The implications of brain gain politics for managing a Nation’s human capital in the sense that management procedures are no longer restricted to efforts aimed at mobilizing resources located within State boundaries but imply, to the contrary, efforts aimed at reaching out over those boundaries to skills and resources located in other national contexts.
I've argued that Pittsburgh needs to look beyond its own region, to assets of mobile human capital that maintain some affiliation with the area. But I was thinking about all the people who left Pittsburgh, mainly the exodus of the 1980s. Diaspora Knowledge Networks (DKN) do not concern people pushed to move by an economic shock. These networks (DKN) are comprised of well-educated people pulled to places of innovation and creativity.
Jon Udell helped to clear up my original misconception, using the more precise term "intellectual capital" instead of the ambiguous "human capital" I've written:
When I met with Jeff Sandquist I had just finished this podcast with Jim Russell. It’s a story about migration and the mobility of intellectual capital, refracted through Jim’s experience with the Pittsburgh diaspora. Neither Microsoft’s nor any other vendor’s technologies are discussed. I’m certain that the ideas Jim lays out in this podcast will inspire new business models for social software, but it’s all rather speculative.
For now, the issue of development is about "Diasporas of Highly Skilled and Migration of Talent." Networking this community is task enough. I do think that the Burgh Diaspora should formalize the pathways of chain migration that already exist, but tapping into the "mobility of intellectual capital" is the best way to build "New Pittsburgh."