A lack of opportunity in higher education is often cited as one of the key barriers to Mexico’s socioeconomic development. Moreover, Mexicans with postsecondary degrees often put their skills to use abroad rather than at home, limiting the country’s access to skilled labor. Some who study abroad stay abroad to work; others study in Mexico only to move to other countries for better jobs and more stable social and economic environments. Mexico is not unique in this. The emigration of intellectuals and highly qualified professionals from developing to developed countries is often referred to as “brain drain.” It has become clear that while receiving countries enjoy “strong economic gains from the immigration of highly skilled migrants,” many developing nations, like Mexico, lose valuable, innovative workers.
It is important to note, however, that the broader concept of “brain migration” — the flow of skilled labor among sending and receiving countries — “does not necessarily constitute brain drain.” This is an important consideration in Mexico, where education across borders is more complex than a one-way brain drain. Recently, Presidents Obama and Peña acknowledged this and have pledged to implement programs — i.e., 100,000 Strong in the U.S. and Proyecta 100,000 in Mexico — to increase binational education exchange. The assumption here is that the facilitation of brain circulation — in which there are continuous cross-border flows — yields a more innovative and competitive workforce for both countries.
Of course, obstacles remain. Mexico is still short on research spending and employment opportunities for highly skilled individuals. People frequently wonder how many of the Mexican international students who study in the U.S. will actually return to Mexico to work and contribute to the domestic economy. Looking ahead, the answer to this question will help determine whether this is truly brain circulation or merely brain drain. For now, existing data might lend some clues.
In 2013, 14,199 non-immigrant Mexican nationals were studying in the United States, making Mexico the ninth largest exporter of students, according to the Institute of International Education. It is worrisome, however, that of the 73,000 scholars from Mexico who hold doctorate degrees, 20,000 live and work in the United States. Mexico’s National Population Council also estimates that “for every 19 Mexicans living in Mexico with a bachelor’s degree or higher, one lives in the United States.” This suggests that Mexico will necessarily lose some of the talent developed from exchange programs.
Income is also a useful predictor of brain migration. A 2009 study showed that Mexicans with doctorates made an average of $111 pesos per hour in Mexico, while they made $376.10 pesos per hour in the United States. According to the World Bank, Mexico only spent 0.5 percent of its GDP on research and development in 2011, while the U.S. spent 2.79 percent. Thus, highly specialized, educated workers must look outside of Mexico for research infrastructure and higher pay to leverage their unique skills.
So why bother investing in student training, education and research abroad if much of that talent will be lost? Why is Proyecta 100,000, despite its practical oversights, a good idea? As Mexico asserts itself as global economic player, brain migration to obtain higher education degrees is not necessarily net-negative. International higher education increases Mexico’s level of human capital, even if many people do not return to apply their new knowledge at home. In the aggregate, as more people study abroad, more will return home, too.
Still, Mexico should do more to invest in its higher education system and retain an even greater portion of these students and workers. CONACYT, the National Council for Science and Technology, which provides qualified Mexicans with research and study abroad funding, should do more to enforce and strengthen the currently vague conditions that require awardees to return home. Currently, the organization only instructs international scholars to “carry out professional activities” in Mexico, “collaborate with national public or private agencies” or reside in Mexico for a minimum of six months after the conclusion of the scholarship. Programs to incentivize research at national universities and entrepreneurial activities would also help retain talent.
Mexico should also consider how other countries have established virtual programs to connect with highly skilled citizens living abroad. The German Academic International Network (GAIN), for example, assists German scholars and scientists working in North America to maintain connections in Germany or even move back home. Expatriates themselves have also set up networks — SwissList and InterNations, for example — to help them prosper abroad and connect with other foreigners in their area.
Brain migration does not have to constitute brain drain. Brain circulation, for example, might be a win-win for sending and receiving countries alike. Studies have shown that there are ways to leverage highly skilled workers for the benefit of their home countries, even if they reside abroad. In Mexico’s case, for example, many of these workers send remittances home.
Further research is required to completely understand this phenomenon and make sound policy choices. We do know, however, that brain circulation need not be perceived as a zero-sum game in which the sending country loses out while the receiving country reaps all the benefits. As globalization presses on, governments would do well to facilitate international workforce integration.
Interested in more on this topic? Register for the Mexico Center’s upcoming event Talent, Skill and Brain Circulation: How Migrants Contribute to Labor Integration on May 21 at 6:30 p.m. at Rice University.
Marcela Benavides is an intern at the Mexico Center and a sophomore at Rice University majoring in political science and Latin American studies.