The nature of brain drain, its trajectories and effects on the capacity of the Nigerian state to engender development are not explicable within the context one set of factors. There are several sets of factors that motorise and sustain brain drain and they are domiciled both within the domestic and international arenas. In order to account for all these factors, this study shall adopt a synthesis of public choice theory and modern world system theory. The utilitarian value of adopting two theories is to account for the multi-dimensional nature of the brain drain phenomenon. None of these theories is encompassing enough to satisfactorily address the socio-economic and political forces that undergird brain drain. While the public choice theory applies the insight of political economy framework to elucidate the domestic forces that motorise brain drain through the actions and inactions of the elites, the modern world system theory illuminates the socio-economic forces that impel and sustain brain drain in the international arena.
Pro-migration scholars have often tended to explicate brain drain within the framework of liberalism/neoliberalism. Pro-migration scholars view brain drain as a mutually beneficial exchanges in an interdependent world that spawns and sustains global prosperity and peace for both the industrialized, newly industrializing (NICs) and developing countries.
They introduce brain gain as a counter to the phenomenon of brain drain. The perspective of the pro-migration scholars is liberalism. Liberalism contends that inter-dependence and economic linkage of advanced economies with less developed economies through trade, international aid and foreign investment will open the floodgate of export markets, capital and technology required for economic development. Gilpin (1987:266) captures the essence of the liberal perspective:
Liberalism maintains that an interdependent world economy based on free trade, specialization, and an international division of labour facilitates domestic development. Flows of goods, capital and technology increase optimum efficiency in resource allocation and therefore transmit growth from the developed nations to the less developed countries. Trade can serve as an
“engine of growth” as the less developed economy gains
115 capital, technology, and access to world markets. This is a
mutually beneficial relationship since the developed economies can obtain cheaper raw materials and outlets for their capital and manufactured goods. Because the less developed economies have smaller markets, opening trade with advanced economies is believed to benefit them relatively more than it does the developed economies. Moreover, since the factors of production flow to those areas where they produce the highest rewards, a less developed economy with a surplus of labour and a deficit of savings can obtain infusions of foreign capital that accelerate growth.
Applied to migration, the liberal scholars view brain drain inversely as brain gain and view the depletion of the human resources as beneficial to both divides of the world system as such depletions are considered adequately compensated by remittances. The postulations of the liberal theory are quite lofty but beg very important questions. Its shortcomings lie in:
a) Neglect of the role of the predominant economic interest of the policy makers and how this interest shape the outcome of domestic policies;
b) Neglect of power differentials within the market and unclear notion of the extent to which markets generate stable integration of the economy and society (Holton 1992:240).
c) Assumption that exchange is always free and occurs in a market between equals who possess full information and are thus enabled to gain mutually if they choose to exchange one value for another (Gilpin 1987:42-46). This assumption is wrong considering the position of the Third World economies in the global capitalist system.
d) The persistence of global inequalities of wealth, income and power. While these are historical in origin as much as market-generated, their existence does mean that much of the world’s population cannot participate in market exchange on a par with others (Holton 1992:242).
The theoretical framework upon which this study is anchored is a synthesis of public choice theory and modern world system theory and modern world system theory. While the public choice theory brings within its purview the internal dynamics that create contradictions in the economy and thus limit its expansionary capacity to enthrone full employment, the modern world system emphasises unequal relationship in the international arena and the exploitation of this inequality through the creation of relevant pull factors. Brain drain cannot happen in isolation. For pull factors to be effective, there must be push factors within the
116 domestic milieu. Conversely, for push factors to lead to the massive emigration of Nigerian professionals, there must be pull factors in the economies of the developed countries.
Immanuel Wallerstein is the most well-known originator of the world system theory with important developments made by several scholars including Christopher Chase-Dunn and Shannon. This theory makes possible a comprehensive understanding of the external and internal manifestations of the modernization process in the world system as well as analytically sound comparisons between different parts of the world (Halsall 1997). The basic framework of the modern world system theory is the existence of different stages or levels of national development within a unified global economy. In other words, it connotes a single unit with parts, which are functionally complementary (Lind 1978:674). Wallerstein (1976:229) conceptualises the world system as a social system which has boundaries, structures, member groups, rules of legitimation and coherence. There is extensive division of labour in the world system: the range of economic tasks is not evenly distributed throughout the world system. This notion gives rise to the basic categories of analysis – core/semi-periphery/periphery: the core regions of the Western economy occupy the central position and are the dominant players in the world system; the peripheral regions of the Third World occupy the fringes of the world system and lack economic independence and powers to chart their economic destiny independently and finally, in-between these two are the semi-peripheral regions which possess some economic autonomy but still defer to and are dominated by the Western countries (Holton 1992:138-139). Wallerstein (1976:231) avers,
The division of a world-economy involves a hierarchy of occupational tasks, in which tasks requiring higher levels of skills and greater capitalization are reserved for higher-ranking areas. Since a capitalist world-economy essentially rewards accumulated capital, including human capital, at a higher rate than “raw” labour power, the geographical maladministration of these occupational skills involves a strong trend toward self-maintenance.
Wallerstein (1976) traces the origin of contemporary world system to the 16th century following the crisis of the feudal system and the expansion of the capitalist economic system.
Offiong (2003:47) observes that at the inception of the world system, the difference between the core and the periphery was relatively minor. The world system has constantly evolved, throwing up in the process three kinds of societies across human history: mini-systems (bands, tribes and small chiefdoms); single state world empire and; multi-polity world
117 economies. The latter categorization depicts the modern world system and its uniqueness lies in the fact that it was “the first and only fully capitalist world economy to have emerged, around 1450-1550 and to have geographically expanded across the entire planet, by about 1900” (Wikipedia). Offiong (2003:47) elucidates further that by the end of the 16th century a European world-economy consisting of Holland, England, France, Spain, and Portugal emerged as the core, with Scandinavia, Eastern Europe and Central and South America in an extractive relationship with the core. Germany and Italy consisted of the semi-peripheral enclaves. There was a constant adjustment in the world system which led to the transformation of the entire Europe as the core and countries hitherto at the periphery being elevated to semi-peripheral status. Wallerstein (1976:231) asserts,
The ongoing process of a world-economy tends to expand the economic and social gaps among its varying areas in the very process of its development. One factor that tends to mask this fact is that the process of development of a world-economy brings about technological advances which make it possible to expand the boundaries of a world-economy.
World system theory argues that modern states are the political units of modern society’s interstate system and economy. In other words, the world system is anchored on capitalism which is a system based on competition. As Wikipedia points out:
World system analysis argues that capitalism, as a historical social system, has always integrated a variety of labour forms within a functioning division of labour (world economy).
Countries do not have economies, but are part of the world-economy. Far from being separate societies or worlds, the world-economy manifests a tripartite division of labour with core, semi-peripheral and peripheral-zones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/world-system_approach).
Wallerstein (1976:229) attributes the flourishing of capitalism to the multiplicity of political systems. The capitalist world economy as envisioned by Wallerstein (1976) is a dynamic system which changes overtime. Brain drain serves the purpose of maintaining the status quo as the manpower necessary to maintain the dominance of the developed states are
“imported” from the periphery whose economies are incapable of effectively employing them. This enables certain basic features to remain in place especially the positioning of the core regions. Shannon (1989:68) notes that “the periphery was consigned to a limited form of economic development directed toward meeting the needs of the core”. Thus through access
118 to resources (especially raw materials) and the great profits made in the course of international trade within the world system, the core enriched itself at the expense of both the periphery (to a greater extent) and the semi-periphery (to a lesser extent). The world system theory shares the basic assumptions of dependency theory especially with regards to the methods of incorporation of regions into the world economy. The regions of the world never initiated incorporation into the world economy but were sucked into it as a result of pressures from the core region to obtain more resources and greater profits. According to Offiong (2003:50):
In this forced and super ordinate – subordinate relationship, as the core became progressively more developed, the periphery stagnated economically and politically because it could not extricate itself from the dependency situation. The semi-periphery may be able to resist being relegated to the semi-periphery, but usually finds itself economically weak to forge itself into the core.
Wallerstein (1989:136) has also noted that the crucial characteristic in the relationship between the core and others was “the persistent long-term imbalance of trade”. It is this imbalance that has stymied the regions in their respective spheres and sustained the uneven development. Unlike the dependency theory with its bimodal system of cores and peripheries which does not sufficiently explain certain aspects of the world system, the modern world system develops a tripartite pattern that accounts for developments in the world system. With respect to the categorization of the former socialist economies, modern world system categorises it as external since they operated outside the framework of world economies but following the important changes in these economies they are now part of the modern world system (Chase-Dunn 1989; Shannon 1989; Wallerstein 1984).
Since the inception of the modern world system, there has been competition amongst the core countries for dominance and hegemony over the periphery countries. To determine a leading core country even in the core region, Wallerstein (1976) asserts that three forms of economic dominance over a period of time establishes the dominance of such a core country.
These are:
a) Productivity dominance which allows a country to produce products of greater quality at a cheaper price in comparison to other countries.
b) Trade dominance which entails favourable balance of trade for the dominant country.
c) Financial dominance which ensures that more money flows into the country and that its bankers receive more control of the world’s financial resources.
119 Wallerstein (1976) identifies three periods in the modern world system as being dominated by a single core nation: the Spanish and Portuguese ascendency around the 1450 with the conquest of the present peripheries; the British dominance of the 1800s and the US since the World War II. The US influence appears more pervasive not because of its recency but because of its overwhelming efforts especially in terms of protecting and maintaining the status quo of the world capitalist system. In outlining the hegemonic influence of the US, the Wikipedia asserts, “after World War II, the US accounted for over half of the world’s industrial production, owned two-thirds of the gold reserves in the world, and supplied one-third of the world’s export” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/world-systemsapproach).
On the other hand the public choice theory is a state-centred theory used to explain how political decision-making results in outcomes that conflict with, and undermine, the preferences and expectations of the general public. Public choice begins as the study of political agents using the conventional behavioral assumption of individual self-interest found in the study of economic agents (Boettke and Lopez 2002:111).) Ikpeze, Soludo and Elekwa (2004:343) explain further:
The public choice model shares basic assumptions with pluralist thinking but views both societal interest groups and government officials as purely self-interested, with the latter predominantly concerned with maintaining power by attracting and rewarding supporters and favouring certain groups. Rent-seeking via policy formation and implementation is a major feature of this process. In the public choice model the competition among the various interest groups is inimical to the collective interest. Rational politics generates irrational economic policies.
The rational politics of pandering to the interest of the elite led to the trajectory of the Nigerian economy to monoculturalism and subsequent contradictions that undermined its development and thus laid the foundation for brain drain. The Nigerian state, with its coercive force and enormous financial resources has been an arena of fierce competition for patronage and fight for booties for personal and sectional interests. The key players have been the military and the bureaucracy. All military interventions and political contests have been largely instigated by the allure of power and the fortunes that go with it in a rentier system (Ake 1981:126; Ikpeze, Soludo and Elekwa 2004:344-5). In other words, the Nigerian ruling class uses the state power to build an independent power base founded on private fortunes.
120 Thus, its choice of specific policies and their implementation was directly related to the need to serve personal and sectional interests.
Applied to migration and brain drain, this theory brings to the fore the primacy of economic factors in the course of production and reproduction of goods within the society.
The contemporary manifestation of the social relations of production within the Nigerian state is the dominance of the state. The Nigerian state occupies the commanding height of the economy from where it immerses itself in the production process as well as being the overall regulator of the economy. The inefficiency of the state as a manager of business and the prebendal nature of politics led to distortions in the economy. So, the internal socio-economic and political contradictions in Nigeria are products of the failure of the state to satisfactorily discharge its duties. It is this failure that manifests in political instability, corruption, insecurity, mismanagement of the economy, bad leadership among others which act as push factors that impel brain drain.
(i) Application of the Theory
In this study, the public choice theory and the modern world system theory will be seamlessly applied to demonstrate that brain drain is both a manifestation of internal socio-economic and political dynamics; and sundry forces in the international arena which accentuate the age-long exploitation that characterises relations in the modern world system.
Consistent with relations in the global capitalist system where competition for economic supremacy (in an international division of labour) bestows advantages to the superior to the detriment of the subordinate, the core countries poach the labour power of the periphery for their continued advancement. As Halsall (1997) observes, the capitalist world system is based on an international division of labour that determines relationship between different regions as well as the types of labour conditions within each region. The dynamics of the capitalist world economy bestows clear advantage on the core regions and disadvantage on the periphery regions.
What laid the foundation for the emigration of highly-skilled Nigerians was the bouquet of contradictions within its political economy as a result of the actions and inactions of the ruling class in the pursuit of their policy choices. Rather than expand the economy beyond the cash crop economy model it inherited from the erstwhile colonial masters, the emergent Nigerian leadership chose to lead the economy to monoculturalism as soon as oil
121 became an important international commodity with appreciated price. Monoculturalism exposed the Nigerian economy to all manner of vulnerabilities. It led to the reconfiguration of social relations of production around the Nigerian state, which created unhealthy rivalry among the elite and between the elite and the people. The effect of this was the stagnation of the economy and the reversal of the trajectory of national growth and development. At the international arena, the international division of labour created inequality among countries.
The monocultural base of the Nigerian economy disarticulated its economy and constrained its inherent expansionary capacity. Contrarily, the robust economies the developed countries pulled the premium manpower of Nigeria.
Migration is a product of several internal and external causes ranging from reaction to economic downturns, political instability and repression, civil or tribal wars and so on in the labour-exporting country to favourable immigration policies, availability of jobs, conferment of citizenship status, and award of scholarship among others in the labour-receiving country.
The contradictions in domestic economies, inequality in the world system and differentials in the control of the global wealth dictate the trend of migration. For Nigeria, the complete picture of migration is that it is induced by the contradictions that characterise its economy, which are both internally- and externally-generated. In other words, internally, the surge in the number of Nigerian emigrants is locatable in the economic crisis that engulfed the country starting from the 1980s and the attendant IMF/World Bank pill of structural adjustment; and externally, by the nature of unequal exchange in the world capitalist system as well as the domestic policies of the developed countries.
Both the public choice theory and modern world system theory are apt to the study of the brain drain question and its impact on Nigeria’s development. They offer explanations to the identified underlying factors that fuel brain drain in Nigeria as well as the strategies to reverse it. They hold as important the economic conditions that stimulate the ordering of the political economy of Nigeria as well as relations within the global system. Therefore, in looking at Nigeria, these theories pay due attention to the economic conditions that connect it to the world economic system and helps us to understand why brain drain is occurring ( its domestic and international underpinnings); who is the ultimate beneficiary of brain drain syndrome; how brain drain relates to and shares the essential qualities of the exploitative capitalist onslaught of the slave trade era; and, why Nigeria and other countries of the peripheral states are made enclaves for the supply of knowledge in this era.
122 1.7 HYPOTHESES
This study has, as its major preoccupation, the task of testing the following hypotheses:
1) The sustained depletion of the stock of Nigeria’s health professionals through brain drain leads to inefficient healthcare delivery.
2) Domestic investment incentives tend to boost diaspora-led investments in the Nigerian economy.
3) The tighter regulation of the global regime of intellectual property rights is inhibitive of diaspora-led industrial investments towards technology transfer.