Brain Drain-Induced Brain Gain and the Bhagwati Tax: Are Early and Recent Paradigms Compatible?

M. Schiff
{"title":"Brain Drain-Induced Brain Gain and the Bhagwati Tax: Are Early and Recent Paradigms Compatible?","authors":"M. Schiff","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3193305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Based on a welfare-maximization model of skilled migration where education generates a positive externality, this paper examines whether the early view regarding brain drain's (BD) negative impact on source countries and the Bhagwati tax (BT) associated with it, is compatible with the recent more optimistic BD-induced brain gain view. I derive BD's impact on education, welfare, optimal education subsidy (s), and a combination of s and BT, when residents' (emigrants') weight in the government's objective function is 1 (1 − β), with β e [0,1]. I find that: i) education, welfare and s are higher (lower) under an open than under a closed economy for 1 − β larger (smaller) than the ratio of source-country to host-country income; ii) s and BT are 'policy complements,' i.e., they are positively related; and iii) BT increases with β and reaches a maximum at β = 1. Two implications and a proposal are: a) The early literature focused on resident – rather than on migrant – welfare (the β = 1 case), which is precisely where the optimal BT is largest; b) A second policy instrument should be useful, especially if there are constraints on making changes in the other one. Thus, as opening up the economy implies a lower s, raising BT should be beneficial if, say, parents' and teachers' organizations make it politically difficult if not impossible to reduce s; c) A proposal for collecting the tax is presented.","PeriodicalId":346996,"journal":{"name":"International Political Economy: Migration eJournal","volume":"81 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Political Economy: Migration eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3193305","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Based on a welfare-maximization model of skilled migration where education generates a positive externality, this paper examines whether the early view regarding brain drain's (BD) negative impact on source countries and the Bhagwati tax (BT) associated with it, is compatible with the recent more optimistic BD-induced brain gain view. I derive BD's impact on education, welfare, optimal education subsidy (s), and a combination of s and BT, when residents' (emigrants') weight in the government's objective function is 1 (1 − β), with β e [0,1]. I find that: i) education, welfare and s are higher (lower) under an open than under a closed economy for 1 − β larger (smaller) than the ratio of source-country to host-country income; ii) s and BT are 'policy complements,' i.e., they are positively related; and iii) BT increases with β and reaches a maximum at β = 1. Two implications and a proposal are: a) The early literature focused on resident – rather than on migrant – welfare (the β = 1 case), which is precisely where the optimal BT is largest; b) A second policy instrument should be useful, especially if there are constraints on making changes in the other one. Thus, as opening up the economy implies a lower s, raising BT should be beneficial if, say, parents' and teachers' organizations make it politically difficult if not impossible to reduce s; c) A proposal for collecting the tax is presented.
人才流失导致的人才获得和巴格瓦蒂税:早期和最近的范式兼容吗?
基于教育产生正外部性的技术移民福利最大化模型,本文检验了早期关于人才流失(BD)对来源国的负面影响以及与之相关的巴格瓦蒂税(BT)的观点是否与最近更为乐观的人才流失导致的人才获得观点相一致。当居民(移民)在政府目标函数中的权重为1(1−β),其中β e[0,1]时,推导出移民对教育、福利、最优教育补贴(s)的影响,以及s和BT的组合。我发现:I)开放经济下的教育、福利和福利比封闭经济下的高(低),比来源国与东道国收入之比大(小)1 - β;ii) s和BT是“政策互补”,即它们呈正相关;(3) BT随β的增大而增大,在β = 1时达到最大值。两个含义和建议是:a)早期文献关注的是居民福利,而不是移民福利(β = 1的情况下),这正是最优BT最大的地方;b)第二种政策工具应该是有用的,特别是在改变另一种政策工具受到限制的情况下。因此,由于开放经济意味着更低的压力,如果家长和教师组织使减少压力在政治上变得困难(如果不是不可能的话),提高压力应该是有益的;c)提出了征税的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信