Brain drain from poor African countries
Brain drain from poor African countries. Brain drain is a migration of those who have a high level of skill, knowledge, or technology for seeking better quality of life, standards of living and stable political situations. Thus it is natural that most of migration is from developing to developed counties where give a better opportunity to such trained health professionals (Dodani & LaPorte, 2005). However, the problem of brain drain is that the degree has become too high enough to be out of control. Following the graph (see Figure 2) proves the phenomenon. Notably, migration from non OECD to OECD has been outstandingly increased. It shows that the volume of non OECD to OECD in 2000 is over 40 million as opposed to about 10 millions in 1960, which illustrates that brain drains of developing countries have been deepened as time goes on (Docquier, 2014).
In the viewpoint of Least Developed Countries (LDC), the emigration of their highly intellectual workers is a great concern that they have, because brain drain reduces formation of human capital and undermines long-term growth as a result. To address this issue, it is important for OECD countries to allocate their development aid to dealing with migration problem to some extent (Ugarte & Verardi, 2012).
In light of those factors, this paper continues to explain how and why ODA should be practiced in detail.
Brain drain
How Should ODA be Practiced?
Corruption
No matter how big the amount of aid is supported to underdeveloped countries, it is meaningless if the governments are corrupted. Because the aid money will not be equally distributed to the public, but extorted by the minority who has political power. In other words, the reason why the economic growth of underdeveloped countries has been poor is existence of their spoiled governments (Easterley, 2006). Today’s aid has become a form that aid helps corruption, constant and unchanged way of aid has made a situation of vicious cycle which sustains corrupted their governments. In case of Asian countries, although they also had corrupted governments as African governments are, they had spent aid funds on investing in domestic market so that they led to better economic outcomes which is called ‘Positive corruption’. In the beginning period of aid, the African and Asian economic situations were similar, however the Asian economy has overwhelming the African economy because of the difference between positive and negative corruption (Moyo, 2009).
In order to eliminate such corrupted governments, they should make a good governmental system using healthy democracy. Especially, many of African countries have a plenty of natural resources, however they tend to be put under a ‘Resource curse’. For not being caught in a trap of natural resource, their government should be based on democracy and make political check and balanced principle (Collier, 2007). As a good example of this, there is what Botswana’s government did. Botswana’s government had adapted democracy, and utilized received aids and natural resource such as diamond therefore it achieved drastic economic growth in a short time (Esterley, 2006). The case of Botswana is a good example that other African countries can refer to and this case shows that International organizations and NGOs in the sector of aiding underdeveloped countries should give aid funds to those which are not corrupted in accordance with complying with non-corruption standard of a corruption index and this way is consequently the way of developing African countries.