Abstract
The paper provides a critical perspective on recent contributions to the economics literature, and
associated philosophical arguments, that downplay negative effects of skilled migration on
developing countries. The assertion that such migration incentivizes investment in human capital is
shown to rely on shaky theoretical foundations and weak empirical evidence. The associated
economic literature suggesting a net positive effect of brain drain is at odds with literatures on the
positive effects of human capital and education on economic growth. The manner in which net
effects are determined also demonstrates that such contributions are utilitarian in nature.
Identifying those who are the worst affected by brain drain, as well as the possible decision of a
citizen placed behind the veil of ignorance, supports the view that opposing barriers to brain drain is
inconsistent with a Rawlsian social welfare function. The undermining of institutions by skilled
emigration is a fundamental consideration neglected by the economics literature without
justification and, again, contradicts literatures on growth and institutions within economics. The
economic theory of education can also be shown to support the view that depriving governments of
the power to limit migration undermines states' ability to resolve market failures. A number of
other issues are identified that deserve greater consideration, including reflexivity in research on
brain drain, the political economy of skilled migration and the philosophical status of nation-states.
Despite unreliable econometric evidence, there is sufficient basis and justification to act. The paper
concludes by briefly sketching possible actions under different degrees of international cooperation...