THIS is a reply to the article, ‘The effects of, and solution to migration of skilled labour,’ is one of redundancy and I wish to reiterate, ‘my take,’ on this whole concept of brain circulation.

Once again, brain circulation is counter to the term brain drain. ‘Brain drain’ relates to the ‘loss of brain capital’ which refers to immigration of skilled labour to foreign countries, that is, the gain of intellectual capital of the receiving country. The migration of talented people from developing to advanced countries was viewed in the ‘postwar decades’ as a ‘brain drain’.

Conversely, ‘brain circulation’ refers to the input of those skills and experiences of our overseas-based Guyanese to establish business relationships or to start new companies in Guyana, and at the same time, maintain their social and professional ties to the United States. How hard is that to comprehend?

I would like to advise Mr. Clinton Urling that real solutions come with research and hypotheses. Also, I would like Mr. Urling to ‘prove’ that my hypotheses are unproven, and note, that this is no lecture, but rather a letter. My lecture would be too prolix for this forum.

I am also unclear as to why Mr. Urling is surprised? My conclusion that he was not familiar with ‘brain drain’ was directly related to the notion in his previous letter titled, ‘The concepts of ‘brain gain’ and ‘brain circulation’ remain unclear.’ It is astounding that something so simple remains complex for letter writer.

Anyway, moving on, since Mr. Urling rebukes my use for the concepts ‘brain gain’ and ‘brain circulation,’ and how we can put into practise what these two concepts mean, proves that he is obviously not open to new ideas and refuses to at least understand the denotation of the concepts. I would think he would be more welcoming to new ideas, since he claimed to be so unfamiliar with them.

He also rages about ‘real solutions’, since my proposal as I would assume was an ‘unreal solution’, then let him tell the readers what his real solution(s) are.

It would be a fib to say that Guyanese are not contributing to nation building, as evidenced through my observations and talking to my colleagues in the public and private sector. Mr. Urling’s observations do not represent the opinions of the population of Guyana.

In addition, since Mr. Urling contends that he has information based on his observations and interaction with his colleagues about the impediments that hinder the attraction of competent and skilled labour then tell the readers what these hindrances are.

I still insist that individual responsibility is paramount in ‘brain circulation/brain gain’, and it is our effort which counts to persuade the Diaspora to contribute to nation building.

Historically, migration was a one-way process, but today, with globalisation and increased technology, we have the capability of turning it around.

Should we continue to lament and preach negatives, then only negatives we will be achieved. As you sow, so shall you reap!

If I want to leave Guyana tomorrow and never return, how will you persuade me otherwise? I have already persuaded myself to remain here. I now toss the ball in your court. And so, limiting migration is not a practicable solution, since it begs the question of who will do the limiting.

I invite the letter writer to read the Newsletter of UNESCO’s Education Sector on the topic ‘From Brain Drain to Brain Gain’ for more information.

There are other references in the literature on ‘brain gain’ and ‘brain circulation’ to which this letter writer needs to peruse for educational purposes.
MARISSA LOWDEN