwati had recently said that immigrants should pay taxes in their home countries as a way of redressing the brain drain issue.

Legrain disagrees, as he regards this proposal as "impractical and counterproductive. How exactly would India tax its citizens abroad? If anything, it would only encourage Indians abroad to give up their citizenship for tax reasons, instead of encouraging them to maintain their ties with India and ultimately to return home."

According to him, developing countries can make the most out of a global network of talent only with carrots, not with sticks. "Countries should start viewing a well-educated and well-connected global Diaspora as a brain bank to which countries contribute talented people and from which they can receive remittances, knowhow and contacts — and ultimately migrants returning home."

On the phenomenon of `reverse brain drain,' he says that it is a win-win situation for all stakeholders.

"Actually I prefer to use AnnaLee Saxenian's term of `brain circulation.' The temporary migration of highly skilled Indians, primarily to the US and also to other rich countries, is highly beneficial for them — they acquire new skills, new contacts and a higher standard of living." Their emigration is also highly beneficial to the country that receives them, as they help set up new businesses and contribute to innovation and economic growth.

"It is also highly beneficial to India, For instance, emigrants to the US may start a business that trades with India. And when they return to India, they may start a business that trades with the US, by making use of the skills and contacts they have acquired earlier."

Legrain also thinks that there is no difference in principle between migration across national borders and migration across State borders, which is happening across India on a mass scale, albeit gradually. "Both are equally desirable and legitimate, while also being potentially problematic." He believes that as India gets richer, it will attract more migrants from poorer countries. "This is a natural and desirable consequence of economic success." Emigration can often cause labour imbalances in the home region, as amply demonstrated in the case of Kerala, which has been in the grip of labour scarcity ever since the exodus to the Gulf began. Legrain says that a similar phenomenon helped drive Sweden's development in the late 19th century.

"This is beneficial from the point of view of workers who remain in Kerala, because it drives up their wages. As far as labour scarcity is concerned, it will doubtless attract migration from other regions where wages are lower." In the case of Kerala, official remittances are another major positive fallout of the phenomenon, currently accounting for 22 per cent of the State's domestic product. "Clearly, this is a boon, as it permits a higher level of consumption and investment than would otherwise be possible."

A World Bank report states that India received more remittances from abroad in 2005 ($23.5 billion) than any other country. The official figure amounts to three per cent of GDP — more than the revenue from software exports — while the total of formal and informal remittances may amount to as much as 9 per cent of GDP.

Legrain is of the opinion that India could issue bonds targeted at NRIs to soak up flows that might otherwise cause the economy to overheat, given its need for extra investment in infrastructure, education and health.

More Stories on : Interview | Human Resources | Books

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Basmati: Grains of confusion

Power plans

Fear not the globalisation

Fertiliser subsidy and costs

A session that did not go much beyond Budget

Start viewing global Diaspora as a brain bank

The big and small of retail

Prime Minister's call to India Inc

Rupee appreciation

Uninspiring logo