You are on page 1of 19

Vladimir GREČIĆ1

UDK 332.012.32:341.215.43
Biblid 0025-8555,54(2002)
Vol. LIV, br. 3, pp. 253-271
Izvorni naučni rad
Avgust 2002.



The paper deals mainly with brain drain, primarily including

emigration of professionals - scientists and engineers from the FR of
Yugoslavia. The author discusses the magnitude of the brain drain in FRY and
the main reasons of emigration. He argues that the brain drain is in general a
loss for the country of origin and mainly a gain for the host country, and
explains what could be the main contributions of these professionals to the
reforms in their country of origin.

1. Introduction

For many years, SFRY faced numerous economic difficulties that,

among other things, made professionals migrate to foreign countries.
However, the events that occurred in the first half of 1990s - the ethnic
conflicts, the civil war in the former Yugoslav republics of Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Croatia and in the Serbian province Kosovo and Metohija, as
well as the international isolation of FR Yugoslavia caused by the sanctions
imposed by UN, accelerated brain drain from Serbia and Montenegro, what
was particularly prominent in 1993. One may generally say that the migration
of scientists and professionals is at the same time: (a) an economic issue, (b)
a political issue, (c) an issue of each country’s relationship with the
international environment, (d) an issue of country’s scientific and

1 Prof. Vladimir Grečić, Professor at the School of Economics, University of Belgrade, and
Deputy Director of the Institute of International Politics and Economics, Belgrade

MP 3, 2002 - Migracije i tranyicija u Jugoslaviji

technological policy and, certainly, (e) a global issue. In this paper, migration
of scientists and professionals is primarily treated as an economic issue.
Therefore, the main factor, which represents the basis for such migration, is
the economic and political situation of the country concerned. At the
beginning of the paper, the author examines the nature of the phenomenon. In
doing this, we have tried to argue that the problem is deeply rooted in the
economy of less developed countries, and consequently, in the development-
gap between them and the industrialized ones, i.e. immigration countries.

2. Migration background

The former Yugoslavia has had a share in the world migratory trends
for a long time now. External migrations and some of its regions
characterized the entire territory, particularly, by migration for economic
reasons. The onset, expansion and intensity of Yugoslav external migrations
are attributed to historical, economic, demographic, political, social, ethnic
and psychological factors. In fact, the action of these factors is
interdependent. The economic and non-economic factors tend to interweave,
and their interaction triggers off different kinds of migratory movements.
Although they are inseparable from the other motivating forces, the
economic factors were, nevertheless, the main cause of Yugoslav external
migrations. The push and pull factors that underlined the economic
motivation for migration played a relevant role. The economic boom of West
European countries, favorable market conditions and immigration policies all
made an important pull factor. On the other hand, the discrepancy between
labor supply and demand and the economic and social situation in the country
particularly prompted the labor migration. With the involvement of
Yugoslavia in the international division of labor and the implementation of
economic reforms, a positive attitude to external migrations in general was
formed, which in turn speeded them up.
The external migration of active population who could not find
employment in the country resulted from a labor force surplus brought about
by the reform orientation to intensive operation. The surplus agricultural
labor force also sought employment abroad. However, migrants were not
recruited from the ranks of the unemployed only. As a matter of fact, people
who already had jobs tended to migrate as well, being attracted by higher
wages abroad, the opportunity to save, to deal more efficiently with certain
financial problems and enjoy higher living standards. The difficulty in
funding work in certain vocations and the wish for vocational advancement
caused a considerable outflow of skilled labor force. Finally, economic

MP 3, 2002 - Migracije i tranyicija u Jugoslaviji

migration was to a considerable extent also caused by the difference in the

attained development level between different regions.
As a part of European migrations, the expansion of Yugoslav external
migration was in line with the European labor force migration trends. The
first stage of migration, which reached its peak in the 19th century and ended
with the end of the World War I, was characterized by overseas migratory
movements, while the inflow of immigrants in Europe was less intensive.
The economically motivated migration from Yugoslavia, at that time, had the
character of emigration and was directed overseas, primarily to North and
South America and Australia, as well as to almost all of the Western
European countries.
Until the end of World II, Europe had still been an emigration region
in relation to both of the Americas and Oceania. Many migrants had departed
from the West European countries, which were to become migrant receiving
countries subsequently. The second stage of migration began immediately
after the World War II. Migration from Yugoslavia after World War II was,
at that time, an economic necessity resulting from the situation in the country.
Since migration was treated as something of transitional character,
employment abroad was disorganized, so that the status and rights of
Yugoslav migrants were unregulated and inadequately protected. Most of
about 200,000 citizens of the former Yugoslavia who were staying West
European countries at the end of the war, with refugee status mostly, moved
to the USA, Canada, Australia, Argentina, Brazil and New Zealand. The end
of the fifties completed this displacement process.
The main patterns of migration began to substantially change in the
early sixties, when the third stage of migration began. The overseas migration
from Europe diminished significantly. Labor markets in North and West
European countries that experienced an economic boom and were short of
labor force opened themselves up to foreign migrants sent on regular basis
from the South European countries. Migrant workers from Yugoslavia began
to play a role of growing importance in the Europe's economy. Among the
migrants who lived in European countries in the early sixties, there were only
about 40,000 citizens of the former Yugoslavia. However, as of the mid-
sixties, their number began to grow at a fast pace.
According to the official estimates, at the end of 1973 there were
about 1,150,000 Yugoslav migrant in Western Europe. About 860,000 of
them were employed. Around 606,000 were sent to work abroad through
Yugoslav authorities and employment bureaus, thanks to the establishment of
legal and institutional management of economic migration. The number of
Yugoslav emigrants in Australia, the USA and Canada also kept increasing at
this stage.

MP 3, 2002 - Migracije i tranyicija u Jugoslaviji

European migrations entered the fourth stage in the mid-seventies. As

a consequence of economic and energy crisis, stagnating development,
sharply increased unemployment and diminishing demand in the labor force,
the receiving countries adopted restrictive immigration policies arresting new
employment and calling for selective integration of foreign workers. The
number of Yugoslav migrant workers decreased then from about 860,000 to
650,000, while the number of family members increased, from 250,000 to
390,000 during the 1973-1979 period. Repatriation was relatively intensified
then, and the number of returnees averaged about 30,000 a year.2
The industrialized countries entered a new cycle of technological
revolution in the mid-eighties. The increased instability and deregulation of
the market and the stepped-up international integration processes brought
about higher labor market flexibility as well as mobility. As a result of the
action of all these factors, industrialized countries stopped "importing" less
skilled labor force and increasingly began to look for highly skilled people,
scientists and researchers. The general economic trends began to deteriorate
in the former Yugoslavia at that time. These factors prompted many
Yugoslav citizens, including a lot of young and educated people, to emigrate.
Despite a general ban of employment of foreigners in Western Europe, about
30,000 workers from the former Yugoslavia were on average employed
yearly in the eighties.
In the last decade of the twentieth century, Yugoslav social and
economic life has produced a new wave of emigration these especially highly
skilled workers. This wave of emigration from the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia peaked in 1993 at about 12,500 people (only to overseas
The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was facing the issue of strategic
choices for its future, as dispute between Serbia and Montenegro and as the
crisis overshadows its temporary economic recovery.
Like most experts who study intellectual migration the author asserts
that if the process of migration is prominent it has negative implications for
the country of origin. Since a large number of researchers and professionals
emigrate from Serbia and Montenegro, the author points to the negative
effects or the losses our country suffers for this cause. On the basis of
empirical indicators, the author concludes during the 1990-2000 period the
number of citizens who emigrated from Serbia and Montenegro to overseas

2 Grečić, V., Ed., Jugoslovenske spoljne migracije - Analitičke osnove za utvrdjivanje

politike SR Jugoslavije u oblasti spoljnih migracija (Yugoslav External Migration -
Analytical Grounds for Setting the Policy of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Relating
to External Migrations), Beograd, Savezno ministarstvo za rad, zdravstvo i socilajnu
politku, Institut za medjunarodnu politiku i privredu i Savezni zavod za trziste rada i
migracije, 1998.

MP 3, 2002 - Migracije i tranyicija u Jugoslaviji

countries amounted to 73,000, of which over 17,000 of them were with

university qualifications.3 Taking into consideration Europe as well as other
parts of the world, the author estimates that the exodus of citizens holding
university degrees is probably over 30,000. However, the author also points
out the following: 1) creating a professional costs much more than his/her
training, as it includes their upbringing, food, housing, clothing, health
insurance, etc. (to create of a professional with university degree, it is
necessary to invest $ 300,000); and 2) the cost is great when the expected
gain from a professional fails to materialize. Thus, if 30,000 professionals
emigrated from Serbia and Montenegro during the last decade of XX century,
whose creation has cost $ 300,000 each, and then this makes a loss of about $
9 billion.

3. Data and method

The 1995 survey used in this study was carried out for the Yugoslav
Ministry for Development, Science and the Environment. At the end of 1994,
the Federal Ministry for Development, Science and the Environment assigned
the Institute of International Politics and Economics and “Mihajlo Pupin”
Institute with the task to carry out the research project, especially aimed at
pursuing and analyzing the emigration intentions of researchers. As a matter
of fact, its main purpose was to gather information about emigration
intentions of Yugoslav scientists and professionals engaged in research at
universities, institutes and R & D units. Though emigration intentions do not
necessary lead to actual emigration, they can be useful in forecasting future
emigration trends.4 Respondents were drawn randomly from universities,
institutes and R & D units in the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of
Montenegro, using the methods and experiences of the research carried out
by Russian researchers Tichonov, Dolgikh and Ledeniova.5
Within the framework of the project, 501 researchers were surveyed
(and 675 students). The majority of respondents were men: 63.7% of total.
Among respondents 88.5% were from the Republic of Serbia and 11.5% from
Montenegro. The majority of respondents were the Serbs (78.8%), followed

3 See tables 1-6.

4 Dolgikh, E., Determinants of migration potentials among Russian physicists, Studi
Emigrazione, 1995, 117, 144-157.
5 Tichonov, V., Migration potential within Russia's military-industrial complex, Studi
Emigrazione, 1995, 117, 128-143; Dolgikh, E., Determinants of migration potentials
among Russian physicists, op. cit.; Ledeniova, L., Attitude to emigration among
university students in the former USSR, Studi Emigrazione, 1995, 117, 189-199.

MP 3, 2002 - Migracije i tranyicija u Jugoslaviji

by Montenegrins (11.3%), Yugoslavs (4.5%) and others (5.4%). Polling was

held in May-June 1995 period. To meet the objectives of the study, we
surveyed over 3.5% of total Yugoslav (Serbian and Montenegrin) researchers
employed in scientific - research and R & D institutions. The poll was
conducted for all areas of sciences with identical questions. However, the
majority was from technological (71.1%) and natural - mathematical sciences
(13.3%). Factors such as advanced scientific degree; computer literacy and
command of foreign languages were used to evaluate the professional
capabilities of respondents. The majority of respondents use personal
computers in their work (89.1%), 78.6% speak English fluently; 24.2% speak
Russian fluently; 12.9% speak France fluently, and 7.2% speak German
fluently. The majority (66.9%) has had their work published in Yugoslavia
and abroad. Almost one fifth of the total number of respondents (19.1%) have
had their education abroad. Besides, 10.6% of the total were Ph.D. holders
and 23.3% had Master's degree. More than 56% experienced housing
problems; 38.8% of the total were single.
The questionnaires were divided into four main sections: working
conditions, wages and income, level of interest for work abroad and personal
and family characteristics.

4. Findings

The interest in working abroad was gauged by posing a question:

“Have you ever thought of going abroad for employment?” A greater part of
respondents (76.6% of researchers and 89% of students) confessed that they
thought of going abroad, 29.04% and 33%, respectively, had thought about it
quite seriously (frequently), while 47.6% of the surveyed researchers and
56% of surveyed students had thought it sometimes. Over 23% of the
researchers and 11% of the students gave a categorical answer “no!”. Also,
25% of the polled scientists and 28% of the polled students have already
taken specific measures for such departure. In fact, students had had a very
strong interest in working abroad. However, Liudmila Ledeniova was
probably on the right track when she concluded: “It would be exaggerated to
evaluate the emigration potential only on the basis of the respondents’
personal opinions. Moreover, the moods of those who have clearly stated
their intentions may, in the course of time, change.”6

6 Ledeniova, L., Attitude to emigration among university students in the former USSR, op.

MP 3, 2002 - Migracije i tranyicija u Jugoslaviji

The most frequent motives are specialization and the solving of

existential problems: salary, accommodation, etc.7 The intention to leave the
country permanently is more pronounced in students than in scientists.
According to the questionnaire, scientists most often arrange for their
departure through intermediary agencies (25.3%) colleagues who have
already left (11.3%) and friends in emigration (13.06%), while the most
favorable channel for students is a relative living abroad.
The most frequent emigration destinations for researchers are Canada
(18.51% of the total number of respondents) and the USA (10.72%), but there
is also a pronounced interest for Australia (4.5%) and New Zealand (7.4%) as
a) Push factors

The strongest reason for the departure of scientists abroad is the low
standard of living (24.8%) and the uncertainty for the future (18.7%), as well
as the housing problem (Table 9). For students, the strongest push factors are
the low living standards (29.9%), the uncertainty for the future (19.4%), and
the impossibility to fulfill one’s own conceptions (10%), economic instability

b) Pull factors

The strongest factors rendering emigration attractive to our scientists

are the possibilities of high earnings (21.24%) and much better material and
technical conditions for scientific work (Table 10).
In addition to these factors, students underline a high level of
scientific research (14.1%), which according to them, cannot be achieved in
our country under existing conditions. The strongest reasons keeping
scientists and students in the country is their preference to work in their own
country, expectations that the situation will improve, fear of the uncertainty
awaiting them in other countries, etc.

5. The possible role of return migrant professionals

Since the beginning of the 1960s, the brain drain has been identified
as a problem, hence something against which policies had to and, supposedly,
could react and struggle through voluntaristic decision-making. Until the late
1980s, these national or international policies have focused on

7 See table 8.

MP 3, 2002 - Migracije i tranyicija u Jugoslaviji

countermeasures, either to prevent/regulate flows of skills or to cancel their

negative effects though taxation. Though their design had often been
thoroughly studied, they failed to bring feasible or effective solutions. Today,
it appears that these repeated failures are mainly due to the partially wrong
underlying theoretical assumptions on which these policies were based. They
basically referred, indeed, to human capital approaches where the skilled
person is conceived as individual capital asset, made of all his/her
qualifications and professional experience resulting of prior investment.
Accordingly, the two ways to counter the loss of human capital is either to
restrict the flows through authoritative or negotiated decisions or to evaluate
its monetary cost and get financial compensation. It simply could not work
because, in fact, the human capital approach reflects but a small part of the
For that reasons, the sociology of science and technology has brought
a new understanding of the process of knowledge creation, transmission and
application. It insists on the collective nature of such a process, emphasizing
the role of scientific communities. The individual’s abilities and activities
only make sense and generate results with regard to the human and non-
human entities to which he/she is linked. The new expatriate knowledge
network, as spontaneous initiative of brain gain strategy through the Diaspora
option, is unique examples for migration scholars. It is important to learn and
understand more about these in order to facilitate their development.9 Such
knowledge network may be a form of the future.
When discussing the role of return migrant professionals in the
process of transition, it is necessary to have in view that Diaspora10 as a
whole is very important. Diaspora migration is one of many types of
migration likely to increase considerably during the early twenty-first
century. The term Diaspora has acquired a broad semantic domain. It now
encompasses a motley array of groups such as political refugees, alien
residents, guest workers, immigrants, expellees, ethnic and racial minorities,
and overseas communities.11
Diaspora has been important for prosperity of the Republic of Serbia
and Montenegro. Why? First, over one third of the total number of Serbs is
situated outside of their motherland. Second, many of them are Yugoslav
citizens. Third, it is necessary to inform them about the changes in their

8 Meyer, J. B., and M. Brown, Scientific Diasporas: A New Approach to the Brain Drain,
UNESCO-ICSU Conference, Budapest (26 June – 1 July), 1999.
9 Meyer, J. B., Network Approach versus Brain Drain: Lessons from the Diaspora,
International Migration, 2001, Vol. 39 (5), pp. 91-110.
10 Originally means all Jewish communities outside Israel.
11 Shuval, J. T., Diaspora Migration: Definitional Ambiguities and a Theoretical Paradigm,
International Migration, 2000, 38 (5), 41-57.

MP 3, 2002 - Migracije i tranyicija u Jugoslaviji

country of origin, about the relations between the motherland and their
compatriot leaving and working abroad. Forth, the author of this paper
regards those who belong to the Serbian Diaspora as protectors of national
interests. Fifth, the Serbian Diaspora represents a very important political
power and, if regulated by the law in that way, it would be a significant
electorate for some state bodies.
After the elections in Serbia in 2000 the newly elected government
called back Serbian professionals from Diaspora and asked them for help.
Migrant-professionals have, finally, got a clear signal from the government of
their motherland that they have been treated as equal partners and that they it
has asked them to establish overall cooperation with their country of origin.
Some of them already returned. And among them there are some prominent
ones. First, Serbian government appointed several ministers and assistant
ministers, advisors and other state officers from the category of migrants. For
example, for the position of Ministry of Finance was appointed Mr. Božidar
Djelić, a well-known expert in finance (came from France), while Mr.
Dragan Domazet (Singapore) was appointed Minister of Science and
Second, at the federal level, among the ambassadors of FRY
appointed after changes took place October 2000, two personalities were
exceptional in Yugoslav diplomacy after the World War II. Dr. Dragoljub
Popović, professor (from Switzerland) was appointed ambassador in
Switzerland, while Dr. Krinka Vidaković-Petrov (USA) ambassador in Israel.
Besides, the federal government officially founded the Diaspora
Council. Diaspora Council is the first body established by the federal
government in December 2001. Council members - 11 from Serbia and
Montenegro and 11 from Diaspora - have elected Mr. Čedomir Nestorović,
professor from France, the president of the Council, Jasmina Vujić, professor
from the USA, the vice-president and bishop of Serbian Orthodox Church
Mr. Lavrentije the vice-president.
Council's aims are:
• Proposing of the measures for improvement of cooperation with
• Strengthening of connection between Diaspora and Motherland
(country of origin) in all branches which relates to preservation of
national and cultural identity of Diaspora, the advancement of
economic, cultural, information, sport and other connections
between Motherland and Diaspora;
• Instigation of cooperation with Diaspora with regards to heading
of human and economic resources which are significant for the
economic development of the Motherland, as well as
• Proposing of adequate regulations and measures to the federal

MP 3, 2002 - Migracije i tranyicija u Jugoslaviji

Third, in Serbia and Montenegro were founded some other bodies and
organizations whose aims are strengthening of cooperation of migrating
professionals with their motherland.

6. Conclusion

Migration of top professionals and scientists from Yugoslavia in the

first half of 1990's was on the sharp rise. Research in the former FR
Yugoslavia has shown that most of the professionals who moved abroad were
willing to cooperate with Serbia and Montenegro, but they expected their
country of origin to make the first move. In addition to creating conditions to
keep some of the prospective emigrants in the country or bring back some of
the scientists who have gone abroad – drawing on the experience of other
countries and international organizations – Serbia and Montenegro are
devoting an increasing attention to cooperation with its professionals abroad.
The government is already upgrading its migration and development policy.
Within the migration policy, the Government will initiate the renewal of
employment agreements with immigration countries as soon as it becomes
feasible. Within the agreements on scientific, technical and cultural
cooperation, it will try to ensure regular exchange of information on the
immigration of their professionals into immigrant receiving countries.
Migration policy also encompasses the immigration of other nationals,
including professionals, into Serbia and Montenegro.
The author thinks that countries in transition should undertake a range
of measures in the migration sphere, so as to allow professionals now living
abroad to take part in their country's educational system and facilitate the
transfer of foreign experiences in the process of economic transformation. In
particularly, professionals could participate in the educational process, e.g. as
visiting professors, while the most prominent should be offered full-time
employment at universities in the country of origin; they should engage in
scientific and research projects in the country; in government bodies and
institutions as necessary, as mentors, etc. Furthermore, diplomatic and
consular representatives should be equipped to work with Diaspora; to use
the potentials provided by the country's professionals living abroad in
programs of international scientific and technological cooperation; to initiate
and carry out national Return of Talent Programs.12
To maximize the benefits of intellectual migration for the country of
origin, government activities in pre-migration, migration and post-migration

12 Grečić, V., Matejić, V., Kutlača, Dj. and Mikić, O., Migracije visokostručnih kadrova i
naučnika iz SR Jugoslavije (Migrations of Highly Skilled and Scientists from FR
Yugoslavia), Beograd, Savezno ministarstvo za razvoj, nauku i životnu sredinu, Institut
"Mihajlo Pupin", Institut za medjunarodnu politiku i privredu, 1996.

MP 3, 2002 - Migracije i tranyicija u Jugoslaviji

phases are of paramount importance. Activating adequate services in the

country of origin and reviving relevant activities in consulates in immigration
countries, may contribute to upgrading aid the country provides to the
migrants and in increasing its own benefits, while mitigating the adverse
effects of migration. Of course, these measures only are insufficient to
accelerate the pace of transition or to mitigate the "brain drain" problem.
Therefore, what else should countries in transition do to keep at home
as many professionals as possible and to make them contribute more to the
development of their country? What could be the role of developed countries
in this part of Europe? The author thinks that developed countries, especially
the members of the European Union, could contribute with their policy much
more than they did so far. If the developed countries, which are also
immigration countries, want to help professionals stay in their native
countries, they should do something similar to what the US did for Western
Europe 50 years ago through the Marshall Plan. Today the EU member
countries could particularly help in the development and transformation of
their eastern neighbors, thus also expanding the market for their own
products and services, contributing to the lasting peace, prosperity and
security in Southeastern Europe.
It is of national interest to keep the intellectual migration within the
framework of optimal proportions, and it should move in both directions, to
foreign countries and to the country of origin. The establishment,
maintenance and promotion of cooperation with its professionals who live
abroad are a priority task. The author is of the opinion that it is a part of the
national question. This is because professionals are a part of our national
being, regardless of their citizenship. The very priorities of the migration
policy are, thus, dictated by the national interest.
The future trends of the Serbian brain drain will primarily depend on
the foreign demand for professionals as well as on the rate of development of
the national economy and science, including the rate of "transition" of the
economy and society in general.


Dolgikh, E., Determinants of migration potentials among Russian

physicists, Studi Emigrazione, 1995, 117, 144-157.
Fakiolas, R., The role of migration in raising the skill level of the
labor force, Studi Emigrazione, 1995, 117, 221-223.

MP 3, 2002 - Migracije i tranyicija u Jugoslaviji

Glaser, W., The Brain Drain: Emigration and Return, Oxford,

Pergamon Press, 1978.
Golub, B., Croatian Scientists' Drain and its Roots, International
Migration, 1996, 4, pp. 609-623.
Grečić, V., Ed., Jugoslovenske spoljne migracije - Analitičke osnove
za utvrdjivanje politike SR Jugoslavije u oblasti spoljnih migracija (Yugoslav
External Migration - Analytical Grounds for Setting the Policy of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia Relating to External Migrations), Beograd, Savezno
ministarstvo za rad, zdravstvo i socilajnu politku, Institut za medjunarodnu
politiku i privredu i Savezni zavod za tržište rada i migracije, 1998.
Grečić, V., Matejić, V., Kutlača, Dj. and Mikić, O., Migracije
visokostručnih kadrova i naučnika iz SR Jugoslavije (Migrations of Highly
Skilled and Scientists from FR Yugoslavia), Beograd, Savezno ministarstvo
za razvoj, nauku i životnu sredinu, Institut "Mihajlo Pupin", Institut za
medjunarodnu politiku i privredu, 1996.
Grečić, V., Migration of scientists and professionals from the
Republic of Serbia, Studi Emigrazione, 1995, 117, 117-127.
King, R., Shuttleworth, I., Education, identity and migration: the
case of young highly-educated Irish emigrants, Studi Emigrazione, 1995,
117, 159-176.
Lapčević-Petković, V. , Grečić, V. eds., The Migration of Scientists
and Professionals, Belgrade, Federal Ministry for Development; Science and
the Environment and Institute of International Politics and Economics, 1996.
Ledeniova, L., Attitude to emigration among university students in
the former USSR, Studi Emigrazione, 1995, 117, 189-199.
Malačić, J., Brain drain from Slovenia in the light of regional
transitions, Studi Emigrazione, 1995, 117, 106-116.
Meyer, J. B., and M. Brown, Scientific Diasporas: A New Approach
to the Brain Drain, UNESCO-ICSU Conference, Budapest (26 June – 1 July),
Meyer, J. B., Network Approach versus Brain Drain: Lessons from
the Diaspora, International Migration, 2001, Vol. 39 (5), pp. 91-110.
Salt, J., Migration Process among the Highly Skilled in Europe,
International Migration Review, 1992, p. 26.
Salt, J., Stingleton, A., The international migration of expertise: the
case of the United Kingdom, Studi Emigrazione, 1995, 117, 12-29.
Shuval, J. T., Diaspora Migration: Definitional Ambiguities and a
Theoretical Paradigm, International Migration, 2000, 38 (5), 41-57.

MP 3, 2002 - Migracije i tranyicija u Jugoslaviji

Tichonov, V. and others, “Utecka umov”, Potencial, problemy.

Perspektivy, Programa po issledovaniju migracii, Moska, Ruskaja akademija
nauk, Institut problem znatosti, 1993.
Tichonov, V., Migration potential within Russia's military-industrial
complex, Studi Emigrazione, 1995, 117, 128-143.

Original in English


Table 1: Immigrants admitted to the USA by major occupation group

and selected country of birth

Share of
Professional Share of Profess. in
Total specialty and Profess. Econom.
– Total
technical Total (%) Active
Immigr. (%)
F. Yugoslavia
2,828 1,446 303 10.7 21.0
1991 2,713 1,434 298 11.0 20.8
1992 2,604 998 384 14.7 38.5
1993 2,809 1,053 422 15.0 40.0
1994 3,405 1,346 454 13.3 33.7
1995 8,307 3,381 670 8.1 19.8
1996 11,854 4,996 954 8.1 19.1
1997 10,750 4,615 660 6.1 14.3
1998 8,011 1,950 487 6.1 25.1
1999 8,552 1,013 372 4.3 36.7
2000 16,550 4,864 598 3.6 12.3
Total (1990-2000) 78,383 27,097 5,502 7.2 20.7
FR Yugoslavia
24,100 6,025 2,169 9.0 36.0
Source: INS, Statistical Yearbooks. Various Issues.

MP 3, 2002 - Migracije i tranyicija u Jugoslaviji

Table 2: Immigrants from the Republics of the former Yugoslavia admitted

to the USA, 1997-2000, by major occupation group and selected country of birth

Share of
Professiona Profess. in
Share of
Occupation l specialty Econom.
Total Profess.
– Total and Active
Total (%)
technical Immigr.
Bosnia and Herzegovina 6,392 2,882 187 2.9 6.5
1998 4,212 978 75 1.8 7.7
1999 5,442 336 49 0.9 14.6
2000 11,828 3,739 231 2.0 6.2
Croatia … … … … …
1998 549 148 78 14.2 52.7
1999 584 132 76 13.0 57.6
2000 1,078 377 86 8.0 22.8
Macedonia … … … … …
1998 785 246 85 10.8 34.6
1999 571 153 58 10.2 37.9
2000 794 139 54 6.8 38.8
Slovenia … … … … …
1998 57 11 5 8.8 45.5
1999 58 16 11 19.0 68.8
2000 76 20 11 14.5 55.0
FR Yugoslavia … … … … …
1998 2,408 567 246 10.2 43.4
1999 1,897 376 178 9.4 47.3
2000 2,774 589 216 7.8 36.7
Source: INS, Statistical Yearbooks. Various Issues.

MP 3, 2002 - Migracije i tranyicija u Jugoslaviji

Table 3: Immigration to Canada: Selected countries of last permanent

residence and occupation, 1989-1920
Immigration Managerial, Sciences Medicine and
Sciences and
Total Administrat. Engeering, Health

1990 1,933 27 162 37 62

1991 1,804 27 139 20 38
FR Ygoslavia
1992 3,178 41 432 53 85
1993 5,969 80 919 91 126
1994 3,922 77 729 69 68
1995 2,976 42 545 58 63
1996 1,831 25 251 28 38
1997 1,381 .. .. .. ..
1998 1,172 .. .. .. ..
1999 1,490 .. .. .. ..
2000 4,719* .. .. .. ..
FR Yugoslavia 28,400 426 4,573 483 597
% 100,0 1,5 16,1 1,7 2,1
* Includes Kosovo refugees who arrived in 1999 as part of a special movement and who
obtained permanent resident status in 2000.
Source: Citizenship and Immigration, Immigration Statistics. Various Issues.

Table 4: Landings by Immigrant Class and Country of Last Permanent

Residence in Metropolitan Vancouver, 1985-2000

Family Refugee Business Other Total
Croatia 105 484 0 240 2 831
Yugoslavia 729 510 14 2,220 25 3,498
Slovenia 9 12 0 30 0 51
Bosnia-Herzegovina 65 2,597 3 223 0 2,888
Macedonia 6 1 0 14 0 21
Albania 5 34 0 44 1 84
Total Former Yugoslavia 919 3,638 17 2,771 28 7,373
Source: LIDS

MP 3, 2002 - Migracije i tranyicija u Jugoslaviji

Table 5: Landings by Education and Country of Last Perm. Residence

in Metro Vancouver, 1985-2000

10 to 12 Some univ., University

0 to 9 years Total (n.a.)
years cert.,diploma degree
Total Former Yugoslavia 2,415 1,258 1,948 1,752 7,373

Source: LIDS

Table 6: Settler Arrivals to Australia by Birthplace, 1990-2000

Financial Bosnia and
FR Former
Year Herzegovi Croatia FYROM Slovenia
Yugoslavia Yugoslavia
July-June na
1990-95 ... ... ... ... ... 20 139
1995-96 3 405 710 3 049 516 23 7 703
1996-97 2 059 667 2 097 406 33 5 262
1997-98 2 135 1 024 1 550 433 42 5 184
1998-99 1 389 1 097 2 912 411 21 5 830
1999-00 672 1 026 2 356 295 13 4 362
Total 9 660 4 524 11 964 2 061 132 48 480
% 34.1 16.0 42.2 7.2 0.5 100.0

Source: Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (Internet);

Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs: Immigration
Federation to Century*s End, 1901-2000, October 2001, p. 27.

Table 7: Settler Arrivals to Australia by Birthplace (Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia), and by Eligibility Category, 1995-2000
Financial Non-
Family Skill Special Humanitarian
Year Program Total
Migration Migration Eligibility Migration
July-June Migration
1995-96 569 84 5 2 346 45 3 049
1996-97 432 53 3 1 571 38 2 097
1997-98 273 83 - 1 124 70 1 550
1998-99 333 151 10 2 286 132 2 912
1999-2000 282 134 1 1 681 258 2 356
Total 1 889 505 19 9 008 543 11 964
% 15.8 4.2 0.2 75.3 4.5 100.0
Source: Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.

MP 3, 2002 - Migracije i tranyicija u Jugoslaviji

Table 8: Researcher’s emigration intentions: reasons for leaving (% answers)

The main reasons Percentage of responses

Temporary work 9.49
Professional advancement 23.26
Work for Ph.D. and M.S. degrees 9.96
Temporarily, to solve the housing problem 11.63
Temporarily, other reasons 19.41
Not intending to return to Yugoslavia 9.52

Table 9: Researcher’s emigration intentions: motivation for leaving (% answers)

Push factors Percentage of responses

Low living standards 24.8
Economic instability 5.45
Uncertainty 18.71
Political instability 1.37
Poor conditions for R & D work 5.45
S & T information unavailability 2.14
Insufficient recognition of R & D work 2.14
Difficulties or impossibility of realizing ideas 1.36
Bureaucratic behavior 1.55
Housing problem 6.23
War 1.75
Other 8.3
No answer 7.8

Table 10: Researcher’s emigration intentions: pull factors (% answers)

Pull factors Percentage of responses

High earnings 21.24
Conditions for R & D work 15.2
High level of R & D work 7.21
Abundance of S & T information 4.7
Better living standard 6.62
Better status of research personnel 3.7
Stability 2.14
Other 8.0
No answer 3.92

MP 3, 2002 - Migracije i tranyicija u Jugoslaviji

Prof. dr Vladimir GREČIĆ




Autor se najvećim delom bavi odlivom mozgova iz SR Jugoslavije,

prvenstveno naučnika i stručnjaka. On najpre iznosi podatke o obimu odliva
mozgova iz SRJ i glavnim razlozima za njihovo iseljavanje. Ukazujući da odliv
mozgova generalno predstavlja gubitak za zemlju porekla, a u većini slučajeva
dobitak za zemlju domaćina, autor objašnjava na koji način bi ovi stručnjaci mogli
da daju veći doprinos reformama u zemljama svog porekla.
Kao i druge zemlje Jugoistočne Evrope, i SR Jugoslavija se devedesetih
godina XX veka suočavala sa masovnom migracijom naučnika i stručnjaka u
inostranstvo. Iseljavanje stručnjaka iz SR Jugoslavije postalo je posebno alarmantno
i stoga što veliki broj mladih i talentovanih traži svoju budućnost u inostranstvu.
Prema anketi sprovedenoj u SR Jugoslaviji 1995. godine namera da emigriraju
posebno je izražena kod mlađih istraživača i studenata poslednjih godina studija.
Faktori koji utiču na iseljavanje stručnjaka su nizak životni standard, neizvesna
budućnost i stambeni problemi u Jugoslaviji, i velike zarade i mnogo bolji
materijalni i tehnički uslovi rada u zemljama imigracije. Zbog toga je migracija
visoko kvalifikovanih kadrova iz SR Jugoslavije pojava koja je u obrnutoj korelaciji
sa ekonomskom situacijom u zemlji.
Istraživanja u SR Jugoslaviji su pokazala da je većina stručnjaka koji su se
iselili u inostranstvo spremna da sarađuje sa Srbijom i Crnom Gorom, ali oni
očekuju da njihova zemlja porekla učini prvi korak. Pored stvaranja uslova da se u
zemlji zadrže pojedini potencijalni emigranti ili da se dovedu natrag neki naučnici
koji su otišli u inostranstvo, Srbija i Crna Gora posvećuju sve veću pažnju saradnji
sa svojim stručnjacima u inostranstvu. Sadašnje vlasti intenzivno rade na
unapređivanju svoje migracione i razvojne politike. U okviru migracione politike
vlada će inicirati obnavljanje ugovora o zapošljavanju sa zemljama imigracije čim to
bude izvodljivo. U okviru naučne, tehničke i kulturne saradnje s iknostranstovm
nastoji se da se obezbedi redovna razmena informacija o imigraciji stručnjaka u
imigracione zemlje primaoce. Migraciona politika takođe obuhvata imigraciju
drugih državljana, uključujući i stručnjake, u Srbiju i Crnu Goru.
Autor je mišljenja da bi zemlje u tranziciji trebalo da preduzmu niz mera u
sferi migracije kako bi se omogućilo stručnjacima koji sada žive u inostranstvu da
prenesu strana iskustva i uzmu učešće u procesu sveukupnih promena u zemlji.
Autor ukazuje na neke konkretne korake: stručnjaci bi mogli da učestvuju u
obrazovnom procesu, na primer kao gostujući profesori, u funkciji mentora, a

MP 3, 2002 - Migracije i tranyicija u Jugoslaviji

najistaknutijima bi trebalo ponuditi zaposlenje s punim radnim vremenom na

fakultetima u zemlji porekla; trebalo bi ih angažovati na naučnim i istraživačkim
projektima u zemlji, po potrebi u organima i institucijama vlasti, trebalo bi koristiti
potencijale koje pružaju stručnjaci koji žive u inostranstvu u sprovođenju programa
međunarodne naučne i tehnološke saradnje; trebalo bi inicirati i sprovoditi
nacionalni Program povratka talenata, itd.
Da bi zemlja porekla što je moguće više imala koristi od intelektualne
migracije, aktivnosti vlade u fazama pre migracije, tokom migracije i posle
migracije su od najvećeg značaja. Aktiviranje odgovarajućih službi u zemlji porekla
i oživljavanje relevantnih aktivnosti u konzulatima zemalja imigracije može
doprineti unapređenju pomoći koju zemlja pruža migrantima.
Preduzimanje samo ovih mera nije dovoljno da bi se ubrzao tempo tranzicije
ili da bi se ublažio problem »odliva mozgova«. Autor je mišljenja da bi razvijene
zemlje, posebno članice Evropske unije, takođe mogle više da doprinesu svojom
politikom nego što su to do sada činile. Ukoliko razvijene zemlje koje su
istovremeno i zemlje imigracije žele da pomognu stručnjacima da ostanu u svojim
rodnim zemljama, trebalo bi da učine nešto slično što su SAD uradile za Zapadnu
Evropu pre 50 godina primenom Maršalovog plana. Danas bi zemlje članice EU
posebno mogle da pomognu razvoj i transformaciju svojih istočnih suseda, pri čemu
bi takođe proširile tržište za svoje proizvode i usluge doprinoseći tako trajnom miru,
prosperitetu i bezbednosti u Jugoistočnoj Evropi. Pored toga, novo rešenje
predstavlja stvaranje mreže intelektualne dijaspore. Međunarodne organizacije
(UNESCO, UNDEP, itd.) su uočile prednosti koje dijaspora pruža u pogledu
uspostavljanja i razvoja saradnje.
Od nacionalnog je interesa da se migracija intelektualaca zadrži u
optimalnim razmerama i ona bi trebalo da se kreće u oba pravca, u strane zemlje i u
zemlju porekla. Uspostavljanje, održavanje i unapređenje saradnje sa svojim
stručnjacima koji žive u inostranstvu je prioritetni zadatak. Autor je mišljenja da je
ona deo nacionalnog pitanja. Stručnjaci čine deo našeg nacionalnog bića bez obzira
na njihovo državljanstvo. Stoga, nacionalni interes određuje same prioritete
migracione politike.
Budući trendovi na planu odliva mozgova iz Jugoslavije će prvenstveno
zavisiti od strane tražnje za stručnjacima i od tempa razvoja nacionalne ekonomije i
nauke, preobražaja privrede i društva uopšte, zaključuje autor.