Thank you for this post. I was hoping to read what others say, but unlike other posts, this post doesn’t seem to have got comments. Perhaps that, in itself, is a comment on how unimportant or uncomfortable the topic is for other EAs.
I am not an EA, and am not familiar with your work. It is unclear to me whether these suggestions are based on some data or discussions with others, or whether this is an opinion piece. BTW, I live in a not-so-rich country and am a full-time volunteer.
While many suggestions seem in the ballpark of what makes sense, I must admit deep discomfort at your suggestions regarding migration. You have two in your list:
Try to migrate to an OECD country, perhaps by moving for higher education. This one is straightforward and usually on people’s lists anyway where possible.
Consider becoming an expert at assisting people in your country to migrate to richer countries.
I am unclear why you think migration is a good EA idea. You call it “straightforward” but it is not obvious to me how migration to richer countries can help overall social impact, at least in the poorer country to which the potential EA belongs. I can understand suggesting migration to escape tyranny. And I can understand individuals moving to a richer country for education or better salaries and better “quality of life” for themselves and their immediate family. Migration/ open borders can also be viewed as a human right (country boundaries are a construct of history and politics etc). But you are suggesting this as a way of being an EA, and that puzzles me.
Here is what I think: Once a person migrates
the person’s skills are unavailable to the home country. As I assume you see the potential EA’s profile as someone who is highly intelligent, you are suggesting a step that deprives the country of origin of its creamy layer of skills, its innovative persons and potential entrepreneurs
some fraction of earned money may be sent back, but that is actually not likely for many years, and if that is a reason for suggesting migration, there should be data to support it. Anecdotally, I don’t see it happen around me.
migration changes exposure and loyalties of the person who migrates. They forget conditions back home, get caught up in esoteric intellectual causes and forget ground realities that need to be addressed. They get busy working on keeping their visas, getting green cards, and citizenship. None of this benefit the home country in the short and medium run—maybe much later, there will be some flow-back, but the person may not be an EA by that time :(
migration moves the person away from family, reducing the roots and connections. The family left behind has less support. They all spend large amounts of money commuting to meet each other, or they lose contact except in a vacation-together shallow way.
when someone migrates, the person can no longer inspire others in the home country to work on causes that would benefit the people of that country. Others, too, want to migrate to improve their “quality of life”
Also, when you suggest migration as a mode of being an EA, potential EAs may see it as a message that their home country is not a nice place to live and work. Such movement may make sense if there is some major problem in the country, but wanting to migrate just because a country is not so rich and to call it “EA” seems decidedly odd to me. People are happy and productive in non-rich countries, too.
Another point is that skills for developmental work are often difficult to get. Development initiatives need persons who can envisage such initiatives, staff them, and implement them. All that needs people who are good and have not migrated. Money cannot buy what is not available. Suggesting more migration doesn’t make sense to me. It is my opinion that too many EAs who have no ground experience in other countries don’t realize this problem well enough.
Migration is anyway a rather drastic step. It is far from easy. Even getting a visa is not easy, and there is a large amount of uncertainty around it.
Suggesting going to other countries to pick up some relevant educational or work skills makes sense to me. But migration as a recommended EA approach seems decidedly odd. Just my thoughts as a resident of a not-so-rich country who works as a full-time volunteer.
“Perhaps that, in itself, is a comment on how unimportant or uncomfortable the topic is for other EAs.”
The simple explanation is that about 90% of forum readers here live in rich countries so don’t feel qualified to say what people in other countries should do.
“I am unclear why you think migration is a good EA idea. You call it “straightforward” but it is not obvious to me how migration to richer countries can help overall social impact, at least in the poorer country to which the potential EA belongs.”
OK the reasons are:
most people I speak to want to migrate for prudential reasons anyway;
better access to outstanding education and training opportunities;
much better opportunities to ‘earn to give’;
ability to influence larger foundation and government budgets, which are typically based in richer countries;
more opportunities to do valuable academic/industry research and innovation as R&D is disproportionately conducted in the rich world;
more widely recognised credentials allow more rapid promotions;
firms typically have much lower labour productivity in poor countries—that’s usually a key reason they are poor—which will hold people back from accomplishing as much as they might otherwise;
it seems like emigration somewhat raises wages in the leaving country because it raises the capital to labour ratio;
Etc.
Of course your milage may vary if you want to pursue a career track that is easier to pursue directly in the developing world (e.g. development projects or ‘bottom of pyramid’ businesses’), significantly prefer life in another country, or think it would make you significantly less altruistic to live in the developing world.
Thank you for this post. I was hoping to read what others say, but unlike other posts, this post doesn’t seem to have got comments. Perhaps that, in itself, is a comment on how unimportant or uncomfortable the topic is for other EAs.
I am not an EA, and am not familiar with your work. It is unclear to me whether these suggestions are based on some data or discussions with others, or whether this is an opinion piece. BTW, I live in a not-so-rich country and am a full-time volunteer.
While many suggestions seem in the ballpark of what makes sense, I must admit deep discomfort at your suggestions regarding migration. You have two in your list:
Try to migrate to an OECD country, perhaps by moving for higher education. This one is straightforward and usually on people’s lists anyway where possible.
Consider becoming an expert at assisting people in your country to migrate to richer countries.
I am unclear why you think migration is a good EA idea. You call it “straightforward” but it is not obvious to me how migration to richer countries can help overall social impact, at least in the poorer country to which the potential EA belongs. I can understand suggesting migration to escape tyranny. And I can understand individuals moving to a richer country for education or better salaries and better “quality of life” for themselves and their immediate family. Migration/ open borders can also be viewed as a human right (country boundaries are a construct of history and politics etc). But you are suggesting this as a way of being an EA, and that puzzles me.
Here is what I think: Once a person migrates
the person’s skills are unavailable to the home country. As I assume you see the potential EA’s profile as someone who is highly intelligent, you are suggesting a step that deprives the country of origin of its creamy layer of skills, its innovative persons and potential entrepreneurs
some fraction of earned money may be sent back, but that is actually not likely for many years, and if that is a reason for suggesting migration, there should be data to support it. Anecdotally, I don’t see it happen around me.
migration changes exposure and loyalties of the person who migrates. They forget conditions back home, get caught up in esoteric intellectual causes and forget ground realities that need to be addressed. They get busy working on keeping their visas, getting green cards, and citizenship. None of this benefit the home country in the short and medium run—maybe much later, there will be some flow-back, but the person may not be an EA by that time :(
migration moves the person away from family, reducing the roots and connections. The family left behind has less support. They all spend large amounts of money commuting to meet each other, or they lose contact except in a vacation-together shallow way.
when someone migrates, the person can no longer inspire others in the home country to work on causes that would benefit the people of that country. Others, too, want to migrate to improve their “quality of life”
Also, when you suggest migration as a mode of being an EA, potential EAs may see it as a message that their home country is not a nice place to live and work. Such movement may make sense if there is some major problem in the country, but wanting to migrate just because a country is not so rich and to call it “EA” seems decidedly odd to me. People are happy and productive in non-rich countries, too.
Another point is that skills for developmental work are often difficult to get. Development initiatives need persons who can envisage such initiatives, staff them, and implement them. All that needs people who are good and have not migrated. Money cannot buy what is not available. Suggesting more migration doesn’t make sense to me. It is my opinion that too many EAs who have no ground experience in other countries don’t realize this problem well enough.
Migration is anyway a rather drastic step. It is far from easy. Even getting a visa is not easy, and there is a large amount of uncertainty around it.
Suggesting going to other countries to pick up some relevant educational or work skills makes sense to me. But migration as a recommended EA approach seems decidedly odd. Just my thoughts as a resident of a not-so-rich country who works as a full-time volunteer.
“Perhaps that, in itself, is a comment on how unimportant or uncomfortable the topic is for other EAs.”
The simple explanation is that about 90% of forum readers here live in rich countries so don’t feel qualified to say what people in other countries should do.
“I am unclear why you think migration is a good EA idea. You call it “straightforward” but it is not obvious to me how migration to richer countries can help overall social impact, at least in the poorer country to which the potential EA belongs.”
OK the reasons are:
most people I speak to want to migrate for prudential reasons anyway;
better access to outstanding education and training opportunities;
much better opportunities to ‘earn to give’;
ability to influence larger foundation and government budgets, which are typically based in richer countries;
more opportunities to do valuable academic/industry research and innovation as R&D is disproportionately conducted in the rich world;
more widely recognised credentials allow more rapid promotions;
firms typically have much lower labour productivity in poor countries—that’s usually a key reason they are poor—which will hold people back from accomplishing as much as they might otherwise;
it seems like emigration somewhat raises wages in the leaving country because it raises the capital to labour ratio;
Etc.
Of course your milage may vary if you want to pursue a career track that is easier to pursue directly in the developing world (e.g. development projects or ‘bottom of pyramid’ businesses’), significantly prefer life in another country, or think it would make you significantly less altruistic to live in the developing world.
On ‘brain drain’ and remittances Michael Clemens comments here: https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/22/think-again-brain-drain/. Global remittances are several times larger than all foreign aid.