E. Ike Udogu*
Abstract
This study does not pretend to discuss empirically the complex discourses on the pros and cons of development theory with respect to the developed and developing nations. The analyses on development, human capital and dependency theories in this essay were intended to provide the backdrop from which to appreciate the debates regarding the “negative” impact of the immigration and migration of African intelligentsia on African development in general. In essence, the centrality of this disquisition relates to the question of how African professionals leaving the continent in droves for “better” pastures outside the continent could be encouraged to return. It is within this context, therefore, that the essay suggests ways that this process might be furthered.
Keywords: 1. Development, 2. Immigration, 3. Africa, 4. Intelligentsia, 5. Brain Drain.
Introduction
This essay focuses upon discourse on the relationship between African development and the migration and immigration of the intelligentsia out of the continent. To this end, it is germane to our argument that if African social, political, and economic development is to improve substantially in the new millennium, policy makers must craft regimes that are likely to cause the steady reversal of the brain drain that has stifled the development of the region. It is hoped that as African leaders work to create an enabling condition for their citizens’ socio-economic growth, African professionals would be less likely to migrate out of their primordial homes in search of greener pastures in other world regions.
Increasingly, the rationale for the migration of many of the best and brightest professionals that Africa has produced is arguably attributable to the underdevelopment in the continent. As a consequence of this assumption, we intend to examine the issue of development—its theoretical imputations and how the slow process of development might have affected the immigration of Africans—particularly members of the literati to the West. Suffice it to say that although the issue of development remains the independent variable, our chief concern rests on how this variable impact on migration our dependent variable. But most importantly, we are interested in ways that the migration patterns could be slowed down (for the benefit of Africa) despite the pressures of the contemporary globalization process. So, what is development?
The definition and explication of what “development” is may vary from society to society and among students of development. Therefore, it might be necessary to contextualize the definition of the term. Some scholars use development and growth synonymously and also apply such words as social change, advancement and modernization when referring to development in underdeveloped or developing areas (Machlup, 1970, Agbo, 2003, p. 2)
Broadly defined, the concept development is said to be “a social condition within a nation-sate, in which the authentic needs of its population are satisfied by the rational and sustainable use of natural resources and systems. This utilization of natural resources should be based on technology that respects the cultural specificities of a given country. This general definition of development includes the specification that social groups have access to organizations, basic services such as education, housing, health services, and nutrition, and above all else, that their cultures and traditions are respected within the social framework of a particular country (Reyes, nd, p. 1)”. Development is also defined as “significant and measurable economic growth and the emergence of social, economic, and political institutions. The emphasis on economic growth leads some political scientists and economists, others to equate development with industrialization (Payne and Nassar, 2003, p. 124)”. Further, the term development refers to a sequence of economic growth of the nations of the Third World (Huq, 1975). Luiz Bresser Pereira (1984, p. 5) defined development rather holistically as a process of economic, political, and social transformation through which the rise in the population’s standard of living becomes automatic and autonomous. Indeed, it is a total social process in which the economic, political and social structures of a country undergo continual and profound transformation and a historical process that occurs through stages and eventually becomes self-sustaining (Pereira, 1984, p. 6). David E. Apter (1965, p. 67), in discussing the overlapping characteristics of development, modernization, and industrialization, defined development as resulting from the proliferation and integration of functional roles in the community. He further inferred that industrialization, a special form of modernization, may be defined as the period in a society in which the strategic functional roles are related to manufacturing. Also, during the declaration of the Second UN Development Decade on January 1, 1971, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed that the following elements are fundamental to development:
* A minimum standard of living compatible with human dignity
* Underpinned improvement of the well-being of the individual
* Sharing of benefits by society at large
* More equitable distribution of wealth and income
* A greater degree of income security and
* The safeguard of the environment (United Nations, 1971).
From the preceding it is clear that development is multi-faceted and therefore cannot be measured only by using economic growth indicators (Myrdal, 1972). Thus, as a concept, development applies to a condition of wellbeing for the entire society—that is to say a society that provides its citizens with sufficient enablements for their daily survival (Udogu, 2003, pp. 119-120; Human Development Report 2000, pp. 6-13).
Theoretically, development is analyzed by several theories, viz. modernization, dependency, world-system, globalization, human capital, et cetera (Reyes nd, p. 1, Agbo, 2003, p. 3; Lewellen, 1995, pp. 49-70). Theories are, generally, suppositions that should provide the researcher with certain guidelines to follow in an investigation. Put differently, a “theory is a systematic attempt to define the underlying structures and the causal relations among a multitude of data. It should, therefore, allow a degree of prediction, and it should permit us to explain new facts and fit those facts within [a] model. A theory is usually postulated at such a high level of abstraction that it is not [always] directly testable. In order to test the theory, we [may] need to break it into specific hypotheses (Lewellen, 1995, p. 49)”. Payne and Nassar (2003, p. 130) contend that “the general purpose of a theory is to describe, explain, and predict how humans behave or how things work in the ‘real world’ under specific circumstances. A theory, [therefore], is an orderly, logical, integrated set of ideas or statements regarding the natural environment, human behavior and so on”.
The above theories (modernization, dependency, world system, globalization and human capital) are somewhat syllogistic in that they interlace and inter-relate with each other such that a combination of two or more theories might be necessary to explain a phenomenon. In a way, theories are likely to provide the tools with which to examine the issue of development and the immigration of African intelligentsia—specifically how the latter may affect the former in the African context.
In my view, it is important not to complicate or problematize the inquiry by discussing the virtues or lack thereof of all the afore-mentioned theories in this study. Therefore, I shall briefly examine some of these theories—modernization, dependency and human capital theories. The need for parsimony flows from the fact that these topics have been profoundly discussed in the literature (Chilcote, 1984) and it is not our intention to rehash the voluminous works produced by students of development. Be that as it may, our discussion here will be done for the purpose of later linking them to discourse on the roles that can be played by Africa’s professionals in the Diaspora in reversing the underdevelopment in the continent.
Modernization Theory
Some scholars have contended that there were three historic events that led to the emergence of the modernization theory of development after WWII. First, the rise of the United States as a world power following the demise of Britain, France and Germany after that war, and the subsequent implementation of the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Western Europe (So, 1991, pp. 17-23). Second, there was the rise and spread of the world communist movement and the Soviet Union’s hegemonic power in Eastern Europe, China and Korea. Third, there was the collapse of the European empire in Asia, Africa and Latin America, which led to the independence of many nation-states in the Third World. These newly emergent countries soon after their freedom, were in search of a model of development, that could enhance both national economy and political independence (Chirot, 1993, pp. 32-34; Reyes, nd, p. 1). Modernization theory was also the dominant scholarly response to nation-building and institution building after 1945. The thrust was basically for the former colonialists to demonstrate that if only the newly independent countries could mimic the Western political and economic strategies, they could become modern (Harrison, 1988).
Generally, the interest in modernization theory has its roots in the 1960s and the works of such scholars as David McClelland (1961) who attempted to explain the relationship between societies and technological advancement. The crux of his argument was that some societies were more advanced than others because of the cultural and personality traits of the political actors and citizens. Indeed, for developing nations and societies in general, modernization was possible if citizens in acquired modern values. Inkeles and Smith (1974) agreed and argued that to modernize was to develop and that a polity could not develop until a majority of the society’s population imbibed modern values. Moreover, modernization is contagious and irreversible, for once started it could not be stopped. Put another way, once developing nations came in contact with modern societies—Europe and North America, for instance, they would not be able to resist the push toward modernization (Tips 1976, pp. 65-77). In all societies, modernization is progressive and desirable because in the long run, modernized polities have a higher propensity for dealing with the functions of national identity, legitimacy, participation and distribution of resources than traditional political systems.
In fact, the fundamental arguments underscoring the modernization theory is that there is direct causal interlacement between five dimensions in the process of modernization, namely, modernizing institutions, modern values, modern behavior, modern society, and economic development (Fagerlind and Saha, 1989). But Walt W. Rustow in one of his pioneering works examined the issue of modernization from an economic point of view by providing five important stages of economic growth that could lead to development. These are:
· The traditional society. This is an agrarian-dependent society with inadequate access to science and technology. In such a society, religion, customs, and natural laws determine the mode of production and distribution. Economic activities lack diversification. Arrangements are based on social hierarchy and clan affiliations, and nepotism plays a greater role in the management of community affairs. Political power generally rests with landowners who wield remarkable authority over the entire society.
· The pre-conditions for take off. This period marks a transition to modernity. Developing societies become conscious of the need for advancement. The society in this period introduces innovations in education. It also develops infrastructure such as banks, and other economic establishments for capital mobilization, encourages investment, broadens the scope of commerce internally and externally and finally, encourages the establishment of modern manufacturing industries.
· The take-of stage. It represents the most crucial of the development processes. This is the period of rapid and technological growth.
· The drive to maturity stage. This is a period of long sustained growth. It is a period when society modernizes all economic activities through technology.
· The age of high mass consumption. This stage is at the apex of the development process. It is characterized by economic growth when society moves toward demanding durable consumer goods and services (Rustow, 1990; Agbo, 2003, p. 3; Lewellen, 1995, pp. 55-56).
This model suggests that the development process is sequential and that in order for traditional societies in Africa particularly, and the Third World in general to develop, they will have to alter their current economic policies, values and social organization to meet the challenges of development and modernization.
Dependency theory
Some scholars suggest that the works of Karl Marx inspired the works of some of the dependency theorists (Martinussen, 1997, pp. 85- 100; Lewellen, 1995, p. 52). Indeed, his essays on the exploitation of the working class by the bourgeoisie in a capitalist system provide the superstructure of this theory. Lenin’s later treatise on imperialism augmented and lubricated the studies on dependency. While this theory gained currency in the analyses of economic development in Latin America, it also has had some allure among students of African development. To some extent, dependency theorists, generally reject modernization theory that opines that development would be furthered only if developing nations exposed themselves to the modern values of the advanced industrialized societies. In fact, they contend that poverty in the developing nations was conditioned by their weak position in the international division of labor as a result of the economic, political and social dominance of the advanced societies—particularly Western Europe. The advanced societies simply exploited the underdeveloped nations (Head, 1991). Raul Prebisch, one of the structuralist precursors of dependency theory agrees, and argues that the international economic system works against the interests of countries that produced raw materials (the developing nations) and in favor of those that produced finished goods—i.e., the industrialized societies (see Reyes, nd., pp. 3-4, Payne and Nassar, 2003, p. 133).
Andre Gunder Frank (1972; Martinussen, 1997, p. 88), one of the most recognized scholars of dependency theory in the North American academy, argued that the persistent poverty in the developing nations flowed from the fact that merchants and colonial powers pressured Third World nations to produce primary products to satisfy the industrial taste of the imperial powers. He also contended that the only way for Third World nations to break free from the over exploitative ties of dependency within the capitalist world economy was for them to de link from it because their participation in the world economy inevitably causes as well as reinforces ties of dependency such that while the core countries develop, the countries of the periphery are underdeveloped.
Human Capacity Theory
The basic hypothesis is that all things being equal, societies with highly educated population will develop (Schultz, 1961; Becker 1964). Human capital theorists contend that “improved technology leads to greater production and employees acquire the skills for the use of technology through formal education. Thus, when societies invest in education, they do so to increase the productivity of the population, and a priori, improve the chances for development” (Agbo, 2003, p. 3). Moreover, education increases choices that can be made by individuals seeking to improve themselves and create conditions in which they could serve the society. Thus, education provides the labor force needed for industrial development and economic growth. Apter noted that human capital or social capital is more important for modernity than the existence or acquisition of natural resources alone (1965, p. 69).
Some studies have suggested the linkage between education and economic levels of development in different societies. For example, Schultz (1981) found that improved farm technology led to the cultivation of less acreage for more agricultural productivity, thus allowing more citizens to pursue other productive vocations. He stressed the importance of nurturing the citizens in poor societies through appropriate education in order to improve the economic conditions in the developing, as well as the underdeveloped nations. Moreover, Agbo notes that:
The modernization and human capital theories have been major guiding principles for educational expansion in both the developed and developing nations….Modernization theory, like human capital theory, attributes the basis of underdevelopment or economic decline to elements within the countries themselves rather than elements outside the countries. … Both theories are in agreement with the ideologies of democracy and liberalism found in most Western countries. [In fact], in most developing countries, one could notice ideas of modernization and human capital theories influencing post-independent governments to rapidly expand education in order to enhance national development (Agbo, 2003, p. 7).
It is a given that these theories are not without their critics. In fact, some of them have been demonstrated to be inadequate by Third World histories and cultural specificities. But criticisms of these theories by no means imply that they are useless. Indeed, they can serve as analytical models for present and future research analyses on development. In truth, predictions regarding the probability of development, stagnation or underdevelopment have yet to be well tested and retested. In this way, categories and concepts from “grand theories” that identify the internal and external conditions for development could then become useful (Schuster, nd., pp. 1-3). For now, at least, these theories remain heuristic in the African context.
Be that as it may, if elements of these theories—i.e. modernization, dependency, human capital and so on are to be relevant to Africa, it is our contention that it will take some of the best minds that Africa has produced to “reconfigure” or use these theories based on the historicity, specificity and situationism of an African nation-state to “reorder” the development process in Africa.
The Immigration of African Intelligentsia
The preceding discussion is informed by the assumption that the development enterprise in Africa may be furthered if African governments could curb the steady flow out of the continent of some of Africa’s best minds. Indeed, having taken cognizance of the continent’s decline and the continued peripheralization of the area economically (Nyang’oro, 1989, pp. 1-28), the UN in 1986 devoted the entire thirteenth special session to the strategy to safeguard Africa’s economic survival (UN General Assembly, 1986). The rationale for this action stemmed from the realization that Africa’s economic underdevelopment had its roots in the continent’s colonial history and that, unless solutions were proffered, the negative effects could be of global proportions, including the migration of Africans from their ancestral homes, brain drain, and debt burden (Udogu, 1997, p. 190).
The immigration of Africans to the Western world is not a recent phenomenon. After all, the slave trade of the 16th century which witnessed the forced transplantation of Africans from the continent to the new world and elsewhere arguably marked a major genesis in the migration of African intelligentsia (Okpewho, 1999, Okome, 2003, 4). The contemporary exodus of African intelligentsia to the West and elsewhere is alarming and if major efforts are not made to ameliorate this flow, further development in the continent could be greatly curtailed. This remains one of the central theses of the disquisition.
Okome (2003, 6-11), Takougang (2003, 2-7), Odunsi (1996, 194-196) have provided a litany of causes or reasons why the African intelligentsia migrate to wealthier countries. The rationales for migration include, but are not limited to, political instability, economic and social distemper caused by the structural adjustment regimes, civil wars, antinomies of globalization, African government policies, decaying institutions of higher learning, et cetera.
A number of theories have been propounded to explicate the reasons for the migration of peoples from one society to another. Some scholars have attributed the migration of the intelligentsia to economic advantages and better opportunities in the host countries (USA, UK, France, Canada, Australia, etc). On the other hand, other scholars have pointed to the deteriorating politico-social environment in the home state as important variables in the immigration patterns (Odunsi, 1996, p. 195). Some earlier studies identify different professional migratory patterns. For example, the migration of professionals from developed country to developed country (e.g., Britain to the United States), from developed country to developing nation-state (e.g., France to Ivory Coast), developing country to developing country (e.g., Sierra Leone to Nigeria), from developing nation-state to developed country (e.g., Nigeria to the United States) (Logan 1987, pp. 597-612). Indeed, the fourth dimension is what the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) once referred to as reverse transfer of technology (Odunsi, 1996, p. 195). In the end, and as a consequence of such transfer of highly skilled Africans to the developed nations, development (in all of its forms and manifestations) in Africa suffers.
In any case, a more salient theoretical framework traditionally used to explain this migration phenomenon is termed push and pull. In brief, the stimuli for immigration under the pull factor are: the enhanced opportunities for prospective migrants, i.e., opportunity for higher income, improved or better standard of living, healthy and productive working environment, improved or better research facilities, and opportunity for professional growth and development (Odunsi, 1996, p. 195).
On the other hand, a society may experience an outflow or push effect of its professionals within the following context:
· Saturated economic environment;
· Inability to absorb available manpower, and
· Political instability and stalemate in the home country.
Some important factors instigating the push effect, it has been suggested, are: pessimism about future prospects for professional development and employment, underemployment of professionals, economic hardship, intolerable working conditions and displeasure with the policy and practices of the regime in the home country (Mckee, 1983, p. 59).
As is true with virtually all theories, theories of migration should be applied with caution because different situations present different problems and solutions. Thus, the pull and push theory may not apply in its totality in all societies. Be that as it may, the alarming exodus of African intelligentsia out of Africa in the last two decades is a phenomenon that could lead to the economic hemorrhaging of Africa and it could further marginalize the continent in the international division of labor. This development could also lead to the prolongation and intensification of poverty in the continent, especially in this age of economic globalization.
The Immigration of African Intelligentsia and Development: the Discourse
Statistically, Africa has lost over one-third of its skilled professionals within the past three decades. Indeed, it is estimated that in 2000, there were 92,435 Africans in New York City, and 25,776 in Montgomery, Alabama. By 2003 there were 200,000 Africans in Atlanta, Georgia. When figures from Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, Dallas and Houston, Texas and elsewhere in the United States are added, the number of contemporary African immigrants could jump to the millions. Europe also attracts some of the best and brightest African intelligentsia. In fact, there are over 100,000 highly educated professionals in the US alone, of which, for the purpose of illustration, there are over 21,000 Nigerian physicians, not to mention the fact that there are more Sierra-Leonean doctors practicing in the Chicago area than in Sierra-Leone itself (Takougang, 2003, pp. 1-10; Sako, 2002, p. 26; Machuria, 2003; Dei and Alireza, 2002, p. 33). Arguably, these are Africans who, if they had remained in Africa, could ably assist other Africans in engendering economic take-off in the continent. The contributions of Africa’s immigrant intelligentsia to development in the region would probably have been so phenomenal that the current clamor about Africa’s marginalization and underdevelopment would not have reached its present crescendo.
In fact, the current reality of underdevelopment in much of the African continent was captured by Phillip Ndegwa who warned that:
This process of marginalization must not be seen in academic terms—as a kind of natural and harmless gradual reduction of contacts between African economies and the rest of the world. What the process actually involves is deepening poverty of already very poor people, widespread unemployment, political instability and other economic and social hardships in [African] countries. In addition to this situation, there is now a crisis of confidence in the continent in closely related areas of economic and political management… (Ndegwa, 1993, 13).
Kwaku Asante Darko contended that paradoxically, the assumption that African countries, particularly the agents and agencies of the government, are just dying for their professionals to remain in Africa and for African immigrant intelligentsia to return to Africa, (2002, p. 1), is illusory, unfounded and far from the truth. To begin with, the condition for the productive utilization of these professionals may not exist in many of these countries and scholars who are pouring out works to suggest that these professional should remain in Africa are probably overlooking some of the grim realities in the continent. Darko argued: “They (scholars) fail to acknowledge the redundancy and vicissitudes faced by skilled Africans on their return home, the advocates of this position equally fail to acknowledge the real nature and context of the migration of African skilled labor thereby oversimplifying and prejudging the issues. In the long run, their limited, emotive and ill-contextualized approach tends to obscure the problem and eclipse the urgency for finding appropriate solutions. Rhetoric designed to put all the blame on the affluent countries for the ills of less affluent countries is a case in point (Darko, 2002, pp. 1-2)”. The exacerbation of the issues for immigrant African intelligentsia is furthered by the fallacy that the African professional is more beneficial at home and could contribute to the African development project when evidence shows that there are hundreds if not thousands of cases in which these professionals are placed in fields other than that in which they had gained expertise—for example, engineers and agronomists “pushing pens” in offices. More-over, their well meaning “patriotic” endeavor to create the enabling environment for the profitable uses of their skills [for the development of Africa] is often questioned by corrupt, inefficient, and obscurantist authorities (Darko, 2002, p. 3). It might therefore, be foolhardy to suggest that Africa’s manpower shortage could be resolved if African professionals in the diaspora are repatriated in one fell swoop to Africa to replace the 100,000 or so foreign technicians working for numerous international organizations in the continent (Oyowe, 1996, pp. 59-60). Little wonder, then, that at the President Obasanjo and Nigerian Professionals resident in the United States conference held in Atlanta, Georgia in the early 2000s, the President passionately pleaded with Nigerian professionals not to return home in droves because the system could not absorb them. Perhaps within the pan-Africanist credo, he should have urged them to return to Africa where they could have contributed to the development of some other African countries. After all, Zambia once had close to 1,600 medical doctors—a number that has dwindled to 400 (Kimweli, nd. p. 3). Zimbabwe is experiencing its worst economic crisis in history, and it goes with saying that the brain drain in the society is exacerbating the development problem in this former economic beacon in southern Africa. The outflow of professionals is stalling the country’s development and the health sector is bearing the brunt of the exodus (Motsi, 2003, pp. 1-2).
But the exodus of African professionals out of the region has not always been the norm. Indeed, Philip Emeagwali noted:
It wasn’t like this. When Nnamdi Azikiwe arrived in the United States in 1924, there were only three Nigerian students in the entire United States. A hundred percent of those that came to the United States returned home. In fact, up till 1980, most Nigerian students returned home. [In the African context], the widely held myth is that Africa is only exporting raw materials to the West. Africa is also exporting talented human resources to Europe and America. One million Africans are working outside Africa. At the same time, Africa spends four billion dollars a year on the salary of 100,000 foreign experts. Yet, African nations are unwilling to spend a similar amount of money to recruit one million African professionals working outside Africa. The problem is getting worse. One in three African university graduates live and work outside Africa. In effect, we are operating one third of African universities to satisfy the manpower needs of Western nations (Emeagwali, 1999, p. 2).
The issue remains how to reconcile the antinomies between Africa’s real desire to develop and the governments’ equivocatory policies to harness the abundant manpower resources that the continent has both in Africa and the diaspora for development purposes. It is not sufficient to talk about the imminent threat to development—poverty, illiteracy, et cetera—without crafting authentic regimes that are likely to tackle the problem—in this case, creating the enabling environment for the dispersed African intelligentsia to return home to assist in the development and modernization project.
Conclusion
The discourse on the African development project and the lack of major contributions of African immigrant intelligentsia to Africa’s modernization process is a complex one. Moreover, the subject matter is very sensitive to both the exiting professionals and officials of African governments because some of the professionals (medical doctors, engineers, for example) were government scholars who were expected to have served their countries in return for their scholarships.
It is frustrating that African countries with a few exceptions are worse off today than they were at the beginning of independence. Indeed, the late Claude Ake (1996, p. 1) notes: “Three decades of preoccupation with development in Africa have yielded meager returns. African economies have been stagnating or regressing. For most Africans, real incomes are lower than they were two decades ago, health prospects are poorer, malnourishment is widespread, and infrastructure is breaking down, as are some social institutions.” Julius Ihonvbere (1994, p. 48) concurs and adds: “Program after program and development after development plan…failed to cover up the glaring realities of poverty, crisis and conflict.” Arguably, the continent needs these professionals to address the issues of modernization and development in the area. The fact today is that Africa has produced sufficient talented professionals that can take the continent to greater heights. Yet, the condition of underdevelopment—particularly political and economic underdevelopment continues to plague much of the continent to the chagrin of many African observers. Further complicating the development agenda in Africa is the fact that in cases in which some members of Africa’s immigrant intelligentsia have put up proposals that were likely to exculpate the area from its present condition of underdevelopment, governments lukewarm to such recommendations have not only created conditions that frustrated such efforts, but in some cases, literally driven these professional men and women out of the continent. In fact, one is reminded, is a different context, of the vow that the African essayist, Chinua Achebe once made in an attempt to address the condition of under-development in Africa, when he was queried as to why an intellectual of his stature should live in Nigeria, when many of his compatriots were in the West and elsewhere basking in their professional glory and prestige. He said: “[Nigeria] is where God in His infinite wisdom planted me and this is where I intend to live. I will travel and come back. I do not think one has the right to go somewhere else where somebody else has cleaned it up. I think this is where the work is, and this is where I shall be (Onwenu, 1984; Udogu, 1992, p. 5)”. It is paradoxical that in the face of the deteriorating politico-economic development and insecurity in that country and elsewhere in the continent this patriot and other African men and women of his caliber have found solace outside the continent.
To be sure, it would be perverse to assume that the outcome of the exodus of African intelligentsia to the outer world of the continent has been totally negative. Witness the extent to which these African professionals remit funds to family members, build impressive homes for themselves and the extended family system, pay tuition for high school and college students—who later would join the vanguard for the development of society. Also, in some cases, the cash sent to some African countries have replaced the traditional economic aid from some of the Western donor nations and thereby ameliorating their dependency on such donors. Indeed, as Darko (2002, p. 5) has noted “for the past several years remittances from Ghanaians abroad have been the third national foreign exchange earner (after cocoa and gold). As these monies go into the hands of private individuals, their judicious and accountable use must have had a developmental impact that surpass the usually doubtful claims of public probity”.
Many members of the African immigrant intelligentsia would love to return home to participate in the process of development. However, their desires are often negated by spurious government policies. And until those conditions that lead to migration in the first place are tackled, it would be problematic to anticipate a solution to Africa’s manpower shortages through programs to return professional Africans to the continent. In this regard, we suggest that African governments should look into the following issues in their quest to attract African immigrant intelligentsia to Africa: 1. financial remuneration that is commensurate with that of the professional;
2. better infrastructure;
3. security;
4. political and economic stability; and
5. better telecommunications technology.
These are minimal requirements that are likely to enhance the flow of immigrant African intelligentsia to the continent.
But as the UN Economic Commission for Africa suggested at a conference held in Addis Ababa on February 22-24, 2000 “in seeking to unravel the enigmatic implications of African migration and the search for their adequate solutions we must understand that the migration of African skilled labor poses a continuing challenge which will not end, even with the attainment of industrialization and high standard of living (cited in Darko, 2002, p. 5). The bottom line, therefore, is that African countries should do more to attract sufficient numbers of these immigrant professionals who may be proud to use their skills and the abundant natural resources in the continent to boost the economic take off in Africa’s development project.
*E. Ike Udogu is professor of International, Comparative and African politics in the Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina, 28608 USA.
References
Agbo, Seth A. “Myths and Realities of Higher Education as a Vehicle for Nation Building in Developing Countries: The Culture of the University and the New African Diaspora”, A paper presented at the 2nd Global conference titled: The Idea of Education, Mansfield College, Oxford July 4-5, 2003.
http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/agbo1%20paper.pdf
Ake, Claude. Democracy and Development in Africa. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. 1996.
Apter, David E. The Politics of Modernization. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 1965.
Becker, G. S. Human and Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education. New York: Columbia University Press. 1974.
Chilcote, R. H. Theories of Development and Underdevelopment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 1984.
Chirot, D. Social Change in a Periphery Society: The Creation of a Balkan Colony. New York: Academic Press. 1993.
Darko, K. A. “Pitfalls in the African Brain Drain Discourse”. 2002
http://www.arts.uwa.edu.au/MotsPluriels/MP2002kad.html
Dei, George S and Asgharzadeh Alireza. “What is to be Done? A Look at Some Causes and Consequences of the African Brain Drain”. African Issues, 30: 1, 2002, 33.
Emeagwali, P. “Brain Drain: Why Nigerians are Not Returning Home.” Remarks Delivered to the Association of Nigerians in Montgomery, Alabama on October 10, 1999.
Fagerlind, I and L. J. Saha. Education and National Development: A Comparative Perspective (2nd Edition). Exeter, UK: BPCC Wheatons Publishing Ltd., 1989.
Frank, Andre Gunder. Lumpenbourgeoisie : Lumpendevelopment—Development, Class, and Politics in Latin America. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972.
Harrison, D. The Sociology of Modernization and Development. London: Unwin Hyman Publishers, 1988.
Head, I. L. On a Hinge of History: The Mutual Vulnerability of South and North. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1991.
Huq, M. S. Education, Manpower and Development in South and Southeast Asia. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1975.
Ihonvbere, Julius O. “The ‘irrelevant’ State, Ethnicity, and the Quest for Nationhood in Africa.” Ethnic and Racial Studies, 17: 1, 1994, 42-60.
Inkeles, A. and D. H. Smith. Becoming Modern—Individual Change in Six Developing Countries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.
Kimweli, Nguku E. “Brain Drain in sub-Saharan Africa: Kenya as an Example”. (nd.),
http://www.africasbraingain.org/pages/A%20Short%20Paper%20o...
Lewellen, Ted C. Dependency and Development: An Introduction to the Third World. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey Publishers, 1995.
Martinussen, J. Society, State and Market: A Guide to Competing Theories of Development. London: Zed Books Ltd., 1997.
McClelland, D. C. The Achieving Society. New York: van Nostrand Publishers, 1961.
Macharia, Kinuthia. “The Truth—Students Who have Returned and Those Who Won’t”. The East African Standard, February 17, 2003.
Machlup, F. Education and Economic Growth. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1970.
Mckee, David L. “Some Specifics on the Loss of Professional Personnel from the Commonwealth Caribbean”. Inter-American Economics Affairs, 37: 3, 1983, 59-65.
Motsi, Tandayi. “Brain Drain Strangling Economic Development”, Herald, July 14, 1-3, 2003. http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/2003/0714brain.htm
Myrdal, Gunnar. Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations. New York: Random House Publishers, 1972.
Ndegwa, Philip. “Africa and the World: Africa on its Own’, in O. Obasanjo and F. G. N. Mosha (eds.), Africa, Rise to Challenge: Towards a Conference on Security, Stability, Development and Cooperation in Africa. Sweden: Swedish Development Agency, 1993.
Nyang’oro, J. E. The State and Capitalist Development in Africa: Declining Political Economies. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1989.
Odunsi, B. A. “An Analysis of Brain-Drain and its Impact on Manpower Development in Nigeria”. Journal of Third World Studies, 13: 1, 1996, 193-214.
Okome, Mojubaolu Olufunke. “The Antinomies of Globalization: Causes of Contemporary African Immigration to the United States of America”, Irinkerindo: A Journal of African Migration, 1:1, 2003. http://www.africamigration.com/archive_01/m_okome_globalizat...
Okpewho, Isidore. “Intoduction,” in I. Okpewho, C. B. Davis and A. A. Mazrui (eds.), The African Diaspora: African Origins and New World Identities. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1999.
Onwenu, Onyeka. “Nigeria: A Squandering of Riches”, a documentary produced by the BBC and Nigerian Television, 1984.
Oyowe, Augustine. “Brain Drain: Colossal Loss of Investment for Developing Countries”. The Courier ACP-EU, No. 159, September-October, 1996, 59-60.
Payne, R. J. and J. R. Nassar. Politics and Culture in the Developing World: The Impact of Globalization. New York: Longman Publishers, 2003.
Pereira, L. B., Development and Crisis in Brazil 1930-1983. Boulder, CO.: Westview Press, 1984.
Reyes, Giovanni E. “Four Main Theories of Development: Modernization, Dependency, World System, and Globalization,” (nd). http://www.ucm.es/info/eurotho/nomadas/4/gereyes1.htm
Sako, Soumana. “Brain Drain and Africa’s Development: A Reflection”. African Issues, 30: 1, 2002, 26.
Schultz, T. W. “Education and Economic Growth” in N. B. Henry (ed.), Social Forces Influencing American Education. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, 1961.
So, Alvin. Social Change and Development. Newbury Park: CA: SAGE Publications, 1991.
Schuster, Martina. Modernization Theory and Dependencia: Why Did they Fail? (nd.).
http://tiss.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de/webroot/sp/barrios/themeA1a.htm
Takougang, John. “Contemporary African Immigrants to the United States”. Irinkerindo: A Journal of African Migration, Issue 2, 2003.
http://www.africamigration.com/articles/j_takougang.htm
Tipps, D. Modernization Theory and the Comparative Study of Societies: A Critical Perspective, New York: Free Press, 1976.
Udogu E. Ike. “National Constitutions and Human Rights Issues in Africa”. Journal of African and Asian Studies, 2: 2, 2003, pp. 101-123.
Udogu, E. Ike. “The Issues of Development and the Environment in Africa: An Overview”, in Rukhsana A. Siddiqui (ed.), Sub-Saharan Africa in the 1990s: Challenges to Democracy and Development. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1997.
Udogu, E. Ike. “In Search of Political Stability and Survival: Toward Nigeria’s Third Republic”. Scandinavian Journal of Development Alternatives, 11: 3& 4, 1992, 5-28.
United Nations. International Development Strategy: United Nations Action Program of the General Assembly for Second UN Development Decade. New York: The United Nations Press, 1971.
United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
United Nations General Assembly. Program of Action for African Economic Recovery and Development, 1986-1990. New York: United Nations Publication 1986.