人才流失外文文献翻译最新译文

文献出处：Sahay A. Reverse Brain Drain: New Strategies by Developed and Developing Countries [J]//Global Diasporas and Development. Springer India, 2014: 183-201.
译文
Reverse Brain Drain: New Strategies by Developed and
Developing Countries
Anjali Sahay
Introduction
Karl Marx would be amused. He longed for the day when the workers would own the means of production. Now they do.
While it is traditionally argued that openness to international migration will cause an effective brain drain for the source country, in the new millennium, the discussion on brain drain has clearly moved to the more optimistic and realistic discourse on brain circulation and brain gain with a positive net return on human capital.
Brain circulation as a theory posits that an immigrant’s lo cation is insignificant today, as these have become professional and social networks that link new immigrant entrepreneurs with their counterparts at home. These new transnational communities provide the shared information, contacts, and trust that allow local producers to participate in an increasingly global economy. And other brain gain strategies such as return, remittances, and other political lobbying benefits (Sahay 2009) that have become clearly visible in the twenty-first century. So far, international mobility has mostly been understood as a unidirectional phenomenon with people from ‘peripheral’, or poor, countries seeking to settle in ‘core’, or wealthy, countries typically located in the Northern Hemisphere (Altbach 2004).
However, the trend has now changed dramatically to show an increasing movement of returnees of these highly skilled professionals and students back to the ‘peripheral’or poor countries. And even though the rate of return has been consistently high for Asian countries such as South Korea (Lee 2010) and Taiwan and traditionally low for countries like China and India, the trend is now picking up in both of these countries as well with expatriates seeing a benefit for themselves as they return and see equal opportunities in their home countries. As a result of these benefits
of outmigration, immigration and emigration policies are continually being adopted by policymakers across the globe to retain their best and the brightest labour and talent pool of the highly educated.
In the case of developed countries (DCs), United States in particular, immigration remains a controversial topic, with illegal immigration, security concerns after September 11 attacks, demographic changes and societal and cultural impacts taking centre stage and overshadowing the more important topic of employment-based immigration that even today (DHS 2010, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics data ) remains at best 14 % of all legal immigration. And while economists have argued that ‘that the United States should e liminate quantitative restrictions on employment- based immigration as there are obvious economic benefits to opening up the borders to international labour who are highly skilled, talented, and educated, legislative policies have traditionally put numeric al limits on this form of immigration’.
Currently, noting the economic benefits and contributions of immigrant population (now considered as part of US human capital), there is an increasing emphasis in US legislative process towards retaining the already present high-skilled immigrants and students with advanced degrees from leaving their shores. The Startup Visa Bill originating in the US Senate in 2011 is an important step in that direction. Either because of restrictive immigration policies or the tedious immigration naturalization process or increased benefits and opportunities in the home country, many of these immigrant populations are now ‘returning’ home. Consequently, brain drain, which was the popular jargon of the twentieth century coming from the less developed countries (LDCs), has become the jargon of the DCs who are now complaining of their own brain drain with trained immigrant populations choosing the return option and leaving their shore. 1
On the other end of the spectrum, realizing the attractiveness of its diaspora community in the form of economic, social and even political gains (Sahay 2009, pp. 157–193; Khadria 1999), legislative policies are being formulated in these so- called LDCs (which are now in various stages of developmental process) in a continuous effort to attract their overseas high-skilled entrepreneurs to return or reinvest in their
home countries contributing to a net ‘brain gain’ for the home country. ‘Pull’ factors such as cultural familiarity and family ties along with personal benefits are strong reasons for many reverse migration trends. From a gendered perspective, many also return as there are laws and rules that prohibit an immigrants’ spouse to work in the host country. While there may be personal and cultural reasons for return which cannot be quantified in an economic perspective, this chapter will mostly trace the important legislative developments that have taken place in many developing countries, particularly Asia. The International Organization of Migration has classified reasons for return migration occurring in three different ways.
Return may be classified as:
1. Voluntary without compulsion, when migrants decide at any time during their sojourn to return home at their own volition and cost
2. Voluntary under compulsion, when persons are at the end of their temporary protected status, rejected for asylum or are unable to stay and choose to return at their own volition
3. Involuntary, as a result of the authorities of the host state ordering deportation (Singla 2012) In this chapter, I will be looking at the first reason mostly and the second reason (such as persons who are at an end of their temporary stay) as the main reasons for return.
Why Asia? Notwithstanding the many contributions of immigrants to the United States from different parts of the world, this chapter will focus on Asian immigration into the United States and the return of these professionals to some of these Asian countries. The reason for focusing on Asia is that since 1965 immigration reform and particularly since the tech boom of the 1990s, Asia as a region has remained consistently high as a source continent with respect to employment-based immigration and education, two of the main components of human capital. The twenty-first century is also cited as an ‘Asian Century’ with the growing importance of China and India as emerging superpowers. Furthermore, as explained by many return studies to Asia, Return redefines Asia’s relations with the world. Historically, large-scale return migrations are always related to changes in international relations. Today, in most
parts of Asia, return is an enterprising project instead of an exercise due to nostalgia. Returning to China or India from the West, for example, is perceived as a ‘return to the fu ture’—to be ahead of global business and technology curves. Returnees are significant because the action of return reinforces allegiance and loyalty, yet the returnees are expected to rejuvenate and even revolutionize the old. Return energizes nationalism in the globalizing world. (Singapore 2007) This chapter is a timely research in the field of international migration and international relation in the twenty-first century. It furthers our understanding of concepts such as ‘brain drain’ (primarily associat ed with LDCs) and ‘brain gain’(primarily associated with DCs) and also attempts to understand the importance of human capital as a source of power for any state (developed or developing) in the twenty-first century. Within this framework, the empirical evidence provided will be for the United States as the developed country and several Asian countries such as India, China, South Korea and Singapore as the prototype developing and newly emerging economies. Firstly, theoretical concepts such as human capital and brain gain will be discussed to understand why employment-based and education-based immigration are important to the host country’s economy. Second, the chapter will trace the legislative process towards employment-based and education-based immigration in the United States (mainly towards immigration from Asia) and later legislations in trying to harness and retain their immigrant population from leaving their shores. Third, the chapter will trace legislative policies evolved by some developing countries (mostly Asian countries such as India, China and Singapore) in attracting their overseas nationals seen as a talent pool of individuals back to their home countries. And to conclude, the chapter ties in all these trends to give us a better understanding of the international movement of people between Asia and the United States and brain gain strategies for the twenty-first century.
Immigration reform has always stirred up a debate in the United States. When the Democrats won the majority in both the House and the Senate in the 2005 midterm elections, there was some anticipation that the legislators would move forward the immigration reform process. ‘When the immigration reform proposal bill 1639 failed
(despite receiving bipartisan support most notably from Senator Ted Kennedy and President George W. Bush) it reflected the general indecision and ambivalence on the part of US policymakers on the subject of immigration’ (Brotherton and Kretsedemas 2008 ,p. 365). In the United States of America, ‘few issues a re more controversial than immigration’ (West 2010, pp. 1–20). As argued by Darrell West (2010), there is a general concern about immigration because they view the material costs of open door policies as broad-based and the benefits as concentrated.
A number of studies have been made to estimate the costs and benefits of immigration to the United States, see (Jacoby 2004). Keeping aside the cost of cultural assimilation and the cost of security threats (especially after September 11), most arguments on immigration have been made using the economic cost to the country. As argued, ‘the impact of open policies falls on disadvantaged workers who feel their wages are depressed by newcomers and on taxpayers who worry about a drain on public resources, while the benefits accrue to a small group of successful immigrants’ (West 2010, p.1). This fear is further highlighted during periods of recessions where ever-shrinking employment opportunities leads to the crowding out effect: that foreigners end up taking jobs that would have otherwise gone to American workers or reduces the wages as a greater talent pool leads to more competition and thus less wages.
However, looking at the long-term effects, it benefits scholars and policymakers to undertake research to look at the contribution made by immigrants to the American economy, science, biotech and high-tech industries, to say the least. These remain the focal industries as most legal immigrants entering on the H-1B (employment-based) visas tend to go in these fields and these fields are considered vital to the development of any country (especially the United States where native enrolment in these fields have been dropping consistently). In addition to training on the jobs, millions of dollars are spent by universities in training foreign students (in the form of Ph.D. tuition waivers, graduate assistantships and other fellowship grants). With the recent economic recession in the United States, many of these students have preferred to return to their home countries which are now in an advanced stage of development
and enjoying a strong economy. The following sections will look at immigrants’ contributions in innovation, entrepreneurship, research and education and hence the argument to retain immigrants from leaving the shores of the United States contributing to a net loss to US human capital and therefore its own ‘brain drain’.
In the new millennium, a state’s development and power is not only measured by its military strength and economic capability but also be measured by its investments in human capital. Human capital has been defined by economists as those important investments that an individual can make in education and experience (also training). These two factors are intrinsic to human capital because people cannot be separated from their knowledge, skills, health or values in the way they can be separated from their financial and physical assets. Thus, whether an individual migrating from one state to the other is leaving a country or entering another, what will matter are that person’s qualifications.
译文
扭转人才流失的现状:发达国家和发展中国家的新策略
查尔斯·汉蒂
引言
卡尔·马克思会感到欣慰。

他渴望有一天工人们能占有生产资料。

现在他们做的。

虽然传统上认为，开放国际迁移会导致来源国人才许多有效人才的流失，新世纪，探讨人才流失这一问题显然已经更加具有现实意义，值得人们去积极思考，以获得好的净人力资本回报率。

人才环流理论认为，今天，一个移民的地位是微不足道的，他们已经成为连接新移民企业家与国内同行的专业和社会化网络。

这些新的跨国社区提供共享信息，联络方式和信任，允许当地生产商参与到一个日益全球化的经济中去。

和其他人才引进策略，如收益、汇兑和其他政治游说的福利(Sahay 2009)，在二十一世纪已经变得清晰可见。

到目前为止，国际流动大多被理解为单向的现象：人们从“外围”，或者贫穷的国家设法往“核心”或富有的国家迁移，这些富有的国家通常位于北半球(阿尔特巴赫 2004)。

然而，这一趋势已经发生了翻天覆地的变化，研究表明，越来越多具备高技能的专业海归人员和学生流向“外围”或贫穷的国家。

尽管亚洲的一些国家，例如韩国(李2010)、台湾一直具有较高的回报率，那些传统的具有较低回报率的国家，比如中国和印度，现在的趋势是，这些国家目前的状况不尽相同，移居海外的人们都看到看到自己的国家有平等的发展机会，所以他们选择回国发展。

全球政策的制定者不断制定出外迁、移民和移民等相关政策，因而，许多优秀的劳动人员与受过高等教育的人才都选择留了下来。

在发达国家中(DCs)，尤其是在美国，移民仍然是一个具有争议的话题，非法移民，出于9·11袭击后的安全问题考虑、人口变化、社会和文化的影响占据了重要的地位，从而掩盖了更重要的就业移民的话题，即使在今天(2010年国土安全部,移民统计年鉴数据)拥有的合法移民只占14%。

虽然经济学家认为，美国应当对基于就业的移民消除数量限制，因为开放国际边界，吸引拥有高技能、天赋、高学历的国际劳工能带来明显的经济效益，但是，立法政策在传统上还是将这种数值限制应用到移民活动上。

目前，美国政府关注的是移民人口所做的贡献与创造的经济效益(现在将其视为美国人力资本的一部分)，美国立法的过程中越来越强调，要让具备高学历高技能的移民和学生留在本国。

2011年，美国参议院启动签证法案是重要的一步。

由于限制性移民政策，繁琐的移民入籍流程，移民当地国日益完善的发展机会，许多移民人口现在选择回到自己的国家。

因此，人才流失，这个来自欠发达国家（最不发达国家）二十世纪的流行术语，现在已经成为了发达国家的流行术语的，他们抱怨本国训练有素的人才流失，选择离开他们的国家。

在这个范围的另一端，以经济、社会乃至政治利益的形式实现其对侨民社区的吸引力（Sahay 2009年，157-193；Khadria 1999)，在这些最不发达的国家，正在制定所谓的立法政策(现在正处于发展中的不同阶段)，不断努力吸引海外高技能企业家的回归，或在本国投资以求实现“人才引进”。

“推动”因素，如文化熟稔和家庭关系以及个人利益是反向迁移趋势出现的重大原因。

从性别的角度来看，因为有些法律法规禁止移民的配偶在东道国工作，所以他们选择了回国。

尽管他们回国是因为个人和文化方面的因素，从经济角度来看，这些都是没法量化的。

（完整译文请到百度文库）本章主要描述立法的发展在许多发展中国家尤其
是亚洲所起的作用。

国际移民组织分别用三种不同的方式阐述了移民返回发生迁移的原因。

回迁可以分为以下三种：
1、自愿没有冲动，当移民决定回迁时，他们无论何时都不用受自己意志的控制，也不用考虑成本的花费
2、被迫的自愿，当人们临时被保护的状况发生变化时，他们拒绝庇护，或者无法按照自己的意志选择返回
3、非自愿的，由于具有权力的东道国下令将其驱逐出境(Singla 2012)，本人将分析两个他们回迁的主要原因原因(如人们放弃临时停留)。

为什么是亚洲？尽管世界各地的人们移民到美国，本章将重点关注两个问题，一是亚洲人民移民进入美国，二是这些专业人士重返亚洲国家。

重点研究亚洲的原因是，自1965年移民改革以来，尤其是1990年代以来的科技潮，亚洲地区保持对就业移民的高度支持和教育培训，这是人力资本的两个主要组成部分。

二十一世纪也被认为是“亚洲的世纪”，中国在世界的地位日益提高，印度成为新兴超级大国。

此外，研究移民重回亚洲，将重新定义亚洲与世界的关系。

从历史上看，大规模的迁移通常与国际关系的变化相联系。

今天，在亚洲的大部分地区，回归是为了完成更大的事业工程，而不是一项因乡愁而发生的运动。

从西方回到中国或者印度本国，例如，被认为是“回到未来”——优于国际商业和技术曲线。

海归的作用是非常重要的，因为他们的回归而更加强化了忠诚的意识，但是，海归通常被期望变得有活力，甚至彻底改变原有的模样。

在当今全球化世界的条件下，回归将激发民族主义。

(Singapore 2007) 本章将适时的研究国际领域的移民转移，以及二十一世纪的国际关系。

我们会进一步加深对概念的理解，如“人才流失”（主要是与最不发达国家）和“人才引进”（主要是与发达国家），同时也试图了解在二十一世纪，人力资本对任何国家（发达国家或发展中国家）的重要性。

（完整译文请到百度文库）
在这个框架中，作为发达国家的美国应当提供相关经验证据，同样，作为原型的发展中国家和新兴经济体，如印度、中国、韩国和新加坡也应当如此。

首先，要深入理解人力资本和人才引进等理论概念，理解为什么工作移民和教育移民对东道国的经济发展起着重要作用。

其次，本章将进一步研究美国工作移民与教育
移民的立法过程（主要是对来自亚洲的移民），并试图利用立法来保留他们的移民离开。

第三，本章将研究立法政策的演变，一些发展中国家（主要是亚洲国家，如印度、中国和新加坡）将吸引海外公民视为人才来到自己的国家。

由此得出这样的结论，本章通过分析人才外流的趋势及国际关系，使我们能更好的理解亚洲和美国之间国际人口流动，从而更好的规划二十一世纪的人才引进策略。

移民改革在美国一直是一个具有争议的话题。

当民主党人在2005年中期选举中赢得绝大多数众议院和参议院的支持时，人们变对此多了一些期待，立法者将通过立法推进移民改革的过程。

当移民改革提议法案1639失败（尽管获得两党支持尤其是来自参议员特德.肯尼迪和总统乔治•布什的支持），它反映了一般美国政策制定者对移民的问题的优柔寡断和矛盾的心理（布拉泽顿和Kretsedemas 2008，p365)。

在美国,“比移民更有争议的几个问题”(西方2010年，P1 - 20)。

卫斯特（2010）认为，对移民问题的担忧是因为他们认为门户开放政策的成本较多，但其收益也值得我们关注。

许多研究已经对移民到美国的成本与收益作出了相应的评估，见（雅各比，2004）。

控制文化同化和安全威胁的成本（特别是在9月11日），大多数在移民问题上的争论已经使用了本国的经济成本。

如以下的争议，“对弱势工人实行开放政策的影响是他们觉得自己的工资被新来者分摊，纳税人则担心公共资源枯竭，而收益却归于一小群成功的移民者(西方2010年，第1页)。

这中恐惧进一步强调，在经济衰退时期，就业机会减少导致挤出效应：最终，外来人去美国工作或获得更少的工资，因为更多的人才将面临更激烈的竞争。

然而，从长期来看，移民对美国经济、科学、生物技术产业和高科技产业的贡献是重大的，学者和政策制定者已经对此进行了研究。

大多数合法移民（工作移民）通过签证进入美国重要行业，而这些领域对任何国家的发展都是至关重要的（尤其是美国，这些领域劳动力一直在下降）。

除了对他们进行工作技能上的培训，对于外国学生的培训已花费了数百万美元（博士学费减免的形式，研究生助教奖学金和其他奖学金资助）。

目前，美国经济逐渐衰退，许多学生宁愿回到自己的国家，因为本国经济经济正处于高速发展时期可以获得更好的发展。

接下来将分析移民对于创业创新、产品开发与教育的贡献，美国将控制移民离开所带来的“人才流失”与经济损失。

新千年里，一个国家的发展和权力能力的衡量标准不仅包括其军事力量和经济能力，也包括其对人力资本的投资。

经济学家将人力资本定义为，对一个人在教育和工作经验（包括培训）方面的重要投资。

这两个因素是人力资本的本质所在，因为人们的发展离不开知识、技能、健康或价值观念，但可以没有金钱和物质资产。

因此，一个人是否愿意从一个国家迁移到另一个国家，或者进入另一个国家，其中的重要因素即个人资格的获得。