Content uploaded by Nikolina Sretenova
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nikolina Sretenova on Mar 05, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Bulgarian Scientists on the Move: Brain Drain and Brain Circulation
Dr. Nikolina Sretenova
Bulgarian ENWISE Expert
Institute for Philosophical Research, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
E-mails: sretenova@hotmail.com; ninasretenova@yahoo.com
Phone: + (359 2) 868 62 43
(A b s t r a c t)
This paper discusses the brain drain phenomenon within the Bulgarian R&D
sector in the context of (non)existing national policy for tackling the issue.
Its main implication is as follows: We make a major distinction between the group
of the labour migrants and the group of academic migrants. We assume that the
researchers and scientists, the ‘academics’ in general, shape a special social
group for which different motives trigger off the migration process. The major
“push factor” about the exodus of researchers and about their motivation for
leaving the country is the quality of the local research system and the working
environment.
The aim of this paper is: 1. to denounce some stereotypes that the push factors
for the academic migration from Bulgaria are the oversupplied or overstaffed
R&D sector, the level of unemployment and the current poor economic state of
the country; 2. to identify the prospective target groups for future study of
academic migration and researcher’s drain and 3. to throw attention to the
importance of female brain drain and youth brain drain issues.
Some comparisons with the Romanian case are carried out.
Introduction
According to the Third European Report on Science & Technology Indicators –
Towards a Knowledge-based Economy in 2000, 1.3 million Eastern European
nationals worked in the EU-15 Member States. The countries that host most
foreigners are Austria (9 %, mainly from Central and Eastern Europe) and
Germany (8% mostly from Central and Eastern Europe, Italy and Greece). After
1
the ‘eastern wave’ of the EU enlargement in 2004 another 1.2 million are
supposed to enter the labour market of the ‘old’ EU Member States within a
period of five years. What about the ‘fifth wave’ of the EU enlargement when two
other Eastern European countries – Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU on 1st
January 2007? The Krieger’ study of 2004 claims that Bulgaria and Romania are
countries with the highest migration potential within CC-13. The expectation is
that a youth drain of nearly 10% in the next five years will occur in Bulgaria and
Romania accompanied with the high rate of brain drain and increasing
feminization of migration1
A close look at the subject area of the migration studies shows that traditionally
the mainstream research of this area is focused on the social group of labour
migrants, while the interest in academic migration/brain drain issues (not even
speaking about female brain drain) is limited within the field.
The main implication of this paper is as follows: We make a major distinction
between the group of the labour migrants and the group of academic migrants.
We claim that the researchers and scientists, the ‘academics’ in general, shape a
special social group for which different motives trigger off the migration process.
Traditionally, scientists and researchers have a special personality or a specific
profile and their world view differs from that of other groups. As a special group,
they value firstly the quality of the research system and its environment; secondly
the notion of freedom, in particular academic freedom; and thirdly, unlike labour
migrants, this group is able to overcome the cultural and linguistic barriers of their
host society. In their value system, research conditions, working environments
and practices are of high priority, i.e. existing facilities, developed research
infrastructures, effective work organization, possibility of publishing scientific
results, recognition in the profession, etc.
From this point of view the economic factor by itself (the current unfavorable
economic situation of the South East European (SEE) countries and researcher’s
poor salaries) can tell only half of the story about the exodus of researchers and
1 H. Krieger, Migration trends in an enlarged Europe’, 2004: Conclusions.
2
about their motivation for leaving their countries. No doubt, the economic factor is
important but it does not rank first and it cannot be considered the sole
explanation of the brain drain issue in the SEE countries. The quality of the
research system ranks first, as a priority factor, followed by the quality of life in a
broader sense.
In short we distinguish between the three concepts: labour migration, academic
migration (brain drain) and international mobility (brain circulation)
Bulgaria unlike former Yugoslavia and Poland during the communist period of about
50 years did not face any emigration. The political change of 1989 gave rise of
massive external migration, which gradually decreased in the following years, but
it is still significant.
By 1988 the Bulgarian population reached almost 9 million. During the period
1989-1992 over 500,000 Bulgarians have emigrated from the country among
them some 345,000 Bulgarian citizens from Turkish origin immigrate to Turkey.
This emigration wave was due to political and ethnic reasons. For the whole
period the population decreased by 843 thousand people. Since 1992 onwards
the annual reduction of Bulgarian population is estimated from 45,000 to 50,000.
The year 2001 witnessed a substantial reduction of 258,373 people. This high
figure might be due to the more precise data for Bulgarian population provided by
March 2001 census and/or because of the liberalization of the passport
regulation at that time (on April 10, 2001 the restrictions on free movement of
Bulgarian citizens imposed by the Schengen agreement were abolished).
According to the forecast made by the National Statistics Institute in 2002,
between 48 600 and 64 100 Bulgarians are likely to emigrate over the next seven
years. OECD 2005 provides information that between 5 000 and 6 000
Bulgarians immigrates to the United States every year. In 2002, 3 482 Bulgarians
were granted a green card (600 in 2001), making Bulgaria the second highest-
ranking European country in terms of green cards issued per inhabitant.2
2 Trends in International Migration: SOPEMI 2004 Edition, OECD 2005, 165.
3
A new category of seasonal migrants emerged with preferred destination
countries – Greece, Cyprus, Spain and Italy. Since 2001 Bulgarian citizens have
been free to enter Schangen space as visitors and tourists without visa
requirement for a period of up to three months. It happens that some of them use
their stay as visitors or tourists in the Schangen countries for illegal work, which
results in a new relationship ‘tourism - illegal work’. This topic surly deserves
research attention and studies, but it is irrelevant to the issue of academic
migration (emigration of scientists and highly-skilled experts) or brain drain.
The aim of this paper is:
1. To denounce some stereotypes that the major push factors for the academic
migration from Bulgaria are the oversupplied or overstaffed R&D sector, the level
of unemployment and the current poor economic state of the country;
2. To identify the prospective target groups for future study of academic migration
and researcher’s drain (on the base of analysis of the Bulgarian R&D sector);
3. To throw attention to the importance of female brain drain and youth brain
drain issues.
Some comparisons with the Romanian case are carried out.
Current-states-of-the arts
Brain drain issue is a slippery area for speculation, because in Bulgaria as well
as in almost all countries of South East Europe lack either systematic empirical
data with regard to the extent of brain drain phenomenon or clear methodology
for collection and processing data and information that would allow for an
objective analysis and assessment of the extent of phenomenon.
In the course of time only few empirical studies were carried out:
September 1993 – National representative study “Potential emigration of
Bulgarian scientists (dynamics and perspectives)”, Institute of Sociology – BAS
4
1996 – International comparative study “Brain Drain from Central and Eastern
Europe”, COST, DG XII, RDT Cooperation with Third Countries and International
Organizations, Brussels, Centre for the Study of Democracy, Bulgaria
2001-2003 “Bulgarian students in the fields of information technologies -
attitudes towards emigration or working in Bulgaria”, Technology Studies Group,
Institute of Sociology – BAS
Some of the findings of the International comparative study “Brain Drain from
Central and Eastern Europe”, coordinated by D. Bobeva and carried out at the
Bulgarian think-tank ‘Centre for the Study of Democracy’ related with Bulgaria
are as follows:
In Bulgaria during the period 1989 -1995, 11.5% of the outflow from science
emigrated abroad; the main destinations the scientists emigrated to were: USA -
28% of the outflow, Germany 16.6%, Canada 9.9%, UK 5.7%, the Scandinavian
countries 8%. The pattern of emigrating scientists strongly depends on their
institutional affiliation, field of research and age group. By these indicators the
most affected was the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (in comparison with
Bulgarian Universities), scientific fields like chemistry, biology, medicine and
physics and the age group of scientists between 30 and 40.
One of the unexpected results of the 1996 survey was that the branches of
science which were strongly affected by reduction of the personnel had not been
the main sources of brain-drain. The emigration appeared mainly in these sectors
of science and institutes which had high profile, recognition and contacts with the
international research community.3
The above three cited empirical studies (from 1993, 1996 and 2003) are univocal
on the finding that there is no significant correlations between attitudes towards
3 The Report ‘ Migration – European Integration and the Labour Force Brain Drain’ is
online available at http://www.csd.bg
5
different aspects of social life and intention to emigrate and that the crucial
decision to leave the country for a long period of time is not determined by any
single factor.
The recent OECD Report 2005 also emphasizes that ‘determinants of emigration
of the highly skilled are not self-evident. Economic theory would predict that
differences in wage levels and in returns to education between sending and
receiving countries are significant elements….(However) the correlation between
the ‘emigration rate’ of the highly skilled is not strongly correlated to the
unemployment rate in origin countries or to GDP per capita at PPP.’4
The Quality of the Bulgarian Research System – A Major Implication of the
(Female) Researchers’ Drain from the Country; Some comparisons with
Romania
The quality of the Bulgarian R&D sector can be described in terms of 1)
Legislation framework; 2) Human resources; 3) Financial resources and
4) Career building;
This section aims to contextualize the human potential in the Bulgarian R&D
sector via several indicators as:
(Gender) distribution of researchers across R&D sectors;
Gender distribution of researchers within each R&D sector;
(Gender) distribution of researchers across fields of science, and
Gender distribution of researchers within each field of science
The same approach is applied towards the issue of financial resources (the next
section). Some comparisons with the Romanian case are carried out.
In doing so we hope to identify those R&D sectors and fields of science in which
the researchers’ drain is likely to occur, i.e. to identify the prospective target
groups for a future research on the academic migration and brain drain issue in
Bulgaria and Romania.
4 Trends in International Migration: SOPEMI 2004 Edition, OECD 2005, p. 131.
6
Our survey draw attention on some differences between Bulgarian and
Romanian R&D sectors as two countries which joined the EU at the beginning of
2007 as well as between them and the other former post-communist countries,
which are nowadays new EU member states.
Human resources
Table 1: Personnel and researchers in Bulgarian R&D sector (head count)
Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Personnel
in R&D
30.663 31.942 21.908 21.766 18.451 16.853 16. 671
Researchers 17.523 18.579 14.573 14.045 12.335 10.527 10.446
Source: National Statistical Institute
The Table 1 shows that from 1995 to 2001 the total number of the personnel
involved in the Bulgarian R&D sector has decreased with 13.9 thousands
persons, i.e. with 46 per cent and the number of researchers decreased with 7.1
thousands, i.e. with 41 per cent respectively.
The first question which is under discussion is whether the number of
researchers in Bulgaria is too great for the size and need of the country? The
following comparison provides some insight in this issue. The relative number of
researchers per 1000 in labor force in Bulgaria is currently 2.62. By the same
indicator “number of researchers per 1000 in labor force” the rate for Germany is
6.55, for Austria – 4.88 (EU-15 average – 5.68). From the former post-communist
countries, nowadays new EU member states, the rates are as follows: Slovenia –
4.64; Lithuania – 4.55; Estonia – 3.83; Slovakia – 3.65; Hungary – 3.61; Poland
-3.26; Latvia – 3.15; Czech Republic – 2.93 and Romania – 1.71. By this
indicator Bulgaria holds a bottom place followed by two countries only: Romania
and Cyprus. As seen in Fig. 1 the size of research community in Bulgaria and
Romania is relatively small and therefore one could not assume the oversupply
of researchers in Bulgaria and Romania for potential ‘push factor’ for the
researchers’ drain from these two countries.
7
Fig. 1 Researchers per 1000 in labor force in 2003
by countries
13,77
10,1
8,78
6,96
6,86
6,55
6,55
5,68
5,49
5,21
4,98
4,88
4,52
3,51
3,3
2,82
4,64
4,55
3,83
3,65
3,61
3,26
3,15
2,93
1,09
2,62
1,71
11,14
9,14
8,34
8,08
6,46
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Finland
Sweden
Luxemberg
Belgium
Denmark
Germany
France
EU - 15
UK
Holland
Ireland
Austria
Spain
Portugal
Greece
Italy
Slovenia
Lithuania
Estonia
Slovakia
Hungary
Poland
Latvia
Czech Rep.
Cyprus
Bulgaria
Romania
Iceland
Japan
Norway
USA
Switzerland
8
Source: National Strategy for Scientific Research for the Period 2005-2010 (15
December 2004)
The distribution of researchers (men and women) across R&D sectors provides
information about the peculiarity of the Bulgarian R&D sector. The Table 2 show
that 64.2 % of the Bulgarian researchers are concentrated in the GOV sector,
23.6 % - in HES and only 11.6 % in BES.
Table 2: Gender distribution of Bulgarian researchers across R&D sectors, head
count and percentage, 2000
Business
Enterprise
(BES)
Higher
Education
(HES)
Government
(GOV)
Private
Non-profit
PNP
All Sectors
Bulgaria
Women 605 12,6% 875 18,2% 3 301 68,8% 16 0,3% 4 797 100,0%
Men 620 10,8% 1 613 28,2% 3 462 60,4% 35 0,6% 5 730 100,0%
Total 1225 11,6% 2 488 23,6% 6 763 64,2% 51 0,5% 10 527 100,0%
Source: European Commission, ENWISE Report, 2003(extraction)
Table 3: Gender distribution of Bulgarian researchers within each R&D sector, head
count and percentage, 2000
Business
Enterprise
(BES)
Higher Education
(HES)
Government
GOV
Private
Non-profit
(PNP)
All Sectors
Bulgaria
Women 605 49% 875 35% 3 301 49% 16 31% 4797 46%
Men 620 51% 1 613 65% 3 462 51% 35 69% 5730 54%
Total 1 225 100% 2 488 100% 6 763 100% 51 100% 10527 100%
Source: European Commission, ENWISE Report, 2003 (extraction)
The situation is quite different in EU-15 and EU-25, where the majority of
researchers are employed in the BES and relatively small part - in the GOV
sector. For example, in 2003, 62.6% of Austrian researchers are employed in
BES, 31.8 % - in HES and only 5.1% - in GOV sector. For Germany the
respective figures are: 59.3 (BES); 26.3 (HES) and 14.4 (GOV sector). On
average almost half of the EU-15 researchers (49.7 %) are employed in BES and
only 13. 4% of the total – in GOV sector. The respective figures for EU-25
researchers are as follows: 47.3% (BES); 36% (HES) and 25.4% (GOV sector).
By the indicator “distribution of researchers across R&D sectors” the European
9
case differs from that of USA where 80.5% of the American researchers are
involved in BES, 14.7% - in HES and 4.8% - in GOV sector.
The BES in Bulgaria is still very week and underdeveloped and needs a special
policy for its improvement (The Innovation Strategy proposed in 2004 aims at
bettering the current-state-of-the arts with Bulgarian R&D sector).
There is a sharp dissimilarity between Bulgaria and Romania in this aspect. The
Table 4 below shows that in 2000 about half of the Romanian researchers
(49.4%) have been employed in BES; 26. 2 % - in HES and 24.4% - in GOV
sector.
Table 4: Gender distribution of Romanian researchers across R&D sectors, head
count and percentage, 2000
Business
Enterprise
(BES)
Higher
Education
(HES)
Government
(GOV)
Private
Non-profit
(PNP)
All Sectors
Romania
Women 4 835 47,4% 2 470 24,4% 2 802 27,7% : 10 107 100,0%
Men 6 821 50,6% 3 707 27,5% 2 962 22,0% : 13 490 100,0%
Total 11 656 49,4% 6 177 26,2% 5 764 24,4% : 23 597 100,0%
Source: European Commission, ENWISE Report, 2003(extraction)
Table 5: Gender distribution of Romanian researchers within R&D sectors, head
count and percentage, 2000
Business Enterprise
(BES)
Higher Education
(HES)
Government
(GOV)t
Private Non-
profit
(PNP)
All Sectors
Romania
Women 4 835 41% 2 470 40% 2 802 49% : 10107 43%
Men 6 821 59% 3 707 60% 2 962 51% : 13490 57%
Total 11 656 100% 6 177 100% 5 764 100% : 23597 100%
Source: European Commission, ENWISE Report, 2003(extraction)
However the Romanian case should be viewed as exclusion if compared with the
other post-communist countries. The Table 6 shows the distribution of
researchers across R&D sectors in percentage in the former post-communist
countries, nowadays EU member states (The PNP sector is not presented here,
because its contribution is negligible).
Table 6: Distribution of researchers from the former post-communist countries
across R&D sectors, percentage, 2001
10
Country BES (Business
enterprise)
HES (Higher
Education)
GOV (Government)
Bulgaria 11.6% 23.6% 64.2%
Czech Republic 30.6% 41.7% 26.7%
Estonia 11.1% 73.2% 14.8%
Hungary 17.3% 64.4% 18.2%
Latvia 16% 70.0% 13.9%
Lithuania 5.8% 70.7% 23.3%
Poland 13.4% 72.6% 14.0%
Romania 49.4% 26.2% 24.4%
Slovak Republic 23.5% 51% 25.4%
Slovenia 24.2% 45.0% 29.2%
Former post-
communist
countries
20.4% 58.2% 21.2%
Source: European Commission, ENWISE Report, 2003
From this Table is evident that the industrial (BES) is relatively underdeveloped
sector in all former post-communist countries (with exception of Romania and
Czech Republic). The number of researchers in the Bulgarian GOV sector is
about three times higher in comparison with the average figure of the former
post-communist countries – 21.2%. Furthermore 69% of the Bulgarian women
researchers are employed in the GOV sector. Therefore a particular focus on the
Bulgarian GOV sector might be plausible start-up for understanding the
(female) scientific migration and brain drain issue from Bulgaria to the other EU
countries and USA. However this is not the case of Romania, where a similar
start-up seems to be the Romanian BES sector, which employs 49.4% of
Romanian researchers and 47% of Romanian women researchers. Bulgaria and
Romania demonstrate structural differences among their R&D sectors which a
future research on the drain of researchers from these two countries should
considered, i.e. the research on the Bulgarian case should have a closer look at
the GOV sector, while the research on the Romanian case should prioritize the
BES sector.
11
The distribution of researchers across scientific fields might be another helpful
indicator from the point of view of a future study on scientific migration and brain
drain issue.
Table 7: Numbers of researchers (and % of women among them) by main field of science of HES +
GOV in Bulgaria and in the Enwise countries in 2000
Field
Country
Natural
Sciences
Engineering &
Technology
Medical
Sciences
Agricultural
Sciences
Social
Sciences Humanities
Bulgaria 2 720 (51%) 2 122 (28%) 1 063 (50%) 965 (50%) 504 (47%) 934 (57%)
Former
post-
communist
countries
26 253 (38%) 22 620 (23%) 12 504 (47%) 5 735(41%) 15 191 (43%) 13 801 (41%)
Romania 2 687 (46%) 2 667 (38%) 583 (64%) 211 (31%) 101(47%) 623 (46%)
Source: European Commission, ENWISE Report, 2003(extraction)
From this Table is evident that the Bulgarian research potential is concentrated in
two fields of science – “Natural Sciences” and “Engineering & Technology”. In
both fields the women share of the total number of researchers is visible, i.e.
above the average of the former post-communist countries. Therefore the
possible target groups for studying (female) highly qualified migration from
Bulgaria to EU countries and USA should be identified within the fields of
“Natural Sciences” and ‘Engineering and Technology”.
The comparison between Bulgaria and Romania by the indicator “number of
researchers by main field of science of HES + GOV” shows that the both
countries have almost equal figures about researchers involved in the domain of
“Natural Sciences” and “Engineering and Technology” respectively employed in
HES +GOV sectors. However the size of the Romanian community of
researchers is twice larger than the Bulgarian one – 23 597 vs.10 527. This is an
additional argument that the prospective target groups for future study of
academic migration and researcher’s drain in the domains of “Natural Sciences”
and “Engineering and Technology” is likely to be employed in the Romanian
BES.
Financial resources
12
In Bulgaria during the transitional period the amount of Gross Domestic
Expenditure on R&D (GERD) as a percentage of GDP has dropped dramatically
– from 2.63% in 1989 to 0.47% in 2001. In general the GERD decline
corresponds to the decrease of the personnel involved in R&D sector – from
more than 90.000 persons before 1989 to 16.671 in 2001.
Let us now connect the data for research personnel with R&D expenditure by
sectors and fields of science per capita researcher and in Euros. (Romania,
Czech Republic and Slovenia and taken for comparison)
Table 8: R&D expenditure, in Euros per annum, per capita researcher and
by R&D sector in 2001
Sector
Country BES HES GOV Total
Bulgaria 12 470 2 830 7 254 6 791
Romania 8 854 2 832 4 853 6 301
Slovenia
(for
comparison)
105 651 16 718 40 137 45 313
Source: European Commission, ENWISE Report, 2003(extraction)
The data presented in Table 3 show that the financial resources available per
capita researcher per annum in Bulgaria and Romania are comparable – 6 791
Euro and 6 301 Euro respectively, but they are very low in comparison with
Slovenia – 45 313 Euro and indeed incomparable with the EU-15 average of
178 868 Euro per capita researcher per annum.
Table 9: R&D expenditure, in Euros per annum, per capita researcher
(women + men combined) and by fields of science in HES and GOV sectors
in 2000
Field Natural
Sciences
Engineering &
Technology
Medical
Sciences
Agricultural
Sciences
Social
Sciences Humanities Total
Country
Bulgaria 5 584 5 700 2 661 20 247 4 264 4 606 6 753
Romania 3 975 6 857 7 892 10 194 7 662 3 173 5 841
Czech
Republic 35 333 43 057 42 079 35 052 26 781 22 287 35 909
13
Slovenia 55 192 51 191 34 791 40 528 37 142 28 390 44 589
Source: European Commission, ENWISE Report, 2003(extraction)
The data presented in the above Table show that the financial resources
available for every Bulgarian researcher in the field of “Natural Sciences” per
annum are approximately 10 times less than in Slovenia and 6 times less than in
the Czech Republic.
The presented data are indicative that all Bulgarian researchers (both in hard and
soft sciences) employed in the GOV sector face one and the same trouble
related with their access to financial resources. The research carried out in the
GOV sector is funded from the state budget via Bulgarian Ministry of education
and science. As a matter of fact the allocated resources to the GOV R&D sector
cover only researchers’ salaries and partly the function of the research
infrastructure (the cost for phone, electricity, heating, etc.). The so-called
‘research money’ in practice do not exist in Bulgarian GOV R&D sector. It means
that the attraction of finances from the EU Framework Program and other EU
funding bodies are a matter of survival for the researchers employed in this
sector be they engaged in hard or in soft sciences research.
In addition the career progression is too complicate. In Bulgaria operate an
ineffective and outdated system for scientific promotion. The advancement in
academic career during the communist times as well as nowadays is too slow
and too long. For example, in order to advance to the academic rank Full
Professor (which is equivalent to the rank Senior Researcher first grade in R&D
sector), a young university graduate has to work hard between 20 and 30 years
and has to defend two doctoral theses – one for obtaining the degree PhD
(‘doctor’) and the second for obtaining the degree DSc (‘doctor of science’),
respectively. As a rule one obtains this scientific/academic rank in the age
between 50 and 55 years old.
14
Summary and concluding lines from human resources and financial
resources sections:
The size of the Romanian (female) research community is twice larger
than the Bulgarian one. The relative share of women researchers in
Bulgaria and Romania is high – 46% out of the total in Bulgaria and 43% -
in Romania;
In Bulgaria and Romania currently operate different R&D patterns in terms
of structure. Neither of them however corresponds to the current situation
of EU -25, where the major part of R&D human potential, including women
researchers, is employed in HES. For example, 64.4% of the Hungarian
researchers and 67.4% of the Hungarian women researchers are
employed in HES; for Czech Republic the respective figures are: 41.7%
and 49.1%; for Poland – 72.6% and 74.3%, etc. The revealed differences
between Bulgaria and Romania on the one hand, and between them and
the other new EU member states – on the other hand, might be explained
by the differences in their R&D patterns inherited from the communist
period.
A future research on the drain of (female) researchers from these two
countries should considered the outlined specificity of the structure of their
R&D sectors, i.e. the research on the Bulgarian case should have a closer
look at the Bulgarian GOV sector, while the research on the Romanian
case should prioritize the Romanian BES.
Between 1997 and 2001, there was a decline in the numbers of
researchers in the GOV in Romania and Bulgaria.
The gross domestic expenditure on R&D is very low in Bulgaria and
Romania in absolute terms and the R&D expenditure per capita
15
researcher in Bulgaria and Romania is the lowest for all R&D sectors in
comparison with the EU-25. In Bulgaria the expenditure on science and
research activities from the industry, small and medium-sized enterprises
and the private business sector in general is negligible. Therefore it is
unlikely to meet the target of 3% of GDP by 2010 (of which two thirds
should be privately funded) set by the Barcelona European Council in
2002.
Gender dimension of the brain drain issue5
The gender aspect has been considered in the field of migration studies only
recently at least since 1995 onwards. At that time the International Organization
for Migration (IOM) established ‘A Working Group on Gender Issues’ (to deal with
policy related issues), ‘Gender Focal Points’ (to further understanding of gender
issues in IOM) and ‘IOM Gender and Migration News Bulletin’. These effort and
concern resulted in the recent IOM study: ‘The World in Motion: Short Essays on
Migration and Gender’ (2004). The book deals with experiences of women
across several key themes: labour migration, migrant remittances, trafficking,
immigration and identification, etc. – all of which are key areas of migration
studies. The female academic migration or female brain drain however is beyond
the scope of the migration studies. The mainstream research in the area of brain
drain issues still have not insert the gender dimension as a particular aspect for
investigation. On their part the mainstream research in the gender studies field
still have not integrated the topic of female brain drain and female academic
migration as a specific focus of interest within the theme of ‘women and science’.
We think that the insertion of gender dimension of the brain drain issues will
provide more nuanced and contextualized understanding of the brain drain
5 In April 2006 in Sofia was held an international conference within the ASO funded project: ‘Catching up
Societies in Transition: Female Highly-Skilled Migration and Youth Drain from South East Europe to
Austria in the Context of EU Enlargement’. Partners of this networking short-term project are Austria,
Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. A Proceeding with the contributions to the held
Sofia conference is forthcoming.
16
phenomenon e.g. we value the importance of the wider family context and the
life-course in the process of the academic migration.
The very process of academic migration incorporates a gender dimension that
has been highly neglected and under-researched in the mainstream research on
the brain drain issues. Do the female brain drainers in SEE including Bulgaria
face the same problems as their male counterparts living and working in the
foreign environment? We do not know the answer of this question but we
assume that the gender plays a crucial role at each stage of the academic
migration process – at the stage of decision-making on emigration, at the stage
of immigration to the receiving country and at the stage of possible return back to
the home country.
The ENWISE report reveals that the women scientists in the Central and Eastern
European countries and the Baltic States, facing difficult economic situations are
inclined to accept a job below their qualification and in general to work for lesser
wages, which is rarely the case with their male counterparts. This flexibility of
attitude towards the labour market in fact makes them prospective emigrants. In
order to understand the female brain drain the following questions might be
asked:
What are the specific push and pull factors that motivate highly qualified
women scientists and engineers in the region to emigrate?
Are they accepting jobs under their qualifications in the host country?
If the female scientists are on the move, what are the effects of this
nomadic stile of life on their families and children? (It is not difficult to
imagine that a child who is accompanying his/her mother on the move has
to grow up and bring education in several different countries with different
cultural milieu and traditions. It is not difficult to imagine who will return,
when the elder members of the family, who have stayed in the country of
origin, need help.)
17
How the problems related with the so-called ‘dual academic career’ (i.e.
both partners are scientists) are managed within the academic migration
process?
A Concern for the young generation of Bulgarian researchers
Bulgarian parents use to encourage their children to study and work abroad. This
question is particularly interesting because it is a good indication about the future
probable process of migration from Bulgaria. The Population Census 2001
carried out by The National Statistical Institute provides the following information
on the topic:
Table. Would you encourage your children to go to (structure of the potential
migrants by sex), 2001
Would you encourage your
children to go to: Sex Total
Мale Female
Study abroad Yes 87.3 89.3 88.1
No 12.7 10.7 11.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Sex Total
Мale Female
Work abroad Yes 89.7 89.6 89.6
No 10.3 10.4 10.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Sex Total
Мale Female
Settle abroad Yes 54.8 54.1 54.5
No 45.2 45.9 45.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: National Statistical Institute, Population Census 2001, Sofia., (Cited by
Rangelova, 2006)
In this respect R. Rangelova6 concludes that:
6 R. Rangelova, Demographic Trends, Migration from Bulgaria and Labour Realization:
Gender Perspective, paper presented at the Conference: ‘Catching up Societies in
Transition: Female Highly-Skilled Migration and Youth Drain from South East Europe to
18
•There is not essential difference between men and women in the
thendency to encourage their own children to emigrate
•For both men and women the percentage of people encouring their
children to study or work abroad is very high - nearly 90%
•The percentage of people encouring their children to resettle abroad is
lower than the first two activity (to study or work abroad), but also is
very high - nearly 55 %
This mentality results in the current great number of Bulgarian students abroad.
Nowadays about 80 000 Bulgarians are studying in foreign Universities mainly in
the ‘old’ EU member states and USA, while only 8 070 foreign students have
enrolled Bulgarian universities, in majority nationals from the neighbour countries
(3613 Macedonians, 1672 Turks, 692 Greeks, 515 Cypriotes, 73 Romanians,
etc.).
The outflow of young people, students and professionals is increasing. A sign of
this trend is the growing number of applications for certification of Bulgarian
diplomas in a foreign language – 32 420 diplomas in 2002 compared with 30 209
in 20017 (OECD 2005, p.165). It might be due also to the liberalization of the
passport regulation in 2001.
The Bulgarian students abroad might be considered as potential emigrants. Part
of them in particular PhD students are supposed to receive job offers in the host
country.
A recent study connects the emigration of young gifted students in IT with the
activities of some specialized foreign companies offering jobs abroad, the so-
called ‘brain hunters’ (Galev, 2006). This is a new phenomenon for Bulgaria
which translates the brain drain issue rather in terms of emerging ‘business’
instead in terms of ‘self-organizing process’.
In 2001-2003 the Technology Studies Group at The Institute of Sociology of the
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences carried out a study “Bulgarian students in the
Austria in the Context of EU Enlargement’, Sofia, April, 2006.
7 Trends in International Migration: SOPEMI 2004 Edition, OECD 2005, p. 165.
19
fields of information technologies - attitudes towards emigration or working in
Bulgaria”
The empirical part of this study was implemented in May-June 2003 among 427
IT undergraduates in all Bulgarian Universities which are just completing their
studies at bachelor and/or Master IT programs, i.e. who are going to graduate in
2003. I provide here only few outcomes of this study:
To the question ‘Do you intend to look for a job abroad?’ 4.7 % or the
respondents answer that they already have contacted the foreign employer, 39.3
% state that they plan to do it in the next 1-5 years, and only 25.1% of the
respondents say that they do not intend to look for a job abroad.8
To the question: ‘Did you receive any job offer in relation to your academic
background?’ the answers are distributed as follows:9
25.5 % - YES, from BG companies for job in Bulgaria;
8.7 % - YES, from foreign companies for job in Bulgaria;
3.7 % - YES, from specialized companies offering job abroad.
The preferred destination countries for emigration of the young Bulgarian IT
graduates are: USA (20.4 %), Germany (19.6 %), UK (15.2 %), Canada (12.5 %),
Australia (6.5 %), Austria (6.4 %), Benelux (France, Belgium, Luxemburg) – (5.6
%), etc.10
This empirical study confirms the finding of the previous surveys on brain drain
issue that There are no significant correlations between attitudes towards
different aspects of social life and future professional realization and intention to
emigrate. The crucial decision to leave the country for a long period of time is not
determined by any single factor
Different motivation built a ‘factor’
8 Galev, T., Brain Drain Trends among Young Scientists in Bulgaria in the Post-Socialist Period, paper
presented at the ASO Workshop on ‘The Impact of the European research Area on the Development of
Young Scientists’, Sofia, 19-20 October 2006.
9 Ibid, October 2006
10 Ibid, October 2006
20
This major implication is suggestive for approaching our issues in terms of
sociological and socio-psychological concepts.
We assume that sociological and socio-psychological concepts are of major
importance for the analysis of the academic migration attitudes. In this relation
the ‘4Ps-model’ proposed by M. Daxner might serve as a guideline and
preliminary theoretical orientation which if operationalized might provide relevant
explanatory scheme for academic migration attitudes.
This model consists of four Indicators for the main aspects which refer to the
interdependence between the individual and the system: Prestige, Payment,
Pleasure and Policy/Politics
Prestige does not only mean scholarly recognition, but also an attractor for investment
or further accumulation of excellence;
Payment is a cipher for all kinds of material rewards, social benefits, pension plans and
the material environment of a working situation;
Pleasure is the most difficult to explain, because it includes individual private interests,
care for others, moral and aesthetic categories and everything that adds to a ‘good life’.
Politics/Policy has two sides: a subjective one, where the individual ‘brings about’ a
political impact by deciding whether to stay or to leave, and the objective one, by which
one person may be forced to stay or to leave. They are decisive for relevant choices in a
professional career.
I quote from M. Daxner:
‘A sarcastic view of the problem has been developed (not by me) for graduates and
those in higher positions, represented by three Ps: Prestige, Payment and Pleasure.
Out of three Ps, you should always find two on your side. The three possible
combinations show a rough spectrum of the categories in which the graduates can be
placed. I will add a fourth P: Policy/Politics, which is on a different level and regulates
the relations between the three Ps. It is always important for a graduate to define his/her
place in relation to the political environment (…). The Ps are highly metaphoric, of
course. Prestige does not only mean scholarly recognition, but also an attractor for
investment or further accumulation of excellence; Payment is a cipher for all kinds of
material rewards, social benefits, pension plans and the material environment of a
working situation; Pleasure is the most difficult to explain, because it includes individual
private interests, care for others, moral and aesthetic categories and everything that
adds to a ‘good life’. None of these categories is ‘pure’. However, the three Ps are
indicators for the main aspects which refer to the interdependence between the
individual and the system. The fourth P is self-explanatory. But it has two sides: a
subjective one, where the individual ‘brings about’ a political impact by deciding whether
21
to stay or to leave, and the objective one, by which one person may be forced to stay or
to leave. They are decisive for relevant choices in a professional career’.
Source: Professor Dr. Michael Daxner, University of Oldenburg, Germany, speaker and
participant in the Enwise workshop “Starting a debate with women scientists in the Balkan
region”, Brussels, November 2003.
Some Conclusions
•However real the phenomenon of brain drain is, there is a lack of
systematic data and information on the topic. In order to better
understand the actual situation, particularly its causes, as well as to be in
a better position to formulate eventual corrective measures a specialized
study on the brain drain issue in the Bulgaria and the Balkan region
in general is needed.
•The analysis of the quality of the Bulgarian R&D sector is suggestive for
expectation for exodus of researchers from the GOV sector and from two
fields of science – “Natural Sciences” and “Engineering & Technology”.
•Different motivations built a push factor; there is no correlation between
the ‘emigration rate’ of the highly skilled and the level of unemployment
and the current poor economic state of the country.
•During the last years emerged new internal and external environments for
contextualization of the brain drain from Bulgaria, e.g. the European
perspective of the country as a new member state of EU (internal
environment) and current competition between the countries to attract ‘the
best and the brightest’ from the inside and outside Europe, emergence of
‘brain hunters’ business (external environment)
•The very process of academic migration incorporates a gender
dimension that has been highly neglected and under-researched in the
mainstream research on the brain drain issues.
•The youth brain drain is of particular concern because it might undermine
the process of replacement of generations in the Bulgarian R&D sector.
References:
22
Glytsos, Nicholas P., Is Brain Drain from Albania, Bulgaria and Greece Large Enough
to Threaten their Development? Centre for International Relations, Report 14/06,
Warsaw, Poland, 2006.
Trends in International Migration, Annual Report, SOPEMI 2004 Edition, OECD 2005.
Sretenova, N From Transition to Accession: Bulgarian R&D Related Legislation from
the Point of View of Gender-Balance and Age-Balance Issues, In: Science Policy and
Human Resources Development in South-Eastern Europe in the Context of European
Integration, Austria, 2006, pp. 215-230 (in English)
Waste of talents: turning private struggles into a public issue: Women and Science in the
Enwise countries, a report to the European Commission from the Enwise Expert Group
on women scientists in the Central and Eastern European countries and the Baltic States.
Editorial Board (Marina Blagojević, Hana Havelková, Nikolina Sretenova, Mioara
Florica Tripsa and Daniela Velichová), European Commission, 2004, ISBN 92 8946750-
9.
Sretenova, N. Could We Retain the Bulgarian Intellect against the On-going Process of
Globalization of the Intellectual Labour Market? , IN: SCIENCE (Bulgarian journal),
Edition of the Union of Scientists in Bulgaria, No. 2, 2006, pp. 35-43; also IN: Human
Resources (Bulgarian journal), No.2, 2006.
Sretenova, N. , Scientific mobility and brain-drain issues in the Higher Education sector
in Bulgaria, Research Report No.2, CSLPE , University of Leeds, Symposium on
Science Policy, Mobility and Brain Drain, July 26-28, 2003, Leeds, UK
Michael Daxner, 2004, Brain Circulation, paper presented at the ENWISE Valorisation
Conference, Tallinn (Estonia), 8-10 September 2004.
Vedran Horvat, 2004, Brain Drain. Threat to Successful Transition in South East
Europe? In: Southeast European Politics, Vol. V, No.1, pp. 76-93.
European Commission 2003, Third European Report on Science & Technology
Indicators –Towards a Knowledge-based Economy. Luxembourg: OPOCE. ISBN: 92-
894-1795-1.
Hubert Krieger, 2004, Migration Trends in an Enlarged Europe, European Foundation
for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
Velev, Kamen 2002, Young scientists in Bulgarian universities and the brain drain
problem, paper delivered at the International Conference Attracting Young Scientists:
Strategies against Brain Drain, October 18-20, 2002, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Gächter, August 2002, The Ambiguities of Emigration: Bulgaria since 1988, International
Migration Papers, No. 39, ILO, Geneva
23
IOM, 2004, The World in Motion: Short Essays on Migration and Gender
Sonja Haug and Claudia Diehl, May 2004: External Migration in Bulgaria, External
migration and emigration potential in Bulgaria and its consequences for demography
and economy, Twinning Light project between the Federal Statistical Office of Germany
and the National Statistical Institute of Bulgaria.
Beleva,Iskra and Kotzeva, Mariana (2001). Bulgaria – Country Study on International
Skilled Migration, (manuscript) Sofia, Bulgaria
Bobeva, Daniela (1996) Migration, European Integration and Brain Drain from
Bulgaria, CSD, Sofia, Bulgaria
Bobeva, Daniela (1997) Migration, Europe’s Integration and The Labour Force Brain
Drain: Synthesis Report, CSD, Sofia, Bulgaria
Galev, T., Brain Drain Trends among Young Scientists in Bulgaria in the Post-Socialist
Period, paper presented at the ASO Workshop on ‘The Impact of the European research
Area on the Development of Young Scientists’, Sofia, 19-20 October 2006.
Brain Drain and the Academic and Intellectual Labour Market in South-East Europe,
specialized issue of the journal ‘Higher Education in Europe’, No. 3, 2004, UNESCO-
CEPES.
24