Thursday, July 30, 2009

Meritocracy and Brain Drain

Groucho Marx, the famous Jewish-American comedian, once said:

"I would never want to belong to a club which would accept me as a member."

We are in the wake of the downfall of all the major ideologies of the 20th century - Fascism, Communism, etc. (democracy included!) The New Order, heralded by President Bush, emerged as a battle of Open Club versus Closed Club societies, at least from the economic point of view.

All modern states and societies belong to one of these two categories: meritocracy (the rule of merit) or oligarchy (the rule of a minority over the majority). In both cases, the social and economic structures are controlled by elites. In this complex world, the rule of elites is inevitable. The amount of knowledge needed in order to exercise effective government has become so large - that only a select few can attain it. What differentiates meritocracy from oligarchy is not the absolute number of members of a ruling (or of a leading) class - the number is surprisingly small in both systems. The difference between them lies in the membership criteria and in the way that they are applied.

The meritocratic elite is an open club because it satisfies four conditions:

1.The rules of joining it and the criteria to be satisfied are publicly known.
2.The application and ultimate membership procedures are uniform, equal to all and open to public scrutiny and criticism (transparent).
3. The system alters its membership parameters in direct response to public feedback and to the changing social and economic environment.
4. To belong to a meritocracy one needs to satisfy a series of demands. Whether he (or she) satisfies them or not - is entirely up to him (her).

In other words, in meritocracy the rules of joining and of membership are cast in iron. The wishes and opinions of those who happen to belong to the club at a given moment are of no importance and of no consequence. In this sense, meritocracy is a "fair play" approach: play by the rules and you have a chance to benefit equal to anyone else's. Meritocracy, in other words, is the rule of law.

To join a meritocratic club, one needs to demonstrate that he is in possession of, or that he has access to, "inherent" parameters: intelligence, a certain level of education, a given amount of contribution to the social structure governed (or led, or controlled) by the meritocratic elite.

An inherent parameter is a criterion which is independent of the views and predilections of those who are forced to apply it. All the members of a certain committee can disdain an applicant. All of them might wish not to include the candidate in their ranks. All of them could prefer someone else for the job because they owe this "Someone Else" something, or because they play golf with him. Still, they will be forced to consider the applicant's or the candidate's "inherent" parameters: does he have the necessary tenure, qualifications, education, experience? Does he contribute to his workplace, community, society at large? In other words: is he "worthy"? Granted: these processes of selection, admission, incorporation and assimilation are administered by mere humans.

They are, therefore, subject to human failings. Can qualifications be always judged "objectively, unambiguously, unequivocally"? and what about "the right personality traits" or "the ability to engage in teamwork"? These are vague enough to hide bias and bad will. Still, at least the appearance is kept in most of the cases - and decisions can be challenged in courts.

What characterizes oligarchy is the extensive, relentless and ruthless use of "transcendent" parameters to decide who will belong where, who will get which job and, ultimately, who will enjoy which benefits (instead of the "inherent" ones employed in meritocracy). A transcendent parameter does not depend on the candidate or the applicant. It is an accident, an occurrence absolutely beyond the reach of those most affected by it. Race is such a parameter and so are gender, familial affiliation or contacts and influence. To join a closed, oligarchic club, to get the right job, to enjoy excessive benefits - one must be white (racism), male (sexual discrimination), born to the right family (nepotism), or to have the right political (or other) contacts.

Sometimes, belonging to one such club is the prerequisite for joining another. In France, for instance, the whole country is politically and economically run by graduates of the Ecole Normale d'Administration (ENA). They are known as the ENArques (=the royal dynasty of ENA graduates).

The drive for privatization of state enterprises in most East and Central European countries provides a glaring example of oligarchic machinations. In most of these countries (the Czech Republic and Russia are notorious examples) - the companies were sold to political cronies. A unique amalgam of capitalism and oligarchy was thus created: "Crony Capitalism" or Privateering. The national wealth was passed on to the hands of relatively few, well connected, individuals, at a ridiculously low price.

Some criteria are difficult to classify. Does money belong to the first (inherent) or to the second (transcendent) group? After all, making money indicates some merits, some inherent advantages. To make money consistently, a person needs to be diligent, hard working, to prevail over hardships, far sighted and a host of other - universally acclaimed - properties. On the other hand, is it fair that someone who made his fortune through corruption, inheritance, or utter luck - be preferred to a poor genius?

That is a contentious issue. In the USA money talks. He who has money is automatically assumed to be virtuous and meritorious. To maintain money inherited is as difficult a task as to make it, the thinking goes.

An oligarchy tends to have long term devastating economic effects. The reason is that the best and the brightest - when shut out by the members of the ruling elites - emigrate. In a country where one's job is determined by his family connections or by influence peddling - those best fit to do the job are likely to be disappointed, then disgusted and then to leave the place altogether. This is the phenomenon known as "Brain Drain". It is one of the biggest migratory tidal waves in human history. Capable, well-trained, educated, young people leave their oligarchic, arbitrary, countries and migrate to more predictable meritocracies (mostly to be found in what is collectively termed "The West").

This is colonialism of the worst kind. The mercantilist definition of a colony was: a territory which exports raw materials and imports finished products. The Brain drain is exactly that: the poorer countries are exporting raw brains and buying back the finished products masterminded by these brains.

Yet, while in classical colonialism, the colony at least received some income for its exports - here the poor country pays to export. The country invests its limited resources in the education and training of these bright young people. When they depart forever, they take with them this investment - and award it, as a gift, to their new, much richer, host countries.

This is an absurd situation: the poor countries subsidize the rich. Ready made professionals leave the poor countries - embodying an enormous investment in human resources - and land this investment in a rich country. This is also one of the biggest forms of capital flight and capital transfers in history. Some poor countries understood these basic, unpleasant, facts of life. They imposed an "education fee" on those leaving its border. This fee was supposed to, at least partially, recapture the costs of educating and training those emigrating. Romania and the USSR imposed such levies on Jews emigrating to Israel in the 1970s. Others just raise their hands up in despair and classify the brain drain in the natural cataclysms department.

Very few countries are trying to tackle the fundamental, structural and
philosophical flaws of the system, the roots of the disenchantment of those leaving them. The Brain Drain is so serious that some countries lost up to a third of their total population (Macedonia, some under developed countries in South East Asia and in Africa). Others lost up to one half of their educated workforce (for instance, Israel during the 1980s).

This is a dilapidation of the most important resource a nation has: its people. Brains are a natural resource which could easily be mined by society to its penultimate benefit.

Brains are an ideal natural resource: they can be cultivated, directed, controlled, manipulated, regulated. It tends to grow exponentially through interaction and they have an unparalleled economic value added. The profit margin in knowledge and information related industries far exceeds anything exhibited by more traditional, second wave, industries (not to mention first wave agriculture and agribusiness).

What is even more important:

Poor countries are uniquely positioned to take advantage of this third revolution. With cheap, educated workforce - they can monopolize basic data processing and telecommunications functions worldwide.

True, this calls for massive initial investments in physical infrastructure. But the important component is here and now: the brains. To constrain them, to disappoint them, to make them run away, to more merit-appreciating places - is to sentence the country to a permanent disadvantage.

By: Sam Vaknin

6 Opinion(s):

Doberman said...

Excellent post but I fear the concept would fly over the heads of most ANC parleymunts. To them quantity, not quality is what matters and it will never change.

Viking said...

I think that cartoon makes my point for me - vote for whomever you like as long as they support Uncle Sam!

In a functioning democracy, the best candidates should be in power, and can be easily replaced if they aren't. Just because democracy = mob rule in South Africa doesn't mean it is outdated.

Time and time again, the gifted and particularly intelligent have proven that they can't govern - mostly because they can't resist complex ideologies.

FishEagle said...

@ Viking, the biggest problem with the democracy is that it creates increasing human populations. It is not in the interest of political leaders to curb population growth because it reduces their support base. In a time when the human population has exceeded the earth's carrying capacity by 1.4 times, such a system is terribly outdated!!

Viking said...

welcome back :)

I don't see how democracy creates increasing populations as you say, most overpopulated countries are not democracies, or at least didn't get that way under democracy. Unless you launch a massive eugenics programme, no system of government will reverse this overpopulation.
Democracy should - should - promote careful family planning ideas and responsible citizenship, the only antidote to increased population.
Europe and America are the only (white, democratic) societies that keep their populations under control - and it ISN'T through force.

FishEagle said...

@ Viking, thanks. You make a very good point. However, in Africa tribes have encouraged increasing population numbers because it equated to more political power in their democracies. A democracy allowed them freedom of choice and they chose to vote according to race and tribe.

FishEagle said...

Viking, to follow up on my previous comment. It is not going to be long before the same battle of numbers plays out between whites and immigrants in the first world countries.