Europe is losing its scientific elite
Few issues have caused as much controversy during the run-up to this year's US election as the complex and elusive phenomenon known as "offshoring". In the US, the practice is deemed unjust, even unpatriotic. But imagine the political outcry if, in addition to the loss of so many jobs, nearly half a million of America's scientists had already left the country, claiming that working conditions there were so poor they could not do their job properly. Imagine, too, if companies were moving their state-of-the-art scientific research overseas, believing the cutting-edge innovations were more likely to be discovered elsewhere.
Welcome to Europe, where this scenario is not a fantasy but a grim economic reality. Each year, thousands of Europeans go to study in the US and the vast majority - more than 70 per cent - will not bring the education they receive there back home. Most will stay in the US, preferring to pursue their career in an environment that nurtures their talents and rewards their ingenuity. As a result, nearly 40 per cent of the scientists working in the US today were born in Europe.
Companies looking for markets that welcome innovation are following suit: only last month, Syngenta joined Monsanto, DuPont and Bayer CropScience in relocating its genetically modified crop research operations from Europe to the US - a move that is currently also being contemplated by Germany-based BASF, the world's largest chemical company.
Yet these facts are being completely overlooked in the contemporary debate on Europe's economic future. Politicians and trades unions are watching companies move jobs overseas, responding logically to Europe's high-wage, low-flexibility work environment. But rather than striving to change the business climate here, they are denouncing companies that move jobs overseas as "unpatriotic".
This is sheer demagoguery. Europe's politicians know that the loss of many low-cost manufacturing jobs should be considered a natural progression - an act of "creative destruction", to borrow the economist Joseph Schumpeter's phrase - as Europe moves from an industrial to a networked and knowledge-based economy. Paul Krugman, the US economist, once noted that, had you told a farmer in the 1830s that less than 5 per cent of the population would work on the land in 150 years' time, he would have shuddered at the prospect, not knowing that manpower-intensive agrarian jobs would soon be replaced by better-paid, less volatile employment opportunities.
The same is true today: jobs in manufacturing will and should go to locations that can provide these services more cheaply and efficiently. European leaders must acknowledge this fact and begin tackling the real problem - the shortage of highly qualified people, especially in the sciences, who will be needed to keep Europe's economy at the forefront of 21st-century developments.
The truth is, Europe's leaders are the ones who are unpatriotic; they consistently promulgate policies aimed at the next election, not the next generation. How else can one explain that they choose to spend almost half of the European Union budget on agricultural subsidies while funding per student for tertiary education is more than a third lower in Europe than in the US? How can they find the money to subsidise economic activities that are pre-industrial in nature while watching Europe's best and brightest leave in droves, taking invaluable intellectual capital and corporate investment with them?
The debate about offshoring is deeply distorted and highly populist. The fact is that offshoring has been occurring for many years, if not decades. The bad news is not that Europe is losing its manufacturing jobs but that it has already lost a good chunk of its intellectual elite. The silent departure of more than 400,000 scientists - the number now based in the US - may not be as threatening to politicians as loud and disruptive street demonstrations, but it deserves to be seen as a form of protest nonetheless. The number of Europe's "educational refugees" may be too small to be felt at the polls, but their absence will be felt in future prosperity and social cohesion.
It is time for Europe's leaders to put their money where their mouths are. If they want more scientists, more research, more entrepreneurship and more innovation it is their responsibility to provide a political and economic climate capable of producing the jobs of the 21st century.
欧洲科技精英正在流失
在今年美国大选的前夕，引起最多争论的问题莫过于“离岸业务”这一复杂而难以捉摸的现象了。在美国，这一举动被看成是不公正、甚至不爱国的。但是，除了工作机会大量流失之外，假定近五十万美国科学家离开了美国，声称工作环境太差而无法做好工作，想象一下这将带来怎样的政治抗议。再假定各公司正在将它们最新水平的研究工作搬往海外，深信这些最前沿的发明创新更有可能在别处实现，想象一下，这又将带来怎样的政治抗议吧。
欢迎到欧洲来看一看！在欧洲，这种局面可就不是想象，而是严峻的经济现实了。每一年成千上万的欧洲人去美国留学，其中绝大部分，即70%以上，不愿意把他们在美国接受的教育带回祖国。他们大都留在美国，因为他们更愿意在一种能够发挥自己才能，又能从创新中得到回报的环境中从事自己的事业。结果，今天在美国工作的科学家中，有将近40%出生于欧洲。
为寻找鼓励创新精神的市场，一些公司也在仿效类似的举动。就在上个月，先正达(Syngenta)追随孟山都(Monsanto)、杜邦（DuPont）和拜耳农业（Bayer CropScience）的足迹，将其基因改良作物的研究工作从欧洲搬到美国；位于德国的世界最大化学公司BASF目前也在策划同样举措。
然而，在当前关于欧洲经济前景的辩论中，这些事实完全被忽略了。政界人士和工会组织眼睁睁地看到，一些公司为合理应对欧洲高工资、低弹性的工作环境，正在把工作机会迁移海外。但是他们不是极力改变这里的商业气候，而是谴责那些将工作机会转移海外的公司，说它们“不爱国”。
这是不折不扣的蛊惑民心。欧洲的政客很清楚，许多低成本制造业的工作流失，应被看作是一种自然进程，借用经济学家约瑟夫?舒姆比特（Joseph Schumpeter）的说法，这是一种“创造性破坏 （creative destruction）”过程，它伴随着欧洲从工业经济走向网络化、以知识为基础的经济。美国经济学家保罗?克鲁格曼（Paul Krugman）曾指出，假如你在19世纪30年代告诉一个农夫，说150年后耕作农田的人口将不足5%，他会对这种预言不寒而栗，因为他不知道，人力密集型农耕工作，很快将被薪酬更高且更稳定的工作机会所取代。
今天的情况也是这样。制造业的工作机会必将、也应当转移到能够更廉价和更有效地提供这种服务的地方。欧洲各国领导人必须承认这一事实，并着手处理真正的问题，即高素质人才的短缺、尤其是在科学界的人才短缺，因为欧洲需要这种人才以保持其21世纪科技发展的前沿地位。
其实，不爱国的正是欧洲各国领导人。他们颁布的政策从来都是以下一次选举为目的，而不是以下一代人为目的。不然我们怎样解释他们的做法呢：他们宁肯把欧盟预算的将近半数花费在农业补贴上，而平均给每个学生提供的高等教育基金比美国少了不止三分之一？他们怎么可以一边找钱补助具有前工业（pre-industrial)性质的经济活动，同时却眼看着欧洲最优秀、最聪明的人才成批的离开，带走无价的知识资本和企业投资？
关于“离岸”的辩论被极大的曲解了，而且是极度民粹主义的。事实上，离岸现象即使不说已持续了好几十年，至少也已发生好几年了。其实，坏消息不是什么欧洲正在流失制造业的工作机会，而是欧洲已流失了大批知识精英。40多万科学家悄然离开，让美国徒增了40多万，这对政治家构成的威胁，或许不及喧嚣而混乱的街头示威游行，但是无论如何，知识精英的离开应被看作是一种形式的抗议。欧洲“教育难民”的数目或许太小，在投票中甚至感觉不到，但是他们的缺失，一定会在未来的繁荣和社会凝聚力上感受到。
现在是时候了，欧洲领导人们应该用钱来兑现他们的夸夸其谈。如果他们想要更多的科学家、更多的研究、更多的企业家，以及更多的创新精神，他们就有责任提供一种能够产生21世纪工作机会的政经气候。
