1269 



cratic society.^^^ Reconciliation of the two principles creates a grave 

 dilemma for both the individual and for the state. 



At the heart of the dilemma is the fundamental question of principle : 

 whether the state exists for the individual or the individual for the 

 state. It is thus a question of primacy of the individual or the state. 

 The CIMT study group supports the validity of the democratic princi- 

 ple asserting primacy of individual rights over those of the state.^^^ 

 The Soviet Union, at another point in the political spectrum, reverses 

 priorities of principles: the state is the first principle of existence; 

 thus emigration is not a right of the individual but a privilege granted 

 by the state. (A person cannot emigrate from the Soviet Union without 

 approval of the central government, as is currently being demonstrated 

 in the case of Soviet Jews wishing to emigrate. The same requirement 

 existed during Czarist times. Even within the Soviet Union move- 

 ment of persons is controlled by a strictly enforced internal passport 

 sj^stem.) The People's Republic of China, like the Soviet Union, has 

 no brain drain problem. Guided by similarly restrictive political prin- 

 ciples, it, too, rigidly controls the outward movement of its peoples.®^^ 



Yet democratically inclined states are often faced with the dilemma 

 of enforcing their rights over those of the individual. Both India and 

 Ceylon, for example, have taken steps to restrict emigration, appar- 

 ently with mixed results.*^^* The fact of the matter is that the practice 

 of genuine democracy and the coercive act of denying the right of 

 emigration are principles in contradiction. For this reason the LDCs 



«wi Article 29 reads : 



"(1) Everyone has duties to the community In which alone the free and full develop- 

 ment of his personality is possible. 



"(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such 

 limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and 

 respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of 

 morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." (United Nations 

 Yearbook, 19J,8-19J,.9. United Nations Publication. Sales no.: 50.1.11, p. 537.) (Cited in. 

 Report of U.N. Secretary General, Outflow of Trained Personnel from LDCa, Nov. 5, 1968, 

 pp. 11-13.) 



«™ The study states : "So far as control is concerned, any less developed country has the 

 legal power to forbid Its citizens to migrate if it believes that such a measure will be to the 

 benefit of the state. This Is one way to cope with whatever problems migration may 

 generate. However, our view is that the state exists to help the individual, rather than the 

 reverse." (The CIMT study, p. 701.) 



•93 The Soviet attitude toward brain drain Is evident in their refusal to permit the 

 unrestricted emigration of Soviet Jews, many of whom are scientists and reside in Moscow, 

 Leningrad, and other important scientific centers in the RSFSR. The following is an 

 analysis of recent Soviet statistics on scientific manpower and the possible Impact of the 

 emigration of Soviet Jewish scientists on the Soviet economy. The Soviet attitude toward 

 brain drain from the U.S.S.R. can be inferred by the small number of Soviet Jewish sci- 

 entists who have been permitted to emigrate : 



"It is not only Important to look at the declining share of scientists (nnuchnype rabotniki) 

 enumerated as Jews according to official Soviet statistics, but also their geographic dis- 

 tribution as particularly related to the alleged brain drain of the Soviet Jewish emigra- 

 tion. According to Statlsticheskoye upravleniya goroda Moskvy, Moskva v tsifrakh (1966— 

 ifnoga.). Kratkiy gtatisticheskiu sbomik (Moscow in Figures, 1966-1970. A Short Statis- 

 tical Collection), Moscow: Statistika, 1972, p. 140, the number of Jewish scientists in 

 Moscow city on January 1. 1971 amounted to 25,023. Dividing this number (25,023) by 

 the total number of scientific personnel at the end of 1970 (64,392), It becomes evident 

 that almost 40 percent (or 38.9 percent, to be more precise) resided In Moscow. If one 

 assumes that there are perhaps another 10.000 Jewish scientists in Leningrad and another 

 5.000 in Novosibirsk and all other locations In the R.S.F.S.R., then in 1970 this republic 

 would account for some 40,000 Jewish scientists, or almost two-thirds of the 64,392 

 enumerated. Also, according to various sources, only 1,000 persons (men. women, and 

 children) out of the 61,000 who were allowed to emigrate from the Soviet Union through 

 the end of 1972 previously resided in the R.S.F.S.R. Thus, very, very few of the Jewish 

 scientists were permitted to emigrate and the impact of the emigration. I.e.. the brain drain, 

 on the Soviet economy remains minimal." (A "note" to be published In a forthcoming 

 Issue of, Bulletin of The Association for Comparative Economic Studies, Bloomlngton, Ind., 

 1974.) 



8f^ The Indian Government attempted to stop the outflow of phvsiclans, apparently un- 

 successfully, by prohibiting the further administration of the ECFMG examination on its 

 territory in 1967. Ceylon, faced with the threat of a major outbreak of polio In 1971, was 

 forced to take emergency measures to stop the emigration of M.D.s, Including the denial of 

 exit permits for those leaving for employment abroad. (Stevens and Vermeulen, op. cit., 

 p. 70.) 



