There is much public policy concern that low income countries invest large amounts into training health personnel, but do not receive the benefits. It is not difficult to find papers expressing concern about the extent of international brain drain - here are just a few.

This post dives into this literature to summarize what we do and do not know about health worker migration.

13

1
0

Reactions

1
0
Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Also posted on blog!

Thanks Lauren for this really well thought through and balanced discussion of a really complex topic. This is one of the first times that I've seen such a nuanced approach, most articles are banging one side or the other when like you say - its really complicated and I . I have a couple of extra thoughts, which I don't think add

1. I think this situation is so complicated that it is hard to make worldwide generalisations like "Medical immigation is good" or vice versa. Each country's situation needs to be assessed differently. The Phillipines is a great example which I think is pretty clearly good for everyone, with a few caveats. In Nigeria I'm pretty uncertain as there are a wide range of positives and negatives there. If the new "double the doctors" training initiative came through I would lean towards positive, but otherwise I would lean a little negative (with enormous uncertainty)

2. A few points where calculations could maybe be improved (not the biggest deal)
- You state the cost at $10,000 a year for training doctors, I think its likely to be a lot lower, maybe $5000 to $7000. BUT med school is never 3 years like you've estimated, more like 5 or 6 so your end calculation number might be pretty similar!

- You've left out internal remittances and potential tax benefits to the government in your remittances calculations - these aren't insignificant as doctors earn decent wages by low income country standards and do benefit the country. This is a tricky counterfactual but our nurses spend about quarter of their income supporting their family, and doctors here would be similar. So if a doctor was earning 1,000 dollars a month, if they spent 20% on their family that would be $2500 a year. I'm not sure how to take this into account exactly under your calculation but I feel like the money local doctors pour into their less well off family members should be taken into account somehow.

And then there's tax as well. Personally don't think each tax dollar is worth much in low income countries - but most experts disagree with me.

3. Even though the literature doesn't talk about it much, I think there are 2   potential harms of immigration that  could be really bg but can be hard to quantify (I've banged on about this a few times)
- First, often the most experienced and best doctors leave, which opens up leadership vacuums within important institutions. Like if a senior hospital doctor leaves, they aren't "replacible" immediately. The flow on effects can be way more than just losing a doctor clinically
- Second, the "Japa" effect (Nigeria) where everyone wants to leave the country can sow discontent and produce quite a negative environment. Won't get into this in detail but have discussed before

Anyway thanks heaps for the article and again appreciate you bringing in perspectives from all sides without strawmanning!

Responded on Substack!

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Forethought[1] is a new AI macrostrategy research group cofounded by Max Dalton, Will MacAskill, Tom Davidson, and Amrit Sidhu-Brar. We are trying to figure out how to navigate the (potentially rapid) transition to a world with superintelligent AI systems. We aim to tackle the most important questions we can find, unrestricted by the current Overton window. More details on our website. Why we exist We think that AGI might come soon (say, modal timelines to mostly-automated AI R&D in the next 2-8 years), and might significantly accelerate technological progress, leading to many different challenges. We don’t yet have a good understanding of what this change might look like or how to navigate it. Society is not prepared. Moreover, we want the world to not just avoid catastrophe: we want to reach a really great future. We think about what this might be like (incorporating moral uncertainty), and what we can do, now, to build towards a good future. Like all projects, this started out with a plethora of Google docs. We ran a series of seminars to explore the ideas further, and that cascaded into an organization. This area of work feels to us like the early days of EA: we’re exploring unusual, neglected ideas, and finding research progress surprisingly tractable. And while we start out with (literally) galaxy-brained schemes, they often ground out into fairly specific and concrete ideas about what should happen next. Of course, we’re bringing principles like scope sensitivity, impartiality, etc to our thinking, and we think that these issues urgently need more morally dedicated and thoughtful people working on them. Research Research agendas We are currently pursuing the following perspectives: * Preparing for the intelligence explosion: If AI drives explosive growth there will be an enormous number of challenges we have to face. In addition to misalignment risk and biorisk, this potentially includes: how to govern the development of new weapons of mass destr
jackva
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
 [Edits on March 10th for clarity, two sub-sections added] Watching what is happening in the world -- with lots of renegotiation of institutional norms within Western democracies and a parallel fracturing of the post-WW2 institutional order -- I do think we, as a community, should more seriously question our priors on the relative value of surgical/targeted and broad system-level interventions. Speaking somewhat roughly, with EA as a movement coming of age in an era where democratic institutions and the rule-based international order were not fundamentally questioned, it seems easy to underestimate how much the world is currently changing and how much riskier a world of stronger institutional and democratic backsliding and weakened international norms might be. Of course, working on these issues might be intractable and possibly there's nothing highly effective for EAs to do on the margin given much attention to these issues from society at large. So, I am not here to confidently state we should be working on these issues more. But I do think in a situation of more downside risk with regards to broad system-level changes and significantly more fluidity, it seems at least worth rigorously asking whether we should shift more attention to work that is less surgical (working on specific risks) and more systemic (working on institutional quality, indirect risk factors, etc.). While there have been many posts along those lines over the past months and there are of course some EA organizations working on these issues, it stil appears like a niche focus in the community and none of the major EA and EA-adjacent orgs (including the one I work for, though I am writing this in a personal capacity) seem to have taken it up as a serious focus and I worry it might be due to baked-in assumptions about the relative value of such work that are outdated in a time where the importance of systemic work has changed in the face of greater threat and fluidity. When the world seems to
Sam Anschell
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
*Disclaimer* I am writing this post in a personal capacity; the opinions I express are my own and do not represent my employer. I think that more people and orgs (especially nonprofits) should consider negotiating the cost of sizable expenses. In my experience, there is usually nothing to lose by respectfully asking to pay less, and doing so can sometimes save thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per hour. This is because negotiating doesn’t take very much time[1], savings can persist across multiple years, and counterparties can be surprisingly generous with discounts. Here are a few examples of expenses that may be negotiable: For organizations * Software or news subscriptions * Of 35 corporate software and news providers I’ve negotiated with, 30 have been willing to provide discounts. These discounts range from 10% to 80%, with an average of around 40%. * Leases * A friend was able to negotiate a 22% reduction in the price per square foot on a corporate lease and secured a couple months of free rent. This led to >$480,000 in savings for their nonprofit. Other negotiable parameters include: * Square footage counted towards rent costs * Lease length * A tenant improvement allowance * Certain physical goods (e.g., smart TVs) * Buying in bulk can be a great lever for negotiating smaller items like covid tests, and can reduce costs by 50% or more. * Event/retreat venues (both venue price and smaller items like food and AV) * Hotel blocks * A quick email with the rates of comparable but more affordable hotel blocks can often save ~10%. * Professional service contracts with large for-profit firms (e.g., IT contracts, office internet coverage) * Insurance premiums (though I am less confident that this is negotiable) For many products and services, a nonprofit can qualify for a discount simply by providing their IRS determination letter or getting verified on platforms like TechSoup. In my experience, most vendors and companies
Recent opportunities in Global health & development