TY - JOUR
T1 - China's brain drain at the high end
T2 - Why government policies have failed to attract first-rate academics to return
AU - Cao, Cong
N1 - Funding Information:
Source: Author’s collection. Note: MOE, Ministry of Education and its precedent the State Education Commission; CAS, Chinese Academy of Sciences; NSFC, National Natural Science Foundation of China; MOP, Ministry of Personnel.
Funding Information:
The National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars (guojia jiechu qinnian kexue jijin)
Funding Information:
Hundred Talents Programme The National Science Fund for Distin guished Young Scholars Hundred, Thousand and Ten Thousand Talents Programme Chunhui Programme Cheung Kong Scholar Programme
Funding Information:
Source: Author’s collection. Note: MOE, Ministry of Education and its precedent the State Education Commission; CAS, Chinese Academy of Sciences; NSFC, National Natural Science Foundation of China.
Funding Information:
Launched in 1994, this national fund comes under the jurisdiction of the NSFC, a major agency funding peer-reviewed basic and mission-oriented (yingyong jichu) research projects established in 1986 following the model of the US National Science Foundation. The fund provides support to promising scientists under the age of 45 from seven scientific fields: mathematics and physics, chemistry, life science, earth science, engineering and materials science, information science and management science. Awardees are selected based on past performance and allowed to pursue research of their own interest. Awards were initially made for a three-year period, with awardees in experimental and technological sciences getting RMB600,000 (US$72,000), and half that amount going to those engaged in theoretical research. On the occasion of the Fund’s fifth anniversary in 1999 and in recognition of its achievements, then Premier Zhu Rongji approved a significant increase in the Fund’s budget from RMB70 million (US$8.4 million) in 1998 to RMB180 million (US$21.7 million) in 1999. The grant tenure has also been extended to four years, with funding for experimental and theoretical research increased to RMB800,000 (US$96,000) and RMB550,000 (US$66,000), respectively. The total number of awardees in each year has also been increased since then. The Fund has made awards to 1200 young scientists, of whom more than 80 per cent have foreign study and/or research experience (Cao & Suttmeier 2001).
PY - 2008
Y1 - 2008
N2 - Between 1978 and 2007, more than 1.21 million Chinese went abroad for study and research, of whom only about a quarter have returned. The Chinese government's policies of attracting first-rate overseas academics back have yielded mixed results at best. This article discusses why overseas Chinese academics hesitate to return at a time when China is in desperate need of talent to turn itself into an innovation-oriented society. Common reasons relate to low salaries, problems of education for children and jobs for spouses, and problems of separation if some family members still reside abroad. More important are institutional factors. Guanxi still matters. The opportunity costs in career development are too high. In social science research, there are still taboos. Rampant misconduct has also tainted the Chinese scientific community. The article concludes that unless the research culture becomes conducive to doing first-rate work and meritocracy is rewarded, China is unlikely to witness the return migration of first-rate academics.
AB - Between 1978 and 2007, more than 1.21 million Chinese went abroad for study and research, of whom only about a quarter have returned. The Chinese government's policies of attracting first-rate overseas academics back have yielded mixed results at best. This article discusses why overseas Chinese academics hesitate to return at a time when China is in desperate need of talent to turn itself into an innovation-oriented society. Common reasons relate to low salaries, problems of education for children and jobs for spouses, and problems of separation if some family members still reside abroad. More important are institutional factors. Guanxi still matters. The opportunity costs in career development are too high. In social science research, there are still taboos. Rampant misconduct has also tainted the Chinese scientific community. The article concludes that unless the research culture becomes conducive to doing first-rate work and meritocracy is rewarded, China is unlikely to witness the return migration of first-rate academics.
KW - Brain drain
KW - China
KW - Overseas academics
KW - Research
KW - Return migration
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=57049145402&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/17441730802496532
DO - 10.1080/17441730802496532
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:57049145402
SN - 1744-1730
VL - 4
SP - 331
EP - 345
JO - Asian Population Studies
JF - Asian Population Studies
IS - 3
ER -
