The concept of “brain drain” is in its origins a nationalistic concept, by which is meant a concept that visualizes economic and cultural welfare in terms of the welfare of the residents of a national state or region, viewed as a totality, and excludes from consideration both the welfare of people born in that region who choose to leave it, and the welfare of the outside world in general. Moreover, though the available statistics are far from adequate on this point, there is generally assumed to be a net flow of trained professional people from the former colonial territories to the ex-imperial European nations, and from Europe and elsewhere to North America and particularly the United States. The concept thus lends itself easily to the expression of anti-colonial sentiments on the one hand, and anti-American sentiments on the other. The expression of such sentiments can be dignified by the presentation of brain drain as a serious economic and cultural problem, by relying on nationalistic sentiments and assumptions and ignoring the principles of economics—especially the principle that in every transaction there is both a demand and a supply—or by elevating certain theoretical economic possibilities into presumed hard facts.

Historically, the intelligentsia—originally the clergy and later men of letters—played a significant role in the development of the Western world. Their importance derived from their function as the critics of society and guardians of its conscience. Institutionally, the intelligentsia were found in the churches and on the margins of society. Later, they moved to schools and colleges that subsequently developed into universities as we know them today. As a class, bureaucrats and technocrats—engineers, doctors, etc.—evolved much later. Their institutional role in society was to implement the ideas of the intelligentsia, particularly those ideas relating to the solidification of the nation-state and the creation of the wealth of the nation. Thus, the bureaucrats and technocrats were much closer to the nation and its historical development than the intelligentsia proper.

The phenomenon known as the “brain drain” refers to the permanent or long-term migration of educated or skilled individuals from one country to another, usually from a poor Third World nation to an industrialized Western country. However, it also describes the migration of such persons between developed countries, such as from Canada to the United States and within countries, notably from impoverished rural areas to urban areas.

The phenomenon popularly known as brain drain has attracted growing concern in the United States and abroad (Tulsa Daily World, 1967; Committee on Manpower... 1967; Asian Student, 1968a: 3; 1968b: 1; 1969: 3; Institute of Applied Manpower . . . 1968; U. S. Congress, 1968; Gardiner, 1968: 194-202; Bechhofer, 1969: 1-71; Committee on the International Migration . . . 1970). The notion has been expressed that the poor countries of the world are being deprived of their talent and robbed of their human resources by the exchange of scholars and students which goes on between nations (U.S. Congress, 1968: 16-25; Mondale, 1967a: 24-6; 1967b: 67-9). Implicit is the idea that many students from these less developed countries go to the more highly developed and industrialized countries for study and decide not to return to their homeland.

The purpose of this study was to ascertain if any relationship exists between ethnic membership and the brain drain, defined as expatriation or indefinite delay of return. It was hypothesized generally that such a relationship exists and that the Nigerian subjects of the study would differentiate themselves markedly on the questionnaire items based on their ethnic group membership. Specifically, it was hypothesized that Igbo respondents would be the least disposed to early return to Nigeria.

This paper discusses the complex issue of compensation payments in the brain drain as it relates to the Rhodesia/ Zimbabwe-Canada axis. It examines the available immigration figures and focuses on the circumstances and method of payment. In the contexts of the need for compensation and the numerous issues and complications in implementing such a scheme, the paper also discusses the brain drain income tax and the proposed international fund to be set up by Western governments to help facilitate the transition to majority rule in Zimbabwe. Discussion of the issue is timely because many professionals have already emigrated to Canada from Rhodesia owing to the prolonged and increasingly bloody liberation struggle, and many more may leave because of apprehension about the forthcoming Zimbabwean independence. Although most of the immigrants are likely to be whites, they could also include Asians, coloreds (persons of mixed color), and possibly Africans as well.

The term, “brain drain,” has been controversial ever since the Royal Society (1963) coined it to refer to the emigration of British scientists to the United States and Canada. The ensuing debate has produced two schools of thought. The nationalists, such as Patinkin (1968) who assume that the brain drain is dysfunctional to nation-states and who more or less view the talented individual as a property of a nation-state, have found sympathetic audiences in most of the developing countries and also among the altruistic moralists of the developed world. The moralists are concerned with the propriety and logic of the recipient countries accepting brains from the underdeveloped while at the same time granting them foreign aid. In response, the internationalists, such as Johnson (1968), who assume that the brain drain is functional to the pervasive trend towards closer integration of world economy and community and who more or less view the talented individual as a commodity in the international rather than the national market, have also found an equally sympathetic audience, especially among the drainees themselves. Being even more underdeveloped than the other developing areas, Africa is seen by the moralists as an ideal example of the follies of the brain drain.

The term, “technology,” as used here, refers basically to: (1) the science or art of devising tools and instruments and how to use them; (2) the development of new materials and substances and their application; (3) the development of machines to supplement or replace human effort, where desirable and feasible; (4) the development of energy and power resources for running the machines; and (5) the development of efficient methods of doing work—that is, using tools, machines, and instruments. From an observation of human efforts throughout the world, it is clear that every human society is concerned with technology, for it is a proven means by which man has extended his power beyond his physical capacity and gained some control over his environment. Although technology exists in every society, it is the amount and quality of the technology that separates nations today on a scale of economic development. Whilst the developing, technologically backward countries of Africa constantly face the basic human needs of food, shelter, and clothing, the developed nations consume and enjoy a disproportionate amount of the world’s resources and wealth by reason of their technological advancement.