Does your Indian 'average' include only those who can read? The adult literacy rate is less than 67%, which means you've selected out a third of the adult population, introducing bias into your assessment of the 'average'. Does the brain drain include the illiterate?
Does your Indian 'average' only include those who have had secondary education? The national average for secondary schooling is less than 60%, and that's heavily biased toward those in the top income quintile (those more likely to migrate). So again, boosting your 'average' by selecting out those excluded from education. Does the brain drain include those without seondary (let alone primary) education?
But leaving aside the vagaries of indicators of human (under)development in low-income countries like India, perhaps we might just compare Indian migrants with other migrants into the UK. Work and money: where the rubber meets the road. For this, the IPPR's recent report 'Britain's migrants' (Sept 2007) makes for interesting reading:
1. Only 78% of Indian-born migrants (non-students) were employed in 2005-06; the nationals from the UK and sixteen other countries outperformed Indians in this respect.
2. If self-employment is considered a proxy for entrepreneurial spirit, then nationals of the UK and fifteen other countries were more entrepreneurial than Indians in the UK (only 11% self-employed). Compare that with the Pakistanis at 33%, by the way.
3. Of migrants into the UK, nationals of France, USA, Nigeria, Canada, Iran, Poland, the Philippines, and Ghana on average have more years of schooling than Indian migrants.
4. Average gross hourly pay among those economically active: £11.50 for Indians; the Americans, Canadians, Australians, South Africans, Ugandans, Irish, Kenyans, French, Italians, Cypriots, and Jamaicans all did better in 2005-06.
5. In 2005-06, the Americans, Poles, South Africans, Australians, French, Zimbabweans, Filipinos, Canadians, and Ugandans all worked more hours per week on average than the Indian migrant workers.
6. Average gross annual income for Indians in the UK was £23,200, lower than estimated average annual income of the Americans (£37,250), Canadians (£32,000), Australians (£31,850), South Africans, Ugandans, French, Irish, Kenyans, and Italians.
So you can certainly go on saying that 'if you compare the average, the Indians are lot better [sic]'; but if what India is sending to the UK is 'average' (in the colloquial sense), then I'm inclined to call that generous, because a number of non-Indian groups are doing rather better, not least those Americans you're so keen to deride. The alleged perception of Indians' superiority may not have been 'built overnight' -- but the IPPR report suggests to me that the reality will take
far longer.
AG
prem12 wrote:I am not trying to compare the brain drain with the average in developed countries. I am comparing the averge with average.
Among those who get due educational opportunity and exposure , Indians fare much better in the global arena, which is obvious from the numbers of huge diaspora of Indian IT professionals which represent the average, not the best.
Let us not talk of the top and the extremes, nothing conclusive can be had out of that statistics.
Talk of what happens to the average. If you compare the average, the Indians are lot better. It is commonly known that Indian have better mathematical prowess. There is nothing sloppy or tasteless about it. This is a fact the world admits. As I said, such perception are not built overnight.
And speaking of the top positions, the number of Indians is no less.