Movement of Global Talent

both papers informative, interesting.  will comment more on Zweig paper because know more about china.

David Zweig argues that Chinese benefitted from brain circulation, but suggests US does not.  Tend to agree with Dr. Wang HuiYao. 

1. citizenship variable.  whether chinese students, after acquiring US citizenship, will engage China.  seem to make contradictory statements.  p. 8 says citizenship important, but on p. 10 argue US citizenship does not affect decision to deal with China or not.  clarification?

2. motivation for engagement with China.  paper emphasize geography ... HK chinese more actively involved in engaging with mainland than those in US.  But australian case may compromise argument.  Australian chinese may engage china more actively than those in US or HK.

3. export and tech transfer.  Q:  does the paper suggest that american experience or skills acquired in US affect involvement in these areas?

4. missing from Zweig paper:  role of chinese returnee academics as compared with those who stayed within US institutions.

General observations: 

how do we measure the impact of global movement of talent?  what about intangible v tangible impact?  Found Kapur mechanisms helpful.  Can apply to China?

is concept of brain drain no longer valid in case of China? 

How to evaluate impact of movement of global talent vis a vis US.  Is it too quick to make conclusion that China benefits more than US?