Abstract
This paper explores the expanding body of research on national and continental strategies in Africa that promote ‘brain circulation’ as a mechanism for scientific growth and innovation. It particularly examines how research networks and EU–Africa cooperative ventures contribute to this objective. Synthesizing evidence from diverse scholarly sources, the study outlines the critical components that underpin intra-African talent mobility, with an emphasis on creating conducive ecosystems. The analysis reveals that brain circulation emerges as a key enabler in fostering socioeconomic progress and scientific development, especially in the context of EU–Africa partnerships. A framework of actionable elements is proposed to better harness the expertise of African professionals in the diaspora for the benefit of both regions. The article concludes by recommending directions for further theoretical and practical inquiry. In summary, the review sheds light on multiple strategies to amplify EU–Africa scientific collaboration by unlocking the latent capacities of the African diaspora.
Keywords: Brain drain; brain circulation; EU–Africa relations; diaspora engagement; science and technology partnerships; research collaboration
© The Author(s) 2025. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third-party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
1. Introduction
The phrase “brain drain” was first used in the 1960s by the British Royal Society to describe the prolonged migration of professionals such as scientists, doctors, and engineers from the United Kingdom to countries like the United States and Canada [7]. Since then, the phenomenon of skilled individuals relocating from developing nations to more developed economies has become a global concern, often perceived as a barrier to local progress in the countries they leave behind [15]. The rapid development of science and technology in industrialised nations has further altered the dynamics of global migration, shifting the emphasis from manual labour migration to the movement of intellectual and technical expertise [38]. This evolution has intensified both the motivations for departure and the attractiveness of destination countries, contributing to the rise of a more complex pattern of skilled migration, including aspects of return and re-engagement, known as brain circulation [12].
Traditionally, the emigration of qualified individuals has been explained through a simple model of “push” forces in origin countries (such as political instability or lack of resources) and “pull” forces in host countries (such as better salaries or research facilities) [28]. However, growing evidence suggests that enhancing regional mobility and professional exchanges within Africa can significantly reduce the adverse effects of brain drain [3]. Generally, skilled migration flows from regions with less technological infrastructure to those with more advanced systems [9], and available data confirm that this flow is predominantly unidirectional—from less developed to more developed regions [45]. This dynamic contributes to what scholars describe as the “agglomeration effect,” where certain global hubs become magnets for top talent [21]. Notably, some studies argue that pull factors in developed countries often outweigh push factors from the source countries in determining skilled migration patterns [18].
The complex motivations behind African professional migration, its socioeconomic impact, and the ongoing talent loss from North and Sub-Saharan Africa require urgent strategic responses. One potential approach is the adoption of a proactive model that does not merely attempt to stop talent migration, but transforms it into an opportunity for circular mobility and skills exchange [33]. Brain circulation is understood as the cyclical movement of high-skilled professionals across international boundaries, often involving a return to the home country after gaining skills abroad [8]. According to the 2014 Human Development Report by the UNDP, Nigeria was facing a significant shortfall in its medical workforce, despite over 30,000 Nigerian doctors residing overseas [51]. This pattern is also visible in other African nations, where universities in countries such as South Africa, Ghana, Ethiopia, and Nigeria contribute disproportionately to the pool of emigrating medical professionals in the United States [11]. One South African study reported that over half of its doctors had left due to dissatisfaction with local working conditions [29]. Similarly, Egypt has struggled to implement effective strategies to stem the loss of highly trained experts [47]. On a broader level, it has been estimated that nearly 80% of prominent researchers born in developing countries now live and work in more developed regions [62].
In response to this challenge, multiple international agreements have been pursued, including those between the European Union and African nations under the Cotonou Agreement. However, the related Economic Partnership Agreements lack binding provisions for technical aid and institutional development [36]. In North Africa, much of the cooperation with Europe aligns more closely with EU regional and Mediterranean policies, although these regions face many of the same brain drain pressures as Sub-Saharan Africa [66]. While access to education is widely recognised as a driver of international migration among skilled individuals, economic circumstances in developing regions are equally influential in determining migration outcomes [26]. Thus, although brain drain is frequently linked to limitations within national education systems [5], researchers have also pointed to the role of political openness in affecting brain mobility. Generally, countries with more democratic structures are thought to place fewer restrictions on academic freedom and knowledge exchange [13].
Beyond promoting remittances and professional networks, destination countries have attempted to re-engage with their expatriate professionals by offering repatriation schemes for the highly skilled [17]. However, remittances alone have shown limited effectiveness in addressing the societal costs of brain drain across sub-Saharan Africa [43]. In contrast, programmes offering financial incentives have demonstrated greater success in encouraging professionals to return, as evidenced in Kenya and Nigeria [60]. Alternative strategies like the imposition of exit taxes have not proven effective and are rarely seen as sustainable policy solutions [39]. Many scholars argue that a comprehensive, multi-level strategy is required to meaningfully address the root causes and long-term consequences of brain drain [74]. When efforts to retain skilled talent prove insufficient, national-level strategies are essential to manage the professional outflow and mitigate its impact. Harnessing the benefits of diaspora clustering in global hubs—by creating linkages between diaspora professionals and local institutions—may present a more viable solution to the challenges of brain drain [34]. Preventative policies aimed at limiting talent migration can, in some cases, hinder domestic scientific progress and innovation [20]. In contrast, international mobility may help reduce economic and industrial disparities between developing and developed regions over time [58]. Despite potential short-term setbacks, such exchanges often lead to reciprocal benefits for both sending and receiving countries [14].
Some scholars maintain that brain drain can erode the scientific and technological base of source countries, but others suggest that under the right conditions, skilled migration can actually promote knowledge sharing and development [22]. In support of this perspective, this paper proposes that leveraging the agglomeration of African talent abroad—through structured strategies—offers a more effective solution than traditional, restrictive approaches. Evidence supporting this claim is drawn from a national-level programme in Egypt aimed at utilising the expertise of diaspora professionals to foster domestic knowledge transfer and innovation [70]. Furthermore, while international research networks have sometimes been blamed for encouraging emigration, globalisation has also played a key role in facilitating knowledge exchange and strengthening collaborative ties. As global integration continues to dismantle barriers to the flow of human and intellectual capital, it may, paradoxically, offer new mechanisms for reversing or transforming brain drain into brain circulation [31].
2.EU–Africa Research Networking and the Internationalisation of Science
Scientific collaboration between the European Union and African nations has long regarded research networking as a critical pillar for fostering both bilateral and multilateral partnerships [22]. In recent years, this approach has taken centre stage within the EU–Africa strategic framework, particularly in domains like Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture, where it represents a foundational priority [63].
For research networks to operate effectively, two primary elements must be in place: robust governance systems and adaptable, forward-looking strategies [8]. Thanks to advancements in communication technologies, geographical closeness is no longer essential; what matters more is the alignment of participants’ areas of expertise and the capacity of governance frameworks to facilitate meaningful interaction between key knowledge stakeholders [47]. Equally vital are systems for absorbing and circulating knowledge, local institutional support, infrastructure accessibility, and resource availability. Additionally, a strategic focus on member diversity contributes to greater knowledge synergy, accelerates innovation, and reinforces the creation of local capacities [11].
Functional research ecosystems also require well-coordinated nodes that are empowered to drive communication, information sharing, and collaboration across institutions [59]. These nodes thrive when supported by tools that encourage the building upon past research achievements, collaborative experience, and joint resource utilisation [33]. A comprehensive strategy that promotes knowledge sharing not only improves network efficiency but also sustains the long-term development of cooperative capacities.
Bridging knowledge gaps within the African continent could begin with the formation of subregional research platforms, fostering internal connectivity across different African zones, and expanding thereafter to include strong partnerships with European institutions [26]. These regional research consortia are best conceptualised as integrated and structured frameworks linking essential contributors to scientific progress [6]. This aligns with the open innovation funnel concept, where highly specialised research consortia are central to fostering transparency in knowledge generation and nurturing practical applications [35].
Findings show that research networks embracing cooperative openness at both national and transnational levels are more likely to cultivate resilient collaborations. In contrast, closed or non-inclusive partnership models often hinder efficiency and sustainability over time [60]. As such, fostering environments that value shared innovation, joint capacity-building, and reciprocal knowledge transfer becomes imperative.
In conclusion, the success of EU–Africa scientific collaboration depends equally on strengthening domestic research systems and promoting international engagement. Establishing homegrown networks capable of capitalising on indigenous talent and infrastructure should be pursued alongside efforts to expand global scientific ties. EU–Africa research partnerships built upon active African stakeholder involvement are more likely to yield sustainable, long-term benefits [38]. Examples of such promising initiatives include the Africa–EU Innovation Alliance for Water and Climate, the African Network for Drugs and Diagnostics Innovation, and the Research and Innovation Network for Europe and Africa [71].
Brain Drain as a Channel for Technology Diffusion into Africa
Many African countries continue to rely on outdated research models, largely due to limited institutional learning capacity and a shortage of skilled professionals [52]. The creation of a vibrant innovation landscape requires structured support for early-career scientists and entrepreneurs. However, political and economic instability has had a significant dampening effect on the continent’s ability to produce knowledge and develop new technologies [18].
One of the most pressing issues undermining innovation is the inability of several countries to effectively manage intellectual property (IP). Weak legal frameworks and underdeveloped enforcement systems pose major hurdles to advancing science and technology [65]. Common challenges include lengthy delays in patent approvals, prolonged litigation timelines, lack of formal oversight in informal enterprises, fragmented protection systems, and limited understanding of IP rights among local researchers [37]. These structural shortcomings not only hinder societal access to innovations but also burden national budgets due to unrealised economic potential (see Figure 1). In the early 2000s, over 80% of all global patents were filed by residents of just five countries: the United States, Japan, South Korea, Germany, and Russia [3]. This concentration of innovation demonstrated a stark global divide in technological capacity. Within the following decade, however, there was a notable surge in patent activity from China, as well as increases in filings with the European Patent Office and Turkey’s national registry [44]. Furthermore, studies using patent citation data as indicators of technology transfer suggest a direct relationship between skilled migration to advanced economies and the transmission of knowledge back to migrants’ countries of origin [27]. This empirical evidence reinforces the idea that brain drain, when properly harnessed, can become a vital mechanism for technological advancement in Africa [13].
|
3.Expanding Digital Access and Innovation Systems in North Africa
This study indicates that the widespread availability of internet connectivity and knowledge-sharing tools can significantly reshape development trajectories [53]. Egypt offers a leading example by granting broad access to scientific literature and academic platforms for researchers, educators, students, and the general public. This goal was achieved with the launch of the Egypt Knowledge Bank in 2016, supported by agreements with 23 international academic publishing houses [41]. Recognised as one of the world’s largest open-access science initiatives, this project has expanded access to scholarly content on an unprecedented scale and aims to create new collaborative pathways in scientific research. North African nations exhibit comparable innovation structures and policy models. They also share historical development trajectories and socio-economic characteristics. Thirteen African countries have already implemented innovation surveys based on methodologies developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), with South Africa pioneering the first such effort in 1996 [17]. These surveys evaluate a country’s innovative capacity and scale, often identifying common challenges across national contexts [65]. For instance, Egypt’s national innovation survey revealed significant disconnection between knowledge generation and its application. This is reflected in how research institutions are organised and in the limited technological productivity within the industrial sector [34].
Additionally, a World Bank investigation highlighted major disparities across African countries regarding institutional backing for entrepreneurship and innovation [19]. Despite meaningful policy reform efforts in many states over the past ten years, few have achieved comprehensive outcomes in developing innovation ecosystems. Egypt, for example, began establishing a network of 35 technology transfer offices in 2009. These hubs, embedded in universities, public research centres, and government agencies, function well domestically but lack regional links to other North African innovation systems [27]. This gap in regional integration is reflective of a broader challenge observed across the continent, where collaboration between national innovation structures remains limited [12]. To maximise innovation opportunities between Africa and Europe, it is essential to strengthen EU–Africa partnerships in science and technology. These collaborations should be founded on mutual priorities and areas of shared interest [38]. One promising tool is the EU–Africa risk-sharing finance model, already utilised by European Commission funding schemes to support innovation ventures [70]. A complementary digital platform designed to connect academics, inventors, and entrepreneurs across both continents would also help enable partnerships, co-develop new solutions, and unlock joint funding prospects [49].
Harnessing Brain Gain for Continental Development
Although numerous national-level programmes have been created to retain or reintegrate Africa’s educated talent, the potential of its global diaspora remains vastly underexploited [8]. The African diaspora—comprising highly trained professionals based in Europe, North America, and elsewhere—could be a crucial force in building stronger regional and bilateral academic and professional alliances. Such collaborations could reduce brain drain by enabling shared postgraduate education, short-term mobility programmes, distance learning, and training exchanges between institutions [24]. One practical approach is the establishment of dual-degree programmes where African students attend part of their course load at foreign universities but ultimately earn their degrees from home institutions. Global universities could contribute by offering academic funding, curriculum support, and faculty exchanges to strengthen Africa-based higher education systems [37].
Data suggests that the movement of skilled individuals contributes to long-term productivity and economic growth in destination countries [59]. While the neoclassical model predicts overall improvements in economic efficiency through the free movement of talent, it often overlooks potential losses experienced in the source countries—such as reduced workforce diversity or slower institutional progress [35]. These side effects underline the need to manage the outflow of intellectual capital and develop targeted repatriation strategies [43]. Converting brain drain into brain circulation presents a viable response to these negative outcomes. It opens up new avenues for development, allowing the continuous transfer of skills, ideas, and innovation between countries [20]. Table 1 provides a comparative overview of various policy efforts and programme models aimed at attracting skilled diaspora members back home, many of which have emerged within broader EU–Africa collaborative frameworks. These initiatives are increasingly seen as key instruments for building national strategies around diaspora engagement and knowledge reintegration [73].
Table 1. Matrix of Brain Gain Programmes and Complementary Actions
| Brain Gain Programmes and Initiatives | Corresponding Complementary Actions for Brain Gain |
| Short-term assignments for individual expatriates in the source country | – Develop and regularly update a diaspora database – Establish an information hub for individual expatriates and diaspora organisations – Create a policy-dialogue mechanism for ongoing engagement between diaspora and home-country policymakers |
| Long-term engagement of expatriates in national projects and initiatives | – Link expatriates with existing national programmes – Create twinning schemes and joint academic degree programmes with global universities – Incorporate remote and virtual teaching methods to support sustained collaboration |
| Networking-based activities to promote collaboration for source-country organisations | – Strengthen the role of diaspora societies and networks abroad in national development – Connect domestic networks with regional and international research communities |
| Repatriation-based initiatives supported through incentive packages | – Offer tailored incentive packages to returning professionals, including non-monetary benefits such as access to laboratories, data, and networks – Recognise diaspora contributions through awards and public appreciation ceremonies |
4.Leveraging the Diaspora in Europe for African Development
One key strategy is to establish clear pathways for diaspora professionals to function as catalysts for technology transfer. Research shows a statistically meaningful link between the engagement of expatriates and technology development within their countries of origin [14]. As such, brain drain may indirectly support reverse knowledge flows, enabling technology sharing without necessitating physical repatriation [29]. Collaborative partnerships with diaspora networks can strengthen universities, research centers, and governments across Africa [51]. Despite the potential, few formal programmes currently support sustained scholar-to-scholar engagement between African institutions and expatriates based in Europe [7]. Egypt’s “Collaborative Engagement of Egyptian Researchers Abroad” initiative is an exception: rather than facilitating permanent return, it establishes enduring ties with overseas scholars. The programme offers grants to Egyptian organizations so they can tackle domestic challenges through remote collaboration with their international compatriots. To date, 55 technical projects have been supported through partnerships with 55 expatriates [23].
Morocco has pursued a similar path through a government-led effort overseen by the prime minister. This initiative seeks to convene Moroccan professionals abroad into a coherent forum to support national strategic planning. In 2009, it established formal alliances with diaspora networks in countries like France and Germany to harness their expertise [44]. At the global scale, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) initiatives such as Transfer of Knowledge Through Expatriate Nationals (TOKTEN) offer robust examples. Originating in the late 1980s, TOKTEN arranges short-term technical missions by diaspora professionals. Egypt participated from 1992 to 1994 and has provided its own funding since 1995. Over 443 expatriates from North America, Europe, and Australia have contributed to the programme [36].
Germany’s Returning Experts initiative also serves as an effective model in Europe. It assists African scholars educated in Germany with reintegration processes, including recruitment and placement services. Some countries like Tunisia and Morocco even offer returning professionals salary supplements and travel support [58]. Additionally, Germany’s circular migration programme, backed by the Expert Council on Integration and Migration and the Federal Employment Agency, allows professionals to work in Germany temporarily before returning home [9]. Within the European Union, the well-known Marie Skłodowska–Curie Actions support researcher mobility and return, promoting career development through grants and fellowships tailored to repatriation or return phases of their career [31].
Strengthening EU–Africa Brain-Gain Collaboration
Since the mid-1990s, the EU has signed bilateral scientific cooperation agreements with numerous African countries—South Africa (1996), Tunisia (2003), Morocco (2004), Egypt (2005), and Algeria (2012). While these treaties opened doors for research partnerships, they have had limited explicit focus on brain gain [6]. EU–Africa joint research funding mechanisms have traditionally overlooked targeted efforts to attract diaspora talent [69]. The EU–Africa High-Level Policy Dialogue in 2011 and 2016 emphasised long-term collaboration finance, yet rarely addressed brain gain strategies directly [12]. This study argues for a jointly designed EU–Africa brain circulation framework that advances both the mitigation of brain drain and the strengthening of continent-wide scientific cooperation [21]. The suggested architecture rests on four core pillars:
- Involving high-skilled migrants actively in the socio-economic and technological development of their countries of origin, by integrating them into public policy, academic institutions, and the private sector.
- Implementing a structured brain-gain programme matrix, as described earlier, to systematically empower diaspora professionals.
- Creating a jointly coordinated EU–Africa strategy for brain circulation, complete with incentive schemes and enabling tools.
- Establishing a central governing body responsible for facilitating best-practice sharing and coordination across EU–Africa brain circulation efforts.
The 2007 Joint Africa–EU Strategy and its subsequent 2017 road map have already championed enhanced academic mobility through initiatives like the Pan-African Programme and the intra-Africa Academic Mobility Scheme [55]. These initiatives have supported student and faculty exchanges, curriculum updates, and expertise sharing. Going forward, policies should equally prioritize retaining qualified personnel and enhancing training opportunities. This necessitates EU–Africa directives that align skill development with mobility programmes in mutually beneficial ways [42]. Some African universities are already taking the lead, offering better research infrastructure, improved compensation structures, and career progression incentives [1]. Effective HR policies at institutional levels are equally vital to combatting brain drain [46]. Finally, joint EU–Africa research and innovation initiatives have the potential to significantly impact brain circulation. When African and European institutions co-develop research projects, they foster knowledge exchange, skill retention, and an environment that encourages professionals to stay connected—or even return—to their home institutions [19].
5.Conclusion
The departure of highly trained individuals from Africa—commonly referred to as brain drain—mirrors the continent’s socio-economic realities, driven by numerous interconnected factors. As long as financial instability and underdevelopment persist, this trend is likely to intensify unless deliberate policy interventions are enacted. However, this phenomenon also presents opportunities, particularly through the strategic involvement of skilled African professionals living abroad. This analysis highlights that brain drain is not inherently detrimental; rather, it possesses dual dimensions—both adverse and potentially advantageous. The principal task facing African nations is to mitigate the downsides while actively exploring the benefits through the promotion of brain circulation. Despite the substantial size and capability of the African diaspora, most countries have not yet capitalised on this valuable resource. Some existing approaches focus on involving expatriates in domestic programmes, while others offer incentives aimed at encouraging permanent return. Given the variety of strategies available, it is advisable for each nation to adopt a tailored mix of interventions that align with its specific context. Synchronising national brain circulation and brain gain efforts across African countries—and linking these with European cooperation mechanisms—can amplify their effectiveness and contribute to reversing the losses associated with talent emigration.
Establishing a collaborative EU–Africa brain circulation framework could significantly expand researcher exchange opportunities, support the reintegration of emerging and experienced talent, and facilitate joint academic and institutional partnerships. Integrating brain circulation into the core of such a framework will likely boost co-creation of knowledge, collaborative innovation, and regional scientific integration. To achieve these outcomes, a flexible structure that allows for the sharing of models, practices, and policy lessons at both national and regional levels is necessary. European initiatives that prioritise reintegration and knowledge mobility—like the Marie Skłodowska–Curie Actions—should be actively expanded and promoted across the continent. Moreover, the reciprocal movement of European researchers into African academic environments holds transformative potential. Their presence can help accelerate research quality, expand collaborative networks, and support brain gain efforts within African institutions. In the long term, strengthening this two-way exchange is essential for fostering meaningful EU–Africa cooperation in science, research, and innovation.
References
[1] Crush, J. & Hughes, C., ‘Brain Drain A2 – Kitchin, Rob’, in Thrift, N. (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Oxford: Elsevier, 2009, pp. 342–347.
[2] Choi, S.-G. & Johanson, J., ‘Knowledge translation through expatriates in international knowledge transfer’, International Business Review, 21(6), 2012, pp. 1148–1157.
[3] Douglas, K.N., International Knowledge Flows and Technological Advance: The Role of International Migration. Business, University of Nebraska, 2012.
[4] Tung, R.L., ‘Brain circulation, diaspora, and international competitiveness’, European Management Journal, 26(5), 2008, pp. 298–304.
[5] Gonzalez, J.A. & Chakraborty, S., ‘Expatriate knowledge utilization and MNE performance: A multilevel framework’, Human Resource Management Review, 24(4), 2014, pp. 299–312.
[6] Lucas, R.E.B., ‘African migration’, Handbook of the Economics of International Migration, 1, 2015, pp. 1445–1596.
[7] Gibson, J. & McKenzie, D., ‘Scientific mobility and knowledge networks in high emigration countries: Evidence from the Pacific’, Research Policy, 43(9), 2014, pp. 1486–1495.
[8] Hagopian, A., Thompson, M.J., Fordyce, M., Johnson, K.E. & Hart, L.G., ‘The migration of physicians from sub-Saharan Africa to the United States of America: Measures of the African brain drain’, Human Resources and Health, 2(1), 2004, p. 17.
[9] Radwan, A. & Sakr, M., ‘Review of the Egypt science and technology system; SWOT analysis’, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 5(2), 2017, pp. 204–211.
[10] Radwan, A., ‘Science and innovation policies in north African countries: Exploring challenges and opportunities’, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 6(1), 2018, pp. 268–282.
[11] Weinberg, B.A., ‘Developing science: Scientific performance and brain drains in the developing world’, Journal of Development Economics, 95(1), 2011, pp. 95–104.
[12] Abdelaziz, A., Kassab, S.E., Abdelnasser, A. & Hosny, S., ‘Medical education in Egypt: Historical background, current status, and challenges’, Health Professions Education, 4(4), 2018, pp. 236–244.
[13] Glaeser, E.L., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F. & Shleifer, A., ‘Do institutions cause growth?’, Journal of Economic Growth, 9(3), 2004, pp. 271–303.
[14] Dustmann, C., Fadlon, I. & Weiss, Y., ‘Return migration, human capital accumulation and the brain drain’, Journal of Development Economics, 95(1), 2011, pp. 58–67.
[15] Vargas-Silva, C., ‘The fiscal impact of immigrants: Taxes and benefits’, in Chiswick, B.E. & Miller, P.W. (eds), The Handbook on the Economics of International Migration. Amsterdam: North Holland Elsevier, 2014.
[16] Steinberg, D., ‘Resource shocks and human capital stocks – Brain drain or brain gain?’, Journal of Development Economics, 127, 2017, pp. 250–268.
[17] Grubel, H., ‘The reduction of the brain drain: Problems and policies’, Minerva, 6(4), 1968, pp. 541–558.
[18] Mountford, A. & Rapoport, H., ‘The brain drain and the world distribution of income’, Journal of Development Economics, 95(1), 2011, pp. 4–17.
[19] Logan, B.I., ‘An assessment of the potential application of the Transfer of Knowledge Through Expatriate Nationals (TOKTEN) programme in sub-Saharan Africa’, Applied Geography, 10(3), 1990, pp. 223–236.
[20] Oliveira, L.S.D., Echeveste, M.E.S., Cortimiglia, M.N. & Gonçalves, C.G.C., ‘Analysis of determinants for Open Innovation implementation in Regional Innovation Systems’, RAI Revista de Administração e Inovação, 14(2), 2017, pp. 119–129.
[21] Tekülve, M., Evaluation Reports 025 Returning Experts Programme. German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2007.
[22] Ha, W., Yi, J. & Zhang, J., ‘Brain drain, brain gain, and economic growth in China’, China Economic Review, 38, 2016, pp. 322–337.
[23] Geber, H., ‘Can mentoring decrease the brain drain of academics from Africa?’, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 2013, pp. 215–220.
[24] Hayek, N. & Ferrini, L., ‘Editorial to the Proceedings of RERIS 2016: Africa–EU Renewable Energy and Innovation Symposium’, Energy Procedia, 93, 2016, pp. 1–2.
[25] Roadmap Towards a Jointly Funded EU–Africa Research & Innovation Partnership on Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture. EU Africa High Policy Dialogue, 2016.
[26] Kahn, S. & MacGarvie, M., ‘Do return requirements increase international knowledge diffusion? Evidence from the Fulbright programme’, Research Policy, 45(6), 2016, pp. 1304–1322.
[27] Loebbecke, C., van Fenema, P.C. & Powell, P., ‘Managing inter-organizational knowledge sharing’, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 25(1), 2016, pp. 4–14.
[28] Kraemer-Mbula, E., Vaitsas, C. & Essegbey, G.O., ‘The dynamics of EU–Africa research and innovation cooperation programmes’, in Cherry, A. et al. (eds), Africa–Europe Research and Innovation Cooperation: Global Challenges, Bi-regional Responses. Cham: Springer International, 2018, pp. 39–63.
[29] Bhatti, W.A., Larimo, J. & Carrasco, I., ‘Strategy’s effect on knowledge sharing in host country networks’, Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 2016, pp. 4769–4774.
[30] Mapping of Regional and Multi-country Cooperative STI Initiatives between Africa and Europe, Vol. 1. European Commission, 2013.
[31] Lewinsohn, P.A.D., ‘Motives for migration of South African doctors to Australia since 1948’, The Medical Journal of Australia, 5(192), 2010, pp. 288–290.
[32] Nam, Y. & Barnett, G.A., ‘Globalization of technology: Network analysis of global patents and trademarks’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(8), 2011, pp. 471–485.
[33] WIPO Statistics Database, September 2017.
[34] ‘Knowledge Bank launched’, Al Ahram Weekly, 2018. Available at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/News/15227.aspx (accessed 16 November 2018).
[35] OECD & Eurostat, Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data (3rd edn). OECD Publishing, 2005.
[36] Rezk, M.R.A., Ibrahim, H.H., Radwan, A., Sakr, M.M., Tvaronavičienė, M. & Piccinetti, L., ‘Innovation magnitude of manufacturing industry in Egypt with particular focus on SMEs’, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 3(4), 2016, pp. 307–318.
[37] Zerbe, N., ‘Biodiversity, ownership, and indigenous knowledge: Exploring legal frameworks for community, farmers, and intellectual property rights in Africa’, Ecological Economics, 53(4), 2005, pp. 493–506.
[38] Malik, A. & Awadallah, B., ‘The economics of the Arab Spring’, World Development, 45, 2013, pp. 296–313.
[39] Sabău–Popa, D. & Mara, R., ‘Flexibility and simplification of EU financial regulation in the future programming period 2014–2020’, Procedia Economics and Finance, 32, 2015, pp. 1590–1597.
[40] Dodani, S. & LaPorte, R.E., ‘Brain drain from developing countries: how can brain drain be converted into wisdom gain?’, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 98(11), 2005, pp. 487–491.
[41] Haque, N.U. & Kim, S.-J., ‘Human capital flight: Impact of migration on income and growth’, Staff Articles (International Monetary Fund), 42(3), 1995, pp. 577–607.
[42] Marianne Haase, P.H., Return Migration and Reintegration Policies: A Primer, 2016.
[43] Tekülve, M., Evaluation Reports 025 Returning Experts Programme, 2007.
[44] Castles, S. & Ozkul, D., ‘Circular migration: Triple win, or a new label for temporary migration?’, in Battistella, G. (ed.), Global and Asian Perspectives on International Migration. Cham: Springer International, 2014, pp. 27–49.
[45] Doonan, F., Taylor, L., Branduardi, P. & Morrissey, J.P., ‘Innovative training networks: Overview of the Marie Skłodowska–Curie PhD training model’, FEMS Microbiology Letters, 365(19), 2018.
[46] Mangala, J., ‘Africa–EU partnership on migration, mobility, and employment’, in Mangala, J. (ed.), Africa and the European Union: A Strategic Partnership. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, pp. 195–222.
[47] El-Shemy, H.A., ‘General conclusions of the 3rd meeting of senior officials of the EU–Africa High Level Policy Dialogue on Science, Technology and Innovation’, Addis Ababa, 4–5 April 2016.
[48] de Melo, J. & Regolo, J., ‘The African Economic Partnership Agreements with the EU: Reflections inspired by the case of the East African Community’, Journal of African Trade, 1(1), 2014, pp. 15–24.
[49] Mullings, R. & Mahabir, A., ‘Growth by destination: The role of trade in Africa’s recent growth episode’, World Development, 102, 2018, pp. 243–261.
[50] Bhatti, W.A., Larimo, J. & Carrasco, I., ‘Strategy’s effect on knowledge sharing in host country networks’, Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 2016, pp. 4769–4774.
[51] Rein, C., ‘The prospects for the future of European Union–African Union relations in uncertain times’, European Review, 25(4), 2017, pp. 550–559.
[52] Mountford, A. & Rapoport, H., ‘The brain drain and the world distribution of income’, Journal of Development Economics, 95(1), 2011, pp. 4–17.
[53] Mullings, R. & Mahabir, A., ‘Growth by destination: The role of trade in Africa’s recent growth episode’, World Development, 102, 2018, pp. 243–261.
[54] Radwan, A. & Sakr, M., ‘Review of the Egypt science and technology system; SWOT analysis’, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 5(2), 2017, pp. 204–211.
[55] Radwan, A., ‘Science and innovation policies in north African countries: Exploring challenges and opportunities’, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 6(1), 2018, pp. 268–282.
[56] Crush, J. & Hughes, C., ‘Brain Drain A2 – Kitchin, Rob’, in Thrift, N. (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Oxford: Elsevier, 2009, pp. 342–347.
[57] Gibson, J. & McKenzie, D., ‘Scientific mobility and knowledge networks in high emigration countries: Evidence from the Pacific’, Research Policy, 43(9), 2014, pp. 1486–1495.
[58] Steinberg, D., ‘Resource shocks and human capital stocks – Brain drain or brain gain?’, Journal of Development Economics, 127, 2017, pp. 250–268.
[59] Gonzalez, J.A. & Chakraborty, S., ‘Expatriate knowledge utilization and MNE performance: A multilevel framework’, Human Resource Management Review, 24(4), 2014, pp. 299–312.
[60] Ha, W., Yi, J. & Zhang, J., ‘Brain drain, brain gain, and economic growth in China’, China Economic Review, 38, 2016, pp. 322–337.
[61] Choi, S.-G. & Johanson, J., ‘Knowledge translation through expatriates in international knowledge transfer’, International Business Review, 21(6), 2012, pp. 1148–1157.
[62] Tekülve, M., Evaluation Reports 025 Returning Experts Programme. German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2007.
[63] Malik, A. & Awadallah, B., ‘The economics of the Arab Spring’, World Development, 45, 2013, pp. 296–313.
[64] Radwan, A. & Sakr, M., ‘Review of the Egypt science and technology system; SWOT analysis’, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 5(2), 2017, pp. 204–211.
[65] Marianne Haase, P.H., Return Migration and Reintegration Policies: A Primer. German Agency for International Cooperation, 2016.
[66] Logan, B.I., ‘An assessment of the potential application of the Transfer of Knowledge Through Expatriate Nationals (TOKTEN) programme in sub-Saharan Africa’, Applied Geography, 10(3), 1990, pp. 223–236.
[67] Radwan, A. & Sakr, M., ‘Review of the Egypt science and technology system; SWOT analysis’, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 5(2), 2017, pp. 204–211.
[68] Tekülve, M., Evaluation Reports 025 Returning Experts Programme. German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2007.
[69] Marianne Haase, P.H., Return Migration and Reintegration Policies: A Primer. German Agency for International Cooperation, 2016.
[70] Castles, S. & Ozkul, D., ‘Circular migration: Triple win, or a new label for temporary migration?’, in Battistella, G. (ed.), Global and Asian Perspectives on International Migration. Cham: Springer International, 2014, pp. 27–49.
[71] Doonan, F., Taylor, L., Branduardi, P. & Morrissey, J.P., ‘Innovative training networks: Overview of the Marie Skłodowska–Curie PhD training model’, FEMS Microbiology Letters, 365(19), 2018.
[72] Mangala, J., ‘Africa–EU partnership on migration, mobility, and employment’, in Mangala, J. (ed.), Africa and the European Union: A Strategic Partnership. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, pp. 195–222.
[73] El-Shemy, H.A., ‘General conclusions of the 3rd meeting of senior officials of the EU–Africa High Level Policy Dialogue on Science, Technology and Innovation’, Addis Ababa, 4–5 April 2016.
[74] de Melo, J. & Regolo, J., ‘The African Economic Partnership Agreements with the EU: Reflections inspired by the case of the East African Community’, Journal of African Trade, 1(1), 2014, pp. 15–24.
[75] El-Shemy, H.A., ‘General conclusions of the 3rd meeting of senior officials of the EU–Africa High Level Policy Dialogue on Science, Technology and Innovation’, Addis Ababa, 4–5 April 2016.
[76] de Melo, J. & Regolo, J., ‘The African Economic Partnership Agreements with the EU: Reflections inspired by the case of the East African Community’, Journal of African Trade, 1(1), 2014, pp. 15–24.
[77] Mullings, R. & Mahabir, A., ‘Growth by destination: The role of trade in Africa’s recent growth episode’, World Development, 102, 2018, pp. 243–261.
[78] Bhatti, W.A., Larimo, J. & Carrasco, I., ‘Strategy’s effect on knowledge sharing in host country networks’, Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 2016, pp. 4769–4774.
