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 andDeveloping CountriesAnjali SahayIntroductionKarl 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 benefitsof 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. 1On 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 theirhome 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 cost2. 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 volition3. 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 mostparts 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 developmentand 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。