Know as the "father" in the 60's of the Bhagwati Tax Proposal - taxation by source country, the extension of income tax jurisdiction to nationals abroad -, Professor Jagdish Bhagwati wrote recently an article at Foreign Affairs magazine remembering his proposal for a World Migration Organization, something he first proposed in the United States in 1992. In "Borders Beyond Control" (January/February 2003 edition), he states, "such a project is well worth putting at the centre of policymakers' concern". A message he left recently in Davos, at the World Economic Forum of 2003. He thinks the campaign for the WMO should gather strength this year, despite the geo-political turbulence.

You have been one of the scholars claiming for a new way of regarding the so-called "brain drain". What's the new paradigm?

In the 1960s, when the "brain drain" was first discussed and worried about, the emphasis was on the "loss" of skilled people from the poor to the rich countries. It is easy to see that institutional building, for example, can be disrupted by such outflows. But the emphasis shifted --- and I was among the leaders of this shift of viewpoint --- to what we then called the "Diaspora model". The argument was that it was not possible to hold people back or even to bring them back because professional classes were drawn away by better work prospects, better governance, and better social conditions in the rich countries. So, as I put it then, we had to recognize that "promiscuity is easier than marriage". I.e. we had to think of ways in which the source countries would seduce and use their nationals and ex-nationals abroad to help in diverse ways with the development of their home countries. This approach is increasingly adopted now, of course.

We had to think of ways in which the source countries would seduce and use their nationals and ex-nationals abroad to help in diverse ways with the development of their home countries.

And what happened since that shift?

Thus, schemes to encourage remittances are implemented. Dual nationality is increasingly granted, to cement the emotional and practical bonds with the home countries. India and Mexico have embarked on a massive effort to integrate their citizens abroad with their home countries. I have proposed for some decades now that the Diaspora must be given both more rights (such as dual nationality) and some obligations. The obligations would primarily include taxation by source country, just as the United States taxes its citizens abroad on the basis of citizenship, with several exemptions of course, unlike Europe which taxes by residence; my proposal is widely known as the Bhagwati Tax proposal, like the Tobin Tax, and it has been revived in the last few years by several economists, politicians and some NGOs.

And what can do the destination countries?

Aside from the source country measures I just discussed, the destination countries can assist by facilitating dual nationalities (the way the United States permits it, for example). The implementation of the Bhagwati Tax, which consists really of extension of income tax jurisdiction to nationals abroad, also would require international cooperation among tax authorities. Destination countries could also encourage the promiscuity model by universities, for instance, making it easier for the foreign nationals from the poor countries to go back to teach summer courses and using them to help build local institutions and improving their functioning. All this is much harder for "under populated" countries with low supplies of potential and actual skilled people, and is easier for the "overpopulated" countries such as India, Brazil, Mexico and China.

So, you mean it's needed different policy approaches in the case of different poor countries?

The policies will have to be adapted to those two broad classes of less developed countries I mentioned. For the latter group, in fact, the outward flows of skilled people are now considered to be an opportunity whose social returns are to be maximized by appropriate Diaspora policies, whereas for the former group (mostly in Africa), serious problems will have to be confronted and the options under the Diaspora model are tougher to think up and implement.

One of the problems of the Diaspora strategy it's the return to the country of origin. What conditions ought to be assured to act as a guarantee mainly for the skilled people?

I do not think that this is quite relevant. The problem is that many professionals want to stay on abroad after study or to migrate from home directly if they have marketable skills. True, some will still want to return, either because economic opportunities may grow with development or sometimes for retirement. Often obstacles exist for such return, such as restrictions on property holding. These need to be identified and removed.

Giving the immigrants the right to vote in local elections (as Scandinavia countries have done), putting up institutions with aid of NGOs and governments where they can articulate and solve their problems, are among the obvious ways to facilitate the integration of the immigrants into the destination societies.

For instance, in the case of qualified immigrants - like the Eastern Europe flows to European Union and particularly to Portugal - what policies should be taken to take the most from these skilled human resources?

Often the scale of the inflow creates social problems. For skilled, legal immigrants, this is not really a problem. But giving the immigrants the right to vote in local elections (as Scandinavia countries have done), putting up institutions with aid of NGOs and governments where they can articulate and solve their problems, are among the obvious ways to facilitate the integration of the immigrants into the destination societies. These problems are far more pressing with illegal, unskilled immigrants and require more ambitious measures: e.g. ensuring that their children get access to schools.

Migration is looked after in a fragmented and incomplete fashion, by UNHCR for refugees, the ILO for workers, the WTO for service flows.

When came to you the idea of a World Migration Organization?

The idea of a World Migration Organization, which I first proposed in the US newspaper The Christian Science Monitor in 1992 and have been advocating ever since, is now drawing a lot of attention. Arthur Helton, the great refugee expert, has picked it up. It was also endorsed by leading newspapers in India, and by influential Indian governmental figures, when I lectured on it in India last December (2002). Former President Zedillo, Helton and myself are now exploring it, using a distinguished group of experts in April this year at Yale University and expect to follow it up with the formation of an Eminent Persons' Group to explore the matter further. At Davos, this year (2003), at the World Economic Forum, the question came up also.

What's the mission of a World Migration Organization to regulate the global mobility of the new labour market?

The WMO would fill the lacuna we have in the international institutional structure in regard to flows of humanity across borders. We have the IMF for financial matters, the World Bank and UNDP for aid and development, the WHO for health, and so on. But migration is looked after in a fragmented and incomplete fashion, by UNHCR for refugees, the ILO for workers, the WTO for service flows. There is an International Organization for Migration but it is a hands-on agency, with no formal standing and no serious migration expert considers it to be remotely close to what a proper WMO should and would be. So, the campaign for the WMO should gather strength this year, I am sure. The WMO should begin by juxtaposing the entire migration policies of member nations, the good practices then beginning to be contrasted with the bad practices in managing migration matters. This is what Development Assistance Committee of the OECD did for aid flows, and what the Trade Policy Review Mechanism does at the WTO. As this experience builds up, we would see ourselves moving towards codification of good practices, and then possibly ratification. In short, a benign, beneficial process would be set in motion.

Professor Jagdish Bhagwati can be contacted by email: jb38@columbia.edu.