Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Debating Brain Drain: May Governments Restrict Emigration? By Gillian Brock and Michael Blake. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Debating Brain Drain: May Governments Restrict Emigration? By Gillian Brock and Michael Blake.... Global Governance 22 (2016), 447–451 BOOK REVIEWS Debating Brain Drain: May Governments Restrict Emigration? By Gillian Brock and Michael Blake. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Gillian Brock and Michael Blake offer a rich, nuanced, thoughtful, and com- pelling debate regarding whether it is permissible, just, and wise for develop- ing countries to enact restrictions on the right of skilled workers to emigrate. The book proceeds in three parts. In Part I, Brock offers arguments in defense of the view that developing countries may impose various restrictions on skilled workers who have emigrated or seek to emigrate. Brock argues that the departure of these workers, in a phenomenon known colloquially as the brain drain, has immediate negative effects for the life chances of the residents who remain behind and has longer-term negative effects on the potential for the de- velopment of high-quality political institutions that are capable of producing shared prosperity. Brock proposes that developing countries may impose com- pulsory service requirements on those who have been provided with the edu- cation and training needed to become a skilled professional, and may impose taxation on emigrants who work abroad. In Part II Blake responds, arguing that such restrictions are neither compatible with a liberal conception of jus- tice nor likely to produce very good effects in the sending states. Blake argues that it is unfairly burdensome to preclude exit and require skilled workers to labor on the behalf of others even if doing so would serve the interests of jus- tice more broadly. In Part III, each responds to the other. Ultimately, I share with Blake some pessimism about the effectiveness of taxation or compulsory service in producing good outcomes in sending states while I share with Brock the view that it is permissible and consistent with liberal justice for states to enact some of these policies. I certainly commend the book to readers with specific interests in migration policy and more general interests in global po- litical philosophy. Reviewed by Scott Wisor Hybrid Justice: The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. By John D. Ciorciari and Anne Heindel. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2014. This book offers a close and detailed account of the creation, structure, and work of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), the hybrid tribunal created in 2003 by agreement of the Royal Government of Cambodia and the United Nations. The tribunal’s principle mandate is to try leaders of the Khmer Rouge for crimes committed during Pol Pot’s four-year http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations Brill

Debating Brain Drain: May Governments Restrict Emigration? By Gillian Brock and Michael Blake. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Download PDF
1 page

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/debating-brain-drain-may-governments-restrict-emigration-by-gillian-lGGzrv90XS

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
Copyright © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
1075-2846
eISSN
1942-6720
DOI
10.1163/19426720-02203009
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Global Governance 22 (2016), 447–451 BOOK REVIEWS Debating Brain Drain: May Governments Restrict Emigration? By Gillian Brock and Michael Blake. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Gillian Brock and Michael Blake offer a rich, nuanced, thoughtful, and com- pelling debate regarding whether it is permissible, just, and wise for develop- ing countries to enact restrictions on the right of skilled workers to emigrate. The book proceeds in three parts. In Part I, Brock offers arguments in defense of the view that developing countries may impose various restrictions on skilled workers who have emigrated or seek to emigrate. Brock argues that the departure of these workers, in a phenomenon known colloquially as the brain drain, has immediate negative effects for the life chances of the residents who remain behind and has longer-term negative effects on the potential for the de- velopment of high-quality political institutions that are capable of producing shared prosperity. Brock proposes that developing countries may impose com- pulsory service requirements on those who have been provided with the edu- cation and training needed to become a skilled professional, and may impose taxation on emigrants who work abroad. In Part II Blake responds, arguing that such restrictions are neither compatible with a liberal conception of jus- tice nor likely to produce very good effects in the sending states. Blake argues that it is unfairly burdensome to preclude exit and require skilled workers to labor on the behalf of others even if doing so would serve the interests of jus- tice more broadly. In Part III, each responds to the other. Ultimately, I share with Blake some pessimism about the effectiveness of taxation or compulsory service in producing good outcomes in sending states while I share with Brock the view that it is permissible and consistent with liberal justice for states to enact some of these policies. I certainly commend the book to readers with specific interests in migration policy and more general interests in global po- litical philosophy. Reviewed by Scott Wisor Hybrid Justice: The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. By John D. Ciorciari and Anne Heindel. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2014. This book offers a close and detailed account of the creation, structure, and work of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), the hybrid tribunal created in 2003 by agreement of the Royal Government of Cambodia and the United Nations. The tribunal’s principle mandate is to try leaders of the Khmer Rouge for crimes committed during Pol Pot’s four-year

Journal

Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations – Brill

Published: Aug 19, 2016

There are no references for this article.