A basic assumption in migration studies is that a search for better livelihood conditions is the main cause for migratory movements. Nevertheless, few studies take in-depth research into specific livelihoods and the contexts in which they unfold as their point of departure. Such an approach would focus on the ways in which making a livelihood links up with larger-scale patterns of population movement, the range and variation in mobility that such movements involve, the social institutions, networks and migration industry actors facilitating and sustaining mobile livelihoods, and the shifting physical/environmental and geopolitical contexts in which migration occurs.
Often highly skilled migration from developing to Western countries is conceptualized as “brain drain” and as detrimental for development. However, recent research and policy development challenges mainstream assumptions of brain drain, insisting that skilled migration is a more complex phenomenon. In this paper, the evidence for the migration of the skilled either to prejudice or to promote development will be examined. The terms “brain drain” and “brain gain” immediately introduce into the debate value judgements, which are either negative, that migration is bad for countries of origin, or positive, that migration is good and can be used to promote development. The evidence for each is conflicting and the adoption of such judgemental terms obscures factual analyses. The paper argues that rather than focussing on the consequences of the migration, policy should focus more on the causes and particularly on training and education policies.