Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Host countries’ brain drain and brain gain: study migrants’ negative effects on native students’ education

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
SN Social Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study clarifies the effects of accepting study migrants on the host country’s human capital in a situation where study migrants harm the natives’ human capital formation, utilising an analytical method. Since study migrants exert negative effects on natives’ education (e.g., they do not fully understand the local language), natives may build smaller human capital, and the host country’s human capital may decrease. Previous studies have not examined their indirect effect. This study assumes that all study migrants leave their host country after education. The findings demonstrate that when the wage disparity is small, the host country experiences the brain drain because natives build smaller human capital due to the negative effects of study migrants, and some natives emigrate. However, the country can alleviate this by increasing the number of study migrants. When the wage disparity is large, the country experiences the brain gain since natives build larger human capital, even though study migrants affect them negatively, and some natives emigrate. The country can enhance this by reducing study migrants. This study contributes to the literature by including the study migrants’ indirect effect on natives’ human capital formation and showing the possibility of controlling the brain drain/gain.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Notes

  1. However, as will be mentioned in Sect. “The economy”, this study implicitly assumes that the country that accepts study migrants is a developed country whereas study migrants are from developing countries.

  2. Of course, the purpose of accepting study migrants is not limited to generating human capital. In some countries, educational institutions request study migrants to pay higher fees than native students. Their fee payment is an important source of revenue for institutions.

  3. In actual economies, governments usually conduct these two policies independently. However, there will be cases in which they are not independent and have to be conducted in a compatible manner.

  4. Since the findings are analytical, they present possibilities of the indirect effect, and the model must be extended to obtain sound analytical results. Furthermore, tests need to be conducted to argue such possibilities really exist.

  5. Shimada (2019c) investigated whether the brain drain or brain gain happen in a steady state and in the short run under the different degrees of the human capital transferability. Drawing attention to the fact that the transferability of human capital can be increased by global education, Shimada (2019a) investigated whether education’s globalisation contributes to the labour-sending country’s human capital accumulation.

  6. Shimada (2021) discussed how host countries can raise the effectiveness of the study migrants’ acceptance policy.

  7. Studies on the effects of study and labour migrants on the education of natives are introduced in Sect. 4.3.2 of Tani (2019).

  8. The migration destination of natives can also be a developed country. In what follows, wages in the destination are assumed to be higher than those in their home country.

  9. In what follows, an assumption will be made regarding the value of \(\underline {a} .\)

  10. Under labour mobility, the incentive for public funding of internationally applicable education tends to become smaller (Justman and Thisse 1997; Poutvaara 2004, 2008).

  11. By assuming that \(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle-}$}}{a} = \left( {1 + \alpha M/\bar{N}} \right){\text{ }})\left\{ {1 + (w^{*} - 1)\bar{\theta }} \right\}^{{ - 1}} ,\) it can be made that \(h_{i}^{M} \ge 1\) and thereby \(\overline{\theta } > p_{i} \ge 0.\)

  12. Under the assumption that \(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle-}$}}{a} = (1 + \alpha M/\bar{N})\{ 1 + (w^{*} - 1)\bar{\theta }\} ^{{ - 1}} ,\) it is clear that \(\tilde{a}\) lies between \(\underline{a}\) and \(\overline{a}.\)

  13. Although \(\overline{a} - \tilde{a} > 0\) decreases with \(M,\) the square brackets of Eq. (9b) is negative, and its absolute value becomes smaller.

  14. However, it is not definite how the amount of the brain gain changes by further accepting study migrants. After it has become positive, as more study migrants are received, the brackets of Eq. (9b) is positive and becomes larger (notice that the second term in the brackets is negative in this case and approaches zero (0)) whereas \(\left\{ {\left( {\bar{a} - \tilde{a}} \right)/2} \right\}\bar{\theta }{\text{ > }}\,0\) becomes smaller.

  15. As \(M\) decreases, both \({{\{ (\overline{a} - \tilde{a})} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\{ (\overline{a} - \tilde{a})} 2}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2}\} \overline{\theta } > 0\) and \(\{ (w^{*} - 1)(1 - \overline{\theta }) - 1\} \overline{a}(1 + \alpha {M \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {M {\overline{N}}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\overline{N}}})^{ - 1} > 0\) increase.

  16. A reviewer suggested that the author should emphasise the importance of the study migrants’ effect on natives’ education demand, compared with the wage disparity’s effect. The author gratefully acknowledges the reviewer for essential comments.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing the manuscript. The author sincerely appreciates all the valuable and essential comments, which helped the author improve the quality of the manuscript. All remaining errors are the author’s responsibility.

Funding

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

I am the only author of this study.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Akira Shimada.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author has no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shimada, A. Host countries’ brain drain and brain gain: study migrants’ negative effects on native students’ education. SN Soc Sci 2, 211 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00508-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00508-3

Keywords

Navigation