brain drain

Long queues of would-be emigrants continue to form outside the passport offices in Pakistan as an increasing number of Pakistanis are seeking to go abroad in pursuit of a brighter tomorrow. Official records suggest that more than 0.8 million people migrated out of Pakistan in 2022 for better economic prospects. This reflects a dismal state of affairs in the country, as migration is not an easy choice. Leaving one’s family and native land is a decision that comes with enormous personal cost for many and can only be justified if the reward appears greater than the cost.

Notably, among the recent migrants, 90,000 were professionals, such as doctors, accountants, Information Technology experts, and engineers. These numbers could well be similar or even higher in 2023 as political instability and economic uncertainty persist in the country. This raises an age-old question – what impact will this external migration of highly qualified (HQ) people have on Pakistan’s development, especially since previous data also indicates that this outflow of manpower has been increasing over the recent past.

Conventional wisdom provides two divergent views. Employing the first lens, departure of HQ citizens would deprive Pakistan of human capital that could contribute to technological development and national productivity growth. It would also lay waste the substantial proportion of public investment devoted to imparting education and skills to them. Additionally, the government would lose tax revenues as well as both quantity and quality of services needed to guarantee the population’s basic needs in education and health.

The alternative viewpoint would suggest that HQ emigrants could help boost domestic development through higher remittances, transfer of technology and scientific knowledge, and utilising the additional skills acquired from abroad if they were to return to the country. They could also bring in investment in education and facilitate the establishment of business and economic connections between their host countries and Pakistan.

However, most studies indicate that return migration, remittances, or other ways highly-skilled migrants contribute to their home country’s economy cannot compensate for the losses generated by their migration abroad. Research suggests that remittances decline with an increase in migrants’ level of education. This could be because educated migrants tend to come from wealthier families, spend a long time abroad, and are likely to bring families along or re-unite with them in the host country. As for scientific research, the majority of HQ migrants from developing countries engage in areas that are aligned with the market needs of the developed countries rather than ones that could benefit all at the international level. Data on return migration is generally limited, but some evidence has suggested that the incidence of highly skilled migrants’ return is low.

It is, thus, imperative that Pakistan take decisive action to prevent the external migration of professionals and reverse the effects of the talent outflow that has already occurred. A synthesis report by the International Labour Organization categorises possible policy responses into six categories: restriction of international mobility to foreign workers and own nationals; recruitment of international migrants; repatriation for the loss of human capital (compensation); resourcing expatriates, return of migrants to their homeland; and retention through economic development and education sector policies.

It is unjust to argue in favour of restricting international mobility as this would violate a fundamental human right, i.e., the right to leave one’s countryRecruitment of international migrants is easier said than done, especially for countries like Pakistan, which frequently suffer from an unfavourable security, economic, and political climate. It is also questionable if international migrants can be the perfect substitutes for nationals in terms of their dedication and enthusiasm to serve the country. Repatriation for the loss of human capital is unjustified as many migrants may have wanted to live in Pakistan but did not have their wants or needs fulfilled in the country and had to take the hard step of leaving their native land. On the other hand, resourcing expatriates, i.e., benefitting from them through transfer of financial remittances or knowledge, etc., is an option that should always remain open, and the state and private sector must continue to invest in policies that facilitate migrants in contributing to Pakistan’s development. However, as research suggests, it may not fully compensate for the losses generated by the outflow of HQ professionals. The sustainability of such a policy is also a matter of debate. For example, resourcing expatriates may become extremely challenging if more and more migrant families become integrated into their host societies.

The best policy option then is retention and return, i.e., creating an environment that motivates people to remain in or return to the home country, which the government is also ethically obligated to support. Unless prompt action is taken, Pakistan will continue to witness an exodus of its talented workforce, on whom it has made significant investments and whose loss it cannot afford.

Zahra Niazi is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. She can be reached at [email protected].

Image Design: Mysha Dua Salman


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »