𝐄𝐃𝐈𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐈𝐀𝐋 – 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐁𝐞𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐦

The recent wave of outward migration, particularly to Australia, has stirred renewed debate on whether the country is witnessing a genuine case of brain gain or simply masking deeper structural challenges through rising remittances. While the World Bank’s latest update paints an optimistic picture of diaspora-driven development, a closer examination suggests that the story is more complex and demands urgent policy scrutiny.

Over 25,000 citizens now live abroad, with Australia alone accounting for more than half of all personal remittance inflows. This financial contribution, which surged to a record US$143 million in the last fiscal year, has certainly helped offset economic pressures such as persistent current account deficits and low foreign investment. Remittances have become a vital source of foreign reserves, and the argument for deeper diaspora engagement is not without merit.

Yet, this apparent silver lining obscures a growing concern: the loss of productive, skilled individuals from the national workforce. More than half of the migrants hold university degrees. Nearly half come from the civil service, particularly in education and health. The World Bank’s own data show that almost 70 percent of all voluntary civil service resignations in 2024 came from these two sectors alone. This is not just about numbers but about the erosion of institutional memory and the weakening of critical public services.

Experts, including the World Bank’s Acting Country Director for Bhutan, have rightly pointed out that the most skilled and future-ready individuals are leading this exodus. The civil service, long viewed as a pillar of national development, is now losing experienced professionals at an unsustainable rate. The private sector, meanwhile, has yet to demonstrate the capacity to absorb or retain comparable talent.

Migration is not inherently negative. It can be a force for development if managed with foresight. However, relying on remittances and informal diaspora contributions without addressing the underlying causes of migration- such as low wages, limited career mobility, and a stagnant private sector- risks treating symptoms rather than the disease. The promise of turning brain drain into brain gain cannot materialize without robust domestic reforms.

A coordinated national diaspora policy, as experts suggest, is essential. But it must be complemented by real improvements in the domestic labor market. That includes creating well-paying and engaging jobs, offering incentives for return migration, and fostering an ecosystem where private enterprise can thrive. Other countries have succeeded in reversing brain drain by making the home economy more attractive, not just by chasing diaspora dollars.

Ultimately, a country must weigh what it gains financially against what it loses in human capital. Remittances can stabilize an economy, but they cannot teach in classrooms, heal in hospitals, or drive policy reforms. As the productive age group increasingly contributes abroad rather than at home, the long-term cost may outweigh the short-term gains.

The migration trend may be irreversible, but how it is managed will determine whether the country reaps dividends or faces deeper structural decline. The time for a national reckoning on this issue is now.