Brain-drain reality check: Fighting the wrong battle

How institutional misunderstanding of professional migration undermines effective policy responses

- C. A. Saliya

At recent forums, heads of Sri Lanka's major research institutions and the Secretary of the Ministry of Science and Technology have sounded urgent alarms about the country's "brain drain crisis.

Their diagnosis: Professional migration is devastating the economy. Their prescription: More research grants and making Sri Lanka "more conducive" to retain talent.

But this institutional narrative crumbles when confronted with empirical evidence and the actual motivations driving professional migration. The result is policy myopia; a shortsighted approach to policymaking, where decision-makers focus on immediate or short-term goals without adequately considering long-term consequences, broader systemic impacts, or the complexity of the issues involved. This approach not only misses the real dynamics at play but forecloses strategic opportunities that countries like India, China, and Ireland have successfully exploited.

What the Data Actually Shows

Recent econometric research (a working paper) analysing 25 years of Sri Lankan migration data (1999-2023) reveals a striking paradox (Figure 1). This finding aligns with several global evidence which consistently shows that the macroeconomic consequences of skilled migration are modest and highly context-dependent.

The reason? Remittance flows and diaspora contributions systematically offset productivity losses. In 2023, Sri Lankan migrants remitted nearly USD 6 billion—a figure that dwarfs calculated productivity losses from professional emigration.

The Real Migration Drivers

The institutional claim that professionals migrate because Sri Lanka is "not conducive" collapses when confronted with actual migrant motivations revealed through systematic interviews:

Educational Investment