Today, with a number of changes taking place in the world, one thing has become a clear reality that countries have changed their policies and criterion because of increasing waves of international competition. Talent hunt on the international scale is something almost every single nation, especially the developed world, is conscious of. The competition to hunt talent for the local economy is so remarkable that countries like Germany, famous for its tradition phobia for immigration, have shown inclination to attract foreign people to their country.
Moreover, countries like China and Korea have started working in the same direction. Australia and Canada can be placed in the first row of the race, though. This hunt for talent has become very swift in the present times though it is not something new. According to David (2006) around 70% professionals working in science and engineering department of U. S. are natives of non-OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries. Additionally, a great portion of expatriate professionals that come to the OECD are from developing countries.
About half of the total students in OECD countries are from the developing world. It is estimated that almost in every 10 tertiary educated grown-ups, who was born in the developing world, was living in U. S. Australia, Canada, or Western Europe in the year 2001. As shown by studies of World Bank and IMF, there is high correlation between talented people with sound education and legal migration. The rate of legal educated migrants is 4% higher now than it was ten years ago (37% and 33% respectively).
Moreover, highly-skilled workers’ migration is another portion of the pie that is picked by the developed world. For examples, around 600,000 highly-skilled professionals work outside their native country, at any given moment, on temporary visas. The number of students (both men and women) studying at graduate and under-graduate level abroad has also almost doubled now (1. 6 million) as compared to 20 years ago. This is all because global climate for economic warfare has changed.
For example, according to World Bank’s development research group’s director L. Alan Winters, worldwide migration of people to the OECD countries is to life up overall welfare of the world. If these countries increase migration by 3%, the world welfare would grow by 150 billion dollars which would be a much better gain than removing all kinds of restrictions on trade activities; and highly skilled workers come in the most affective category of this increase in migration .
According to the author such terms as brain drain, war for talent should be discarded by the entire world because there is a more positive approach that the entire world can take of such programs as high-skilled migration (HSM), because by such programs all the countries can mutually benefit from exchange of knowledge. Although it is right that less developed countries are more at stake of loss by programs like HSM, the world should create an environment where positive-sum can benefit all.
What is a point of regression here to the present writer is that either is it the label of HSM or war for talent, one thing is quite clear that developed countries are attracting professionals to their lands for their own good. Then, I must ask, how is it possible to abandon such terms as represent the situation clearly? One more disagreement that I would raise here is that David (2006) has provided the current picture of what is happening in the world regarding talent, how, then, can it be rational to be only imagine that the more powerful countries would initiate efforts by which developing world can benefit?
Although this is right to bring ideas about how the world should be but staying away from reality is more dangerous. For example, the writer himself presents the case of Africa and Caribbean where educational system and health care have been hollowed out. Therefore, to me war of talent hold absolutely good in today’s context of globalization and should be referred to wherever necessary.