We’ve all heard the phrase “brain drain.” The idea is that bright minds from poorer countries leave for greener pastures—and never return. Doctors from Ghana, engineers from India, or nurses from the Philippines—they leave. And the home country is left behind, with fewer experts, fewer innovations, and fewer chances.

But what if we’ve been looking at this the wrong way?

A new review published in Science flips the script. It gathers robust causal research on the effects of high-skilled migration. And the conclusion is, frankly, a little surprising: in many cases, letting talent go can raise the total skill level in the country left behind.

Here’s how.

Let’s start with the basics. When a rich country opens its doors to skilled workers—say, the US needs nurses or IT experts—people in the origin country respond. More students start training for those careers. Not all of them emigrate, of course. Which means that even if 1 nurse leaves, 9 may have been taught. Net result? More skilled workers at home. That’s not a loss. That’s a brain gain.

This effect has been seen in India, where US visa reforms led to a spike in computer science degrees, and in the Philippines, where a boom in nurse migration was followed by an explosion of nursing school enrollments. The evidence is strong, and causal. Not just correlation. Not just anecdotes.

And there’s more.

Remittances from skilled migrants often go straight into education or small businesses back home. Migrants return with new skills and ideas. Some launch companies. Others bring democratic norms or new gender roles. There’s even evidence that communities with more skilled migrants abroad show higher support for public services and more demand for good governance.

Of course, it’s not all upside. If training systems can’t keep up, or if returnees struggle to find work, migration might still hurt. The paper is careful about that. Context matters. There are still many open questions. For example, do these effects look the same in fragile states as in middle-income countries? And what happens when the skills migrants train for don’t match what’s needed at home?

But the key message is clear: we shouldn’t assume skilled migration is a one-way street to loss. With the right policies—flexible education, return incentives, diaspora engagement—it can be a surprisingly productive detour.

So next time someone says, “We’re losing all our best people,” maybe reply: “Yes. And that might just be how we grow.”

Summary of the study:

A long-standing challenge facing low-income countries is that many of their most highly educated citizens emigrate in search of greater opportunities elsewhere. Although this “brain drain” effect can directly decrease the country’s stock of human capital, Batista et al. reviewed evidence supporting indirect “brain gain” benefits as well. Highlighting research that uses empirical methods to estimate causal effects of emigration, the authors examined how migration opportunities can prove beneficial for origin countries. Many who invest in education motivated by migration may ultimately not emigrate, increasing the domestic stock of human capital. Emigration can lead to domestic benefits through remittances, knowledge transfers, foreign investment and trade, return migration, and other channels. Further research can help in our understanding of the conditions and policy approaches that might best support such origin country benefits from skilled emigration. —Brad Wible