More than 3 percent of all people live outside the country of their birth, but while the share of migrants in the world’s population has remained mostly stable for six decades, its composition has changed.
The share of high-skilled migrants relative to low-skilled migrants has grown dramatically, owing to the globalization of demand for talent.
This development has a clear geographic dimension.
Nearly 75 percent of all high-skilled migrants reside in the US, the UK, Canada or Australia, while more than 70 percent of software engineers in California’s Silicon Valley are foreign-born.
However, today’s leaders could well be tomorrow’s laggards.
Many factors are driving the shift in the composition of migration flows, including the Fourth Industrial Revolution, declining transportation and communication costs — high-skilled migrants tend to travel farther to their destination countries than do less-skilled migrants — and limited educational opportunities in source countries.
However, the main cause is the growing recognition that human capital plays a key role in today’s knowledge economy.
A worldwide “war for talent” is being waged, and enterprises that manage their global talent pool well are marching ahead.
Most multinational corporations now insist that high-potential executives gain global experience by working in other countries and they have made international mobility a prerequisite for senior leadership positions.
Some of the global economy’s most familiar players — including Google, Microsoft, Alcoa, Clorox, Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Pepsi and Pfizer — have immigrant CEOs.
However, demographics also play a key role in global migration trends. Whereas most of the developed world is aging, many developing countries have a growing share of young people.
In India, there are four 20-year-olds for every 65-year-old; in western Europe, that ratio is one-to-one. At the same time, average earnings in high-income countries are 70 times higher than in low-income countries. Combined, these demographic and wage differentials have become a strong impetus for migration.
Although the global talent race initially led developed countries to create special visas to attract high-skilled professionals, political sentiment toward migrants in those countries has since turned negative.
Migration has come to be seen as a threat to native workers in host countries, even though empirical evidence shows that its labor-displacement effect is very small.
In Silicon Valley, for example, immigration has not led to a decline in wages or the return on skills.
Migrants’ adverse effect on a host country’s public finances is also very limited. Migrants may initially impose a net cost on their host society, but it is small and more short-lived than the cost of schooling a newborn native.
More important, highly educated immigrants have actually contributed positively to public finances in developed countries, because these workers pay more in taxes than they use in public goods and services.
Global talent mobility is also beneficial for source countries, because it helps to integrate them into world markets. This makes up for some of the shortcomings that firms in developing countries face as a result of lower public investment, inadequate training and equipment, and scarce financial resources to purchase technology licenses or intellectual property.
To be sure, emigration is not an optimal long-term method for improving productivity in a knowledge economy; but it does accelerate technological diffusion in the short run.
Another potent force for global economic integration and exchange is the Internet, which some have come to view as a substitute for global mobility.
However, while the Internet does allow for some forms of labor to be provided at a distance, it has not displaced diaspora networks.
Although information and communications technology has reduced the importance of traditional diaspora connections, innovations have also been complemented by these connections.
For example, the exchange of knowledge and technology through India’s links with its diaspora has allowed it to leap-frog over traditional development stages.
All told, the world has benefited enormously from increased global trade and capital mobility. Now, it is time to reap the benefits of talent mobility.
Unlike trade and finance/capital, migration remains highly restricted, even though economic growth depends in large part on the availability of employment opportunities and higher returns on labor, which in turn require mobility, both globally and nationally.
Policymakers have many tools to improve global talent mobility. The multifaceted nature of the issue calls for more partnerships between the public and private sector.
Firms and universities are the frontline participants in the global talent race, but global-governance organizations, multilateral development banks, and civil-society groups also have key roles to play.
So, too, does technology, which now allows for virtual talent mobility through video conferencing, digital platforms, online labor exchanges, and other applications.
The global talent race will continue to accelerate as countries and businesses compete for the best and brightest. Middle-income non-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries — particularly China and India — are becoming an increasingly important destination for high-skilled labor.
As these countries grow, the global economic clout of the advanced economies will continue to diminish. The race is on.
Ejaz Ghani is the lead economist at the World Bank.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS