FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG 72 8 PORTUGAL: DID THE CRISIS AGGRAVATE BRAIN DRAIN? Jorge Malheiros, Universidade de Lisboa Isabel Tiago de Oliveira, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa(ISCTE-IUL) Rosemarie Albrecht, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Portugal INTRODUCTION 26 In this chapter we shall analyse quantitative information on the recent evolution of outflows of Portuguese workers to other EU countries and inflows of foreign EU labour into Portugal, addressing in particular the mobility of highly skilled workers. Although the»crisis period« – 2007/2008–2014, is central to the analysis, the unavailability and structure of data seriously limit evolutional and comparative analysis within this period; EU Labour Force Survey data are not very useful for the study of migrant flows involving Portugal, as we will see in the next section. We thus had to use alternative data sources and to adapt the period of analysis, taking as a reference 2000/2001 and 2010/2011 when using census data and, alternatively, 2007/2008–2013 with regard to informa­tion from other sources(data for 2014 were not obtainable). Within these limitations, we shall focus on the following: –– Brain gain: the recent evolution of intra-EU highly quali­fied immigrants living in Portugal compared with the total stock of intra-EU immigrants living there, as well as the proportion of intra-EU highly qualified immigrants living in Portugal compared with the total stock of highly qualified immigrants in the country(EU and non-EU immigrants with a tertiary degree); –– Brain drain: the proportion of highly qualified Portuguese citizens currently working in another EU member state compared with the total of intra-EU highly qualified immi­grants by EU macro-region 27 and the proportion of highly qualified Portuguese citizens currently working in another EU member state compared with the overall proportion of Portuguese nationals currently working in another EU country by EU macro-region. –– Having considered the aforementioned elements about recent stocks and inflows of highly skilled EU workers in Portugal and stocks and inflows of highly skilled Portuguese workers in other EU member-states, we will discuss the economic and social impacts of this process in Portugal, framing it in terms of the overall debate»brain drain« versus»brain circulation« within the EU proposed by Teney(2014). The chapter is organised in five sections. Section 1 addresses conceptual and data issues with the purpose of defining the basic criteria used to identify the populations that are the objects of analysis, namely immigrants, foreigners and highly skilled persons. In addition it discusses the limits on analysis and comparability that result from the type of data sources we are using. Section 2 provides a short synopsis of recent(2008–2013) immigration and emigration with regard to Portugal 28 with the purpose of presenting the scenario in which highly skilled migratory movements take place. These are addressed in Sections 3(Brain Gain) and 4(Brain Drain). Finally, Section 5, which is simultaneously an integrated analysis and a»concluding remark«, focuses on the impact of highly skilled migratory movements on Portugal and the brain gain–brain drain debate. 26 The data used in this project and the ideas expressed in the chapter were developed in the context of project REMIGR – PTDC/ATP­DEM/5152/2012. 27 These macro-regions, designated»regions« in the Terms of Reference, are: i) the new member states of 2004(NMS1)-[Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slo­venia]; ii) new member states after 2004(NMS2) –[Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia] – iii) southern European member states(SEMS)[Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece]; iv) Scandinavian member states(ScMS)[Denmark, Sweden, Finland] and v) western and central European member states (WCEMS)[France, Germany, United Kingdom, Ireland, Austria, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg]. 28 Because the goal of this section is to provide a simplified general over­view of Portugal and its contemporary international migration, it was decided to simplify the data organisation and therefore it only considers 27 member states and the groups of countries used in the brain gain and brain drain analysis developed in Sections 3 and 4 are not adhered to.