1270 



that profess to be democracies, like India, are placed in the *jravest 

 dilemma, in attempting to prevent brain drain by coercive adminis- 

 trative actions. 



To worsen their dilemma, the enforcing of restraints on individual 

 movement, especially of professionals, tends to reduce the produc- 

 tivity of those who are compelled by choice to stay at home. As Dr. 

 Giorgi said : ". . . coercive measures a government may adopt will be 

 useless if the scientist and engineer is discontented at home ; his useful- 

 ness will undoubtedly diminish, or disappear altogether." "Intelli- 

 gence, imagination, and insight," he continued, "flourish only when the 

 intelligence can devote himself in peace and quiet to his scientific or 

 technological research, never when he is forced to work against his 

 Avill." C95 For this pragmatic reason, the CIMT study concludes, "re- 

 strictive measures are of dubious value." *'"« Still, the dilemma persists 

 as a basic consideration for those attempting to remedy the "push" of 

 emigrating professionals from the LDCs. 



Much the same can be said for the dilemma of inequality that is 

 inherent in human existence. What makes the solution of brain drain 

 so extraordinarily difficult is that the essence of brain drain is inequal- 

 ity, especially economic inequality : it is a problem that arises out of 

 the poverty of the poor and the dispossessed of the world; it is rooted 

 in the lack, or uneven pace, of development of nations ; and so long as 

 inequality exists (and history is on the side of the pessimists) the emi- 

 gration of talent will always take place. That is why brain drain is 

 more an historical process than an historical event* The ideal cor- 

 rective would appear to lie in raising the level of development of all 

 nations to one of common acceptance and general satisfaction, and 

 thus to encourage talented people to be satisfied with their lot and stay 

 home or equalize exchange. But this is Utopian; it is not possible. Nor 

 is it possible uo transform societies so radically that they can correct 

 all the internal causes of brain drain. The division between rich and 

 poor IS expanding, not contracting, not only globally but as Robert S. 

 McKamara, President of the World Bank pointed out, even within 

 the LDCs themselves.^^^ Thus, the dilemma of inequality in human 

 existence persists. 



Yet Dr. Kidd, drawing a parallel between the life of nations and the 

 life of individuals, offers what seems to be at least the beginning of a 

 resolution of this dilemma. Solutions of brain drain are not to be 

 found in expecting to create an ideal state of affairs where all parties, 

 that is, the countries and the individuals, will be "relaxed and happy." 

 It is, he implies, rather to accept the inequality of nations, their lack 

 of or unequal pace of development, and the problems issuing there- 

 from, as a fact of life, and to consider brain drain as a "chronic dis- 



803 T,i commenting on the prevention of emifrration. Dr. Giorrt observed : "The problem 

 IS not easy. States must reckon with individual freedom which, in free countries sooner 

 ??TvT^ln<^^*^S™^^, l^^ deciding factor in determining where a man may travel and live." 

 ;« *ir V. • ^*""' Report of the Conference on the Application of Science and Technology 

 to the Development of Latin America, 1965, p 182 ) 



^^^l1?>'^PnHL°*^?^V™^^°^..^T <=oercion. Dr. Giorgi quoted approvingly from an article by 

 a o-^ln^V^i "^^'^^ ^l'''*'^ '1°^ ^°'^^'^ Riquelme Perez : ". . . we are against negative measures, 

 to"««%n^.ii ?^"^*^^ ^.^ emigrate or reducing the number of years for certain courses 

 the L^^r.^rnhiit, «^^ attractive to do the same courses abroad. These are no solution for 

 tion." (p ^85) ^^° °°^ frustration and. very probably, increased emigra- 



e»«The"ciMT study, p. 702 



Gr:up,'^N?aiSUentaS"pr24; mtii I>P^ ^"''' '' '''''''''''' "' *^^ ^''''^ ^"^"^ 



