Brain Drain vs Remittances
Brain Drain and Remittances are two International & Development Economics concepts in AP Economics that students often mix up. Brain drain is the emigration of a country's highly skilled workers, such as doctors and engineers, to countries offering better pay and conditions. Remittances are the money migrant workers send back to households in their home country, recorded as transfers in the current account. Here is how they compare side by side.
The sending country loses human capital it often paid to build, since medical and engineering training is heavily subsidized in most places, and the loss concentrates in exactly the professions that are thin on the ground: physicians, nurses, teachers, engineers. Health systems in parts of sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean have been hit hardest, training staff who then take posts in higher-income countries. The picture is not one-sided. Emigrants send remittances, some return with skills and capital, diaspora networks open trade and investment channels, and the prospect of working abroad pushes more young people to finish demanding degrees than otherwise would, an effect sometimes called brain gain. Whether the net effect is negative depends on how many leave, whether they return, and how badly the skill was needed at home.
For many low and middle-income countries remittances are one of the largest inflows of foreign currency, typically larger than foreign aid and in many years larger than foreign direct investment. They behave differently from those flows: aid is negotiated between governments and investment chases returns, while remittances come from a relative and tend to hold up or even rise when the recipient country hits a recession, a disaster or a currency collapse. Because the money goes straight to families, it mostly funds food, housing, schooling and health rather than public projects. Transfer fees take a real bite, especially on small transfers along thin corridors. In the balance of payments they are a current account credit, not a financial account item, because nothing is lent or owned in return.
Brain Drain vs Remittances: Two Sides of the Same Migration
| Brain drain | Remittances | |
|---|---|---|
| What crosses the border | Trained people leaving | Money coming back |
| Sign for the home country | A cost, in lost skills and lost public training spending | A benefit, in household income and foreign currency |
| Where it shows up in the accounts | Nowhere, since no account records human capital walking out | The current account, as transfers |
| Who feels it | Patients, students and firms that needed those skills | The migrant's own household, first and directly |
| How long it lasts | Permanent if the migrant settles, unless they return | Continues while the migrant works abroad, and often fades once families reunite |
| Effect on the exchange rate | Little direct effect | A steady inflow of foreign currency that tends to push the rate up |
| Policy response | Better pay and conditions, service periods, training more people, recruiting the diaspora back | Cheaper transfer channels, bank accounts for recipients, matched savings schemes |
The money can repay the training bill and still leave a hole
Put numbers on the case that gets argued about most. An illustrative country trains doctors in public medical schools at $10,000 a year for six years, so $60,000 each. Of 1,000 doctors qualifying in a year, 200 leave to work abroad. The public money spent on the ones who left is 200 times $60,000, which is $12 million. Now the other side of the ledger. Suppose each of those 200 sends home $8,000 a year, so $1.6 million arrives annually. On a pure cash basis the training bill is recovered in seven and a half years, and after that the country is ahead in money terms. The cash accounting is also the wrong accounting. What the country lost was 200 doctors' worth of consultations, surgery and teaching, and no amount of transferred money treats a patient in a rural clinic. Transfers relieve a household budget; a shortage of doctors is a shortage of a service. That is why the argument rarely settles: both effects are real, they are not measured in the same units, and they land on different people, since the money reaches migrant families while the missing doctors are missed by everyone who needed one. Only one of the two appears in the ledger described at /glossary/balance-of-payments, which is part of why it dominates the debate.
Whether emigration drains a country depends on what happens next
The word drain assumes those people would otherwise have stayed and worked at home, and that assumption is worth testing. Where emigration is possible, more people train than otherwise would, because a nursing or engineering qualification is worth more when it can be used in two labor markets, and not everyone who trains ends up leaving. Some who do leave come back, with savings, contacts and skills they could not have picked up at home. Diaspora communities also steer trade and investment toward their country of origin, one of the quieter sources of the flows discussed at /glossary/foreign-direct-investment-fdi. Against that, the loss falls hardest where replacement is slowest: doctors, nurses and specialist teachers, trained largely at public expense, in countries with few to spare and with richer countries recruiting them directly. Two conditions decide which way the balance tips. The first is whether the home country has the jobs, equipment and pay to use those skills when people want to return, because a surgeon with nowhere to operate does not come back. The second is who paid for the training, since a publicly funded degree that produces a taxpayer in another country is a straight transfer from a poorer economy to a richer one.
Frequently asked questions
Do remittances make up for brain drain?
Partly, and only in money terms. Transfers can exceed the public cost of training the people who left, but they cannot replace the services those workers would have provided, and they arrive at migrants' own families rather than at the hospitals and schools that lost the staff.
What is the difference between brain drain and remittances?
Brain drain is the loss of skilled workers when they emigrate, and remittances are the money those same workers send home afterwards. One is a loss of human capital that no national account records, and the other is a measured inflow of foreign currency recorded in the current account.
Why do rich countries end up with the trained workers?
Because pay, equipment, career paths and working conditions are usually better there, and many high income countries recruit health and technical staff directly to fill their own shortages. The training was often funded by the country of origin, which is why the movement is described as a transfer from poorer economies to richer ones.
Live Exchange Rates graph. Drag the curves, or open the full version.
Get AP Econ exam tips in your inbox
Occasional emails with study tips, new interactive graphs, and exam-season reminders. Free, no spam.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. Read our privacy policy.
Keep track of what you have studied
A free EconLearn account adds progress tracking, your quiz history, and achievements. Studying here is free either way, and there is nothing to pay for as a student.
Create a free accountAlready have one? Sign in
Last updated