Mehdi Afzali, Sergey Ryazantsev

Iranians on the Move:
Migration Trends and the Role of the Diaspora

Monograph

---

ebooks@prospekt.org

Информация о книге

УДК 316:314.7(55)

ББК 60.54(5Ирн)

А24

Approved for publication by the Scientific Council of the FCTAS RAS

Reviewers:
Dr. Mohammad Jalal Abbasi-Shavazi, University of Tehran (Tehran, Iran);
Dr. Lana M. Ravandi-Fadai, Institute of Oriental Studies RAS (Moscow, Russia).

This monograph is a study of trends in emigration from Iran and the role of Iranian diasporas in developing the country. The book is based on Mehdi Afzali’s dissertation research, “The contribution of emigration to the socio-economic development of Iran,” carried out under the guidance of Professor S. V. Ryazantsev, as well as materials from other studies of Iranian migration, carried out by the authors jointly in 2017–2021. The monograph proposes a conceptual framework for assessing the contribution of the Iranian diaspora to the country’s development in special geopolitical conditions. The work also summarizes the statistical data on emigration from Iran, presented in various national and foreign sources of information. The book contains sociological studies of representatives of the Iranian diasporas living in Russia and other countries.

The monograph is addressed to scientists, civil servants, social workers, teachers, graduate students, students (demographers, sociologists, political scientists, economists), and all those interested in migration processes in Iran.

УДК 316:314.7(55)

ББК 60.54(5Ирн)

© Afzali М., Ryazantsev S. V., 2022

© Prospekt LLC, 2022

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Today, socio-­economic changes, socio-­political limitations, and unstable economies have forced millions of people to cross the borders voluntarily or involuntarily. This movement and migration of people positively and negatively affect people, countries, governments, etc. While many countries enjoy the skilled, high skilled, and highly educated workforce at the cost of sending countries, sending countries are suffering the loss of their labor force population who emigrate to pursue a better life for themselves and/or their families. In addition to the labor force and refugees relocating from the countries, the number of international students who can be the future brains or high-skilled labor force has increased. Students emigrate from their countries to have access to better facilities, education, etc., or they migrate to escape from the problems they might have faced in their home countries. Therefore, governments must provide effective migration management, which retains those who intend to emigrate or encourages those who have already migrated to return or collaborate with their home countries because that is how they can benefit from positive aspects of migration.

Since, in this book we are discussing the migration trends of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), it is necessary to know that, although Iran has been struggling with the world sanctions for decades, it has hosted millions of refugees and immigrants from the neighboring countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq. It has been a sending country of high educated emigrants and students to America, Canada, and European countries. Persian Gulf countries also have traditionally been one of the leading destination countries for Iranian immigrants. However, with the deterioration of the economy, and socio-­political restrictions, the number of people (especially students and wealthy families) emigrating to countries like Turkey, Russia, and Malaysia has increased. In addition to the socio-­political limitations and economic instability that have played an essential role in the emigration process from Iran, other reasons such as military service for boys, university entrance examination, and gender discrimination are important factors intensifying the emigration of Iranian people.

Even though emigration of people from Iran is not as intense as many countries such Mexico, India, China, etc. emigration of highly educated and highly skilled Iranians has awakened Iranian governments in the last years to come up with solutions to retain people in Iran, encourage the Iranians abroad to return either permanently or temporarily or at least collaborate with the home country. However, there are many obstacles that policymakers are facing, such as lack of proper and accurate statistics and estimates about the number of Iranians abroad and those who intend to emigrate from the country because those who plan to relocate give us a clear insight of the motives, reasons, factors affecting the emigration of people. The lack of scientific institutes that can specifically analyze the migration trend and provide a scientific report to policymakers has been crucial in the last decades. The misinterpretation and misuse of information have been giving a wrong hint to people in charge to develop a proper solution. For example, the establishment of Iran Migration Observatory as the first research institute that has been formed in the context of the Policy Research Institute of the Sharif University of Technology in Iran, which tries to produce the most up-to-date and reliable data and analysis in various fields of Iran’s migration process has been an essential and promising step towards the migration management system.

However, one of the main reasons that policies are not enforced, or they are enforced improperly, is the willingness of the Iranian government to have active collaboration with the Iranian diaspora or wanting them to return. The authorities’ decisions regarding networking, recruitment, and exploitation of the Iranian diaspora have always been unclear. The wrong ideology of calling Iranian diaspora «Westernized» and considering them as threats to national security discourages Iranians from returning and prevents them from collaborating. Given the potential of Iranians abroad, their facilities, capacity level, social class, and the need to present a positive image of the country at the international level, the government of Iran with the wrong policies is being failed. Although, we should not only blame the Iranian government since the international sanctions too have been a big issue in terms of collaboration with the home country for Iranians abroad, forasmuch as the transfer of capital, technology, and scientific experiences which are necessary for the development of the country have been forbidden.

Therefore, to increase the effectiveness of positive aspects of emigration from the country, Iran needs to replace the process of brain gain with brain exchange; because with the technological advancement and expansion of the internet in the world, the physical presence of specialists in countries is not so significant as the relevance and usefulness of their knowledge and experience. And given all the problems existing in Iran’s situation, this seems a more feasible option. Cooperation program with Iranian specialists and entrepreneurs abroad done by Iran’s National Elites Foundation to use the scientific and professional capacity of Iranian researchers and specialists and establish relations with selected scientific, technological, and industrial centers of the country has been a significant step towards the brain exchange. According to the latest statistics, more than 120 specialized partner sites have joined the program so far, including the best universities, research institutes, and knowledge-­based companies in the country. This program was able to satisfy 1,242 postdoctoral students and 118 visiting professors to meet the goals of this program and has led to 6,500 successful collaborations in the form of seminars, conferences, and workshops. This cooperation leads to the development of science and technology in the country by using the experiences of Iranians living abroad, and the capabilities of other countries.

Moreover, other government agencies, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Organization of Islamic Culture and Communication, the Supreme Council of Iranians, and several others, are working and communicating with Iranians abroad. Still, in practice, their work has meager positive results. Because firstly they are mainly focusing on attracting the capital and investment in Iran by Iranian diaspora, and secondly, the Iranian diaspora and the Iranian government do not accept each other’s existence, since the Iranian diaspora formed abroad is very political and the government of Iran tries to take some distance from westernization. Besides, we should not ignore the sanctions, lack of investment incentives, and economic instability that negatively affect the investment process.

In the end, besides the immediate socio-­political and economic changes and reform of migration management system that can reduce the emigration of Iranians, identification of diaspora and improving the interactions between the home country and diaspora needs sacrifices from both Iranian diasporas abroad and the Iranian government. Since the policy is against the so-called westernized people, the collaboration between the Iranian diaspora and the home country is limited. And with the internal socio-­political and economic restrictions, Iran will continue to experience the loss of human capital. Improving the country’s image and eliminating the sense of Iran-phobia must be one of the main goals of Iranian governments to encourage at least the visits of Iranians or those of Iranian descent who live overseas. Reforming the university entrance examination and military service for Iranians must be one of the first considerations to retain Iranian students, researchers, and professors in the country and encourage them to return to Iran while studying, working, or after their graduation. All these will not happen unless Iran is willing to collaborate and creates a successful and modernized migration management system, which controls and monitors migration, and encourages collaboration.

INTRODUCTION

Although Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) has a very specific situation in the world due to the international sanctions, socio-­political limitations, and economic restrictions, its borders have always been opened to people to enter or exit. Iran has always been one of the main host countries for immigrants from neighboring countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc. and since the 1979 Islamic revolution followed by the Iran-­Iraq war in 1980 it is experiencing emigration of many highly skilled and skilled laborers and students because of the socio-­political limitations and unstable economy. Problems such as high unemployment, high inflation rate, human rights violations, freedom restrictions, and problems within the education system are considered the main factors of emigration from Iran which takes place in four main directions:

1) USA and Canada,

2) European countries,

3) Persian Gulf countries,

4) Countries such as Malaysia, Russia, Turkey (relatively new direction)

In today’s rapidly changing socio-­economic conditions of the world in order to increase the effectiveness of positive aspects of emigration from the country, Iran needs a modern migration system and tools to aim at 1) providing effective migration management organizations, 2) identification of diaspora and improving the interactions between the home country and diaspora (because today’s technology provides us with this chance), 3) encouraging the investment and proper use of remittances by Iranian Immigrants, 4) encouraging return migration either temporarily or permanently, and 5) retaining of those who intend to emigrate from the country. In addition, Iran needs an immediate socio-­economic and especially political reform of the present migration process that increases the human capital flight and financial loss.

In order to create a successful management system to control, monitor, and achieve positive results from the emigration, the actions and the existing tools should be developed, changed, or modernized, and new tools should be provided based on the capabilities of the country’s socio-­economic and political environment. Insufficient, inappropriate, and imprecise information and statistics about the emigration from Iran have made it difficult for us to understand Iran’s position in the world’s migration process. Therefore, obtaining new information, identifying the characteristics of the Iranian diaspora, accurate statistics and data, studying the features of the migration management objects, the influence factors, and the relationships between them, support the theoretical justification of the principles and directions of national socio-­economic policies of Iran in the interest of creating an atmosphere which encourages the return migrants as well as maintaining them and those who intend to emigrate from the country.

To provide such an atmosphere to be able to use human and financial capital stored outside the borders of the country, Iranian policymakers need a correct and clear understanding of the emigration process. Organization and management of a system for identification of diaspora and interaction with them is an important action that should be taken, which can be achieved through effective management. By having effective governmental and scientific organizations, accurate and precise information, and statistics about the socio-­economic and demographic status of Iranian immigrants around the world, policymakers will be able to develop and optimize migration policies and actions. Moreover, direct connection with the diaspora creates a situation that information, knowledge, technology, and capital as important factors in the modern economy can be transferred easier and faster, which in turn develops the scientific and technical opportunities in Iran.

Iran also needs to develop new approaches to improving the image of the country for Iranian immigrants in the world and those who are of Iran descent. Governmental actions towards Iranians who live outside the country and those who have dual citizenship (imprisonment of many Iranians with dual citizenship) have created an Irano-phobia atmosphere that discourages the visits and jeopardizes the trust between the immigrants and the home country. In addition, the process of the visits for Iranian immigrants should be easier than it is, for example, military service for boys has been found to be one cause of emigration and an obstacle to entering the country. Besides, encouraging return migration should be one of the main considerations of the Iranian government. Socio-economic incentives help the return migration, supporting professors and researchers, giving them research freedom, positions in the universities, financial support in the required research field, etc., encourage the interaction and visits of Iranian scientific elites to the country. In addition, knowledge-­based companies and business ideas from Iranian immigrants must be welcome and encouraged. In countries like Iran, with lower chances of return migration, the return can be substitute with interaction and exchange of knowledge and information. Because with today’s improvement and access to the internet, the interaction of the diaspora and migrants with the people and government of the home country is cheaper, easier and faster.

Because of the sanctions, using the financial capital of Iranians outside the borders of the country is a very challenging task. Transferring money and capital to Iran due to the sanctions is very limited. Nevertheless, there are still possibilities to send remittances to the home country and regardless of how it is spent, it can have a multiplier effect on Iran’s economy since it is considered an external source of financing. The investment of Iranians who live abroad must be encouraged through incentives given to them and they must enjoy incentives similar to those provided for foreign investors, not as a local Iranian investor. In the end, Retaining Iranians inside the country is a very important action to be taken. Besides the main national socio-­economic problems such as high unemployment and inflation rates, low salary and wages, currency exchange rate devaluation (that encouraged the labor emigration from Iran in the last years), freedom and human rights, other problems such as inappropriate education system, university environments, university entrance examination, and military service have caused many students to leave the country not only for the developed countries but also the countries which do not have high socio-­economic indicators.

In this book, in order to explain and assess Iran’s emigration process, dynamics, scale, direction, and position in the world we analyze and summarize the theoretical aspects and current trends in the study of emigration, taking into account the influence of pull and push factors in the migration process. We describe Iran’s emigration process with a structure to understand the migration management system of Iran, we have tried to show the differences between the real statistics and statistics provided by different local and international organizations, and in the end, we formulate recommendations on providing an effective migration management system to deal with emigration. This book is determined by the fact that the work presents: a comprehensive and conceptual approach to identifying the emigration process of Iran and its features in the context of globalization and the impact it has on the socio-­economic development of the country. It has been tried, like the previous theories to look at this process from positive and negative points of view. Theoretical provisions developed in this book can be used for the further development of economic and social theories in terms of emigration and its role in development.

The materials, results, conclusions, and suggestions contained in this book can be taken into account and used by scientific and government bodies of any country in the world when developing migration policies especially for emerging, developing, and underdeveloped countries, the main provisions of the book can be used for educational purposes to prepare lecture courses and practical classes in disciplines (international economic relations, sociology, migration, politics, etc.) taught at universities in different countries, especially universities in Iran. And it is useful for governments and decision-­makers to improve the migration management system and increase the efficiency of their action towards the problems of emigration.

1. THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF THE CONTRIBUTION OF MIGRATION AND DIASPORAS TO SOCIO-­ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

1.1. Brief theories on migration

From the beginning of man’s history migration has been an inseparable part of his life. People migrated because of food, shelter, safety, a better quality of life, etc. They either voluntarily left their homes for different economic, social, political, and other reasons, or were forced to leave because of war, famine, lack of food resources, etc. Therefore, migration can be considered as a mechanism which aims to provide human with better future and life. Based on the International Organization for Migration the terms “Migration” and “Migrant” are defined as1:

Migration “The movement of persons away from their place of usual residence, either across an international border or within a state.” Migrant “A person who has moved away from his place of usual residence for a variety of reasons within a country or across the international border for different periods of time, either temporarily or permanently”

The number of international migrants has continuously been on the rise and in 2020 it is estimated to be 272 million (52% international migrants were male and 48% of international migrants were female) that is 3.5% of the world’s population, which has already surpassed the projection made for 2050: an estimated number of 230 million international migrants. This clearly indicates how difficult it is to predict the growth of international migration2. The growing number of migrants and their mobility shows that today migration has become a global issue related to global economic, political, social, and technological transformation, which is why it is counted as a part of globalization, and as long as globalization expands, relevant changes will increasingly affect our lives.

General migration theories

The neo-classical equilibrium

In the 19th century, two articles published by a geographer called Ravenstein formulated the law of migration; he believed that migration was mostly because of the economic changes and considered it essential to development3. Furthermore, according to studies done by Skeldon (1997:19) migration was influenced by distance and population density and he believed that the movement is typically from lower to higher end income zones and from heavily populated areas to less populated ones4. These beliefs are considered to be the underlying assumptions of a push-pull theory which purports that migration movements are towards economic equilibrium. The neoclassical economic theory defines migration on two levels: Macro-level and Micro-level. At the macro-­level, it explains the supply and demand factors for labor in different geographical areas arising from the differences in wages, which motivates the workers to move from low-wage regions to high-wage regions with the scarce labor force. At the micro-­level it explains migration from migrants’ point of view as individuals who decide to migrate based on the cost-benefit calculation; they consider their skills; find information about the places they expect to be more productive and earn higher wages and freely choose to migrate.

Moreover, neoclassical migration theory considers urban-­rural migration as part of the development process maintaining that the surplus workers in rural areas supply the required number of workers needed by the urban industrial economy5. There is an economic fact that explains the gradual transfer of economic agents from rural and agricultural areas to modern industries in urban areas. Harris and Todaro (1970) came up with a rural to urban labor migration model which ever since has been a basis of the neoclassical model of migration6. They believed that the movement has been caused not only by the wage difference but also by the rural to the urban probability of employment. Therefore, in the long run, while the rural-­urban income difference covers the risk of becoming unemployed, the higher income will attract more rural migrants. Meanwhile, wages should be balanced against other costs of migration such as opportunity costs, cost of travel, psychological costs, etc.7 In the international migration market migrants can choose the destination of their choice with cost-benefit calculation. Therefore, although the Harris-­Todaro model was developed for the internal market, it can be applied to international migration8.

Furthermore, neo-classical migration theory presupposes that the likelihood of emigrating is also related to the human capital characteristics and depends on the market structure and segmentation of labor and the chance of employment. But why do economic forces tend towards an equilibrium? That is because they deny the market imperfections. People usually are aware of the costs and benefits of migration9 and in many developing countries capital and insurance are far from perfect, which is why it is difficult to explain migration patterns with a neo-classical model with a major focus on income. The neo-classical model does not deal with government policies on migration, and it is criticized for being Eurocentric about migration; while, in developing countries migration may have a different pattern10. Thus, we needed a Human capital theory to focus on the individuals and explain migration beyond the costs. This theory separates the individuals from the community they come from and assesses individuals’ capitals based on their skills, knowledge, age, sex, education, physical abilities and so on that might lead to an increase in economic production. The type of labor demand in the market usually dictates that migrants be selected based on their skills and education. That’s why, for example, migrants who are older are less likely to be chosen and individuals with higher education have a higher migration propensity. Therefore, wages and employment differences should not be the only factors to pay attention to; rather, the structure of the labor market, capital, and socio-­economic characteristics should be considered as well11.

Historical-­structural theory

In 1960 historical-­structural theory was differently interpreted as being intellectually founded on the Marxist doctrine of political economy as well as world-­system theory12. However, the contemporary historical structural theory emerged in response to the neo-classical theory and its lack of negligence of the development factor. This theory explains that developed and underdeveloped countries have unequal economic and political capabilities and people have unequal access to resources; moreover, capitalism growth has influenced these inequalities. Underdeveloped countries are unfavorably trapped in global geopolitical structures because of their disadvantages, and they are not moving towards economic development and modernization. Historical structuralists perceived migration as a result of capitalism and consider it as an imbalanced trading relationship between the less developed countries and their developed counterparts13. Neoclassical migration theory is criticized by the historical structuralists stating that individuals do now have a free choice, but they are a part of the global political and economic systems and are forced to move by the system rather than freely. That is why rural areas are losing their population as this population is becoming part of urban areas to the advantage of those who care about cheap labor. Based on the dependency theory by Andre Gunder Frank14 as the frontrunner, not only is migration viewed as harmful to the economy of underdeveloped countries but also it is considered as a root of their underdevelopment rather than being a path towards development, according to this view, migration damages the economy and society and negatively influences the population. Historical structuralists were also criticized for their perception of individuals as victims and being too deterministic. Many of their ideas and models have been rejected because many developing and labor exporting countries have achieved sustainable economic growth due to the tight connection with capitalism15. Thus, capitalism alone should not be blamed as the cause of underdevelopment because embracing global capitalism may prove to affect different people and societies differently. Moreover, migration too can’t be defined as a desperate measure induced by misery, because from a different viewpoint migration can increase the remittances, knowledge, culture, etc.

Push-­Pull Theory

In reality, neo-classical and historical structural theories were unable to explain why some people migrate within a certain country between particular places, but others do not16. In 1966, Lee revised Ravenstein’s 19th-century law on migration and proposed a new theory17. In this theory he explains that individuals’ decision to migrate depends on three factors:

1. Factors related to home countries

2. Factors related to their target countries (mediating factors including immigration regulations, distance, and physical obstacles among others)

3. Personal reasons

Lee argues that migration happens not only because of the opportunities at the destination but also because of the information that passes from destination to home country, which facilitates the movement of the future migrants. It explains that migrants are not representative of their community at the place of origin and migration is selective with respect to individual characteristics, which seems to be consistent with neo-classical theory. Lee himself never used the term push-pull model18. This model is based on individual choice, and it is consistent with the equilibrium model and neoclassical theory. This theory has gained popularity in many migration studies and is widely used by researchers. Many researchers who have used this model believe that demographic and economic factors are the main determinants of migration decisions. There are two main factors that shape the push-pull model19:

1. Rural population growth and pressure on agricultural resources that push people out of the rural areas.

2. Higher wages and good economic conditions attract people into cities and industrialized countries.

This theory seems to be very useful and attractive as it deals with all aspects crucial to any decision-­making in the area of migration and it has been argued that the broader perspective of labor force migration can be best perceived through a push-pull model20. However, it is yet hard to consider this model as a theory at all because it looks more like a descriptive model that deals with different factors influencing migration. The push and pull factors are entwined and together they show the difference between origin and destination; however, they have limited exploratory value21. Besides income and wage differences, many other factors such as population, demography, or environment can be considered as reasons for migration22. People usually move because they expect to be able to have a higher quality of life and to make a more satisfying living elsewhere rather than just hoping for a more pleasant location. People tend to live in populated cities because, in spite of being crowded, they provide better a quality of life in terms of safety, education, health, etc. That is why this model has limited capacity to correctly explain migration. The push-pull model is also criticized because of the assumptions it makes. It unrealistically considers migration solely as the result of the cost-benefit calculation of individuals and does not pay attention to the structural limitations. Moreover, it is based on the assumptions that all individuals have unrestricted and similar access to both capital and information, which may not be true. It is also unable to explain the return migration or the impact of migration on society’s organization whether in the country of origin or in the country of destination.

Optimistic and pessimistic views of migration and development

Migration theories usually do not consider the impact that migration has on development in home countries. The impact of migration on countries of origin in the last decades has been one of the favorite topics among researchers. There are two distinguished approaches: “balanced growth” or “migration optimists” and “asymmetric development” or “migration pessimist”23. The following table shows the two approaches in brief:

Table 1–1. Two approaches to migration and development

Migration optimists	Migration pessimists
Functionalist	Structuralist
Neo-classical	Neo Marxist
Modernization	Disintegration
Net north-­south transfer	Net south-­north transfer
Brain gain	Brain drain
More equality	More inequality
Remittance investment	Consumption
Development	Dependency
Less migration	More migration

Source: de Haas, Hein: Migration and Development: A Theoretical Perspective, Bielefeld: COMCAD, 2007(Working Papers — Center on Migration, Citizenship and Development; 29

Developmentalism and neo-classical theory both believe that migration has positive impacts on the development of home and host countries. The optimistic view believes that through capital transfers and industrialization, home countries would experience economic growth and modernization. Because the combination of policies, remittances, and aids can boost economic growth and stimulate the investments by migrants24. Remittances are the main source of currency and migration would improve migrants’ economic situation. However, optimistic view proponents’ expectation from the migrant workers is high; they believe that migrants will play an important role in the industrial development of their country by investing large sums of money in industrial companies25. In addition, developmentalists believe that migrants mentally, physically, and financially play an important role in development: they bring back innovation, ideas, knowledge, attitude, and not just money, and therefore they are effective in the modernization of the country.

Furthermore, labor migration is exactly the opposite side of capital flow. Labor migration is believed to be a part of economic development and free movement of workers causes scarcity of labor in home countries. This can increase the wage level and marginal productivity of labor and eventually result in the equality of the price factor across home and destination countries, thereby rendering such migration futile. In the neoclassical approach “Factor Price Equalization” is the main theory that considers the role of migration in development. It ignores the migrants’ attachment to different social groups such as families and communities and assumes them as income maximizing individuals. In addition, it does not pay attention to the gain that non-migrants would receive, and the only gain is limited to the wage increase because of the labor scarcity in the home country26. That is why Developmentalism, and neo-classical theories are the source of inspiration for optimists. They believe that migration will bring capital (remittances and investments) and knowledge to the home countries and these, in turn, can result in investment and stimulation of development and modernization. Moreover, those migrants who return to the home countries are believed to be effective in economic growth27.

On the other hand, migration pessimists are highly inspired by structuralist social theory and neo-­Marxist beliefs. Neo Marxists believe that the only positive effect of migration is for the migrant himself and his family’s welfare for the short run28. According to historical-­structuralist theory, migrants move in order to escape misery and many researchers believe that migration is the root of underdevelopment in home countries, because migration will decrease the number of dynamic, productive, and healthy manpower of the country29. Structuralists believe that receiving countries are those who need cheap labor, thus they are the ones who win by attracting the cheap immigrant labor, but for migrants themselves, it is dangerous to be dependent on the remittances, because when they return home the amount of their income will decrease.

There exists certain skepticism about the use of remittances in the home country. Although remittances are sent back home, there is no clear understanding of how this money is used and where it is invested. Around 90% of the remittances are either spent on consumption or placed fourth in families’ financial planning30. Several researchers have shown their concerns about this threat in their development studies. Lack of information, creativity, and innovation create a “me-too” effect leading them to invest their money in overcrowded sectors such as restaurants or grocery stores, which not only do not contribute to the actual economic growth and development but also increase the dependency on the outside world31. Hence, when money is sent back to the home country, few results come up:

1. It increases consumption and provokes inflation, which causes suffering to the non-migrants and results in more inequality32.

2. Domestic production would decrease because many items such as household appliances, clothes, fabrics, etc. will be imported.

3. Main investments will be in urban areas and this increases regional disparities in wealth33.

Although remittances are recognized at the national level, there are concerns over the emigration of highly skilled and educated individuals from the country, which is called brain drain. Some may consider brain drain as one of the factors of developm

...