Augusto Monterroso was a Honduran author who wrote the shortest short story ever written in any language. In the same book where that story was published, another fictional short story about brain drain appeared. This satirical piece started by saying:

The brain drain phenomenon has always existed, but it seems that nowadays it is beginning to be thought of as a problem. However, it is common knowledge, and sufficiently established by universal experience, that every brain worth anything at all either leaves on its own, or is taken away by someone else, or is sent into exile. In fact the first is the most common, but as soon as a brain comes into being it finds itself in a position to benefit from any one of these three possibilities. (Monterroso 2011)

Now, as Monterroso also says, no one takes our “brains” away, and if it happens is in a very low scale, because our “brains” just leave whenever they can, mostly due to there are unappreciated in Latin America (Monterroso 2011). Sadly that is another truth, one with many factors to analyze, but a truth at last. Behind the story of each brain that was “drained” was one that was misused. This paper underscores some considerations about the “brain drain” situation in Cuba and the United States policy towards this issue. It also provides some background for the better understanding of this phenomenon and its relationship with the developed-undeveloped countries duality.

The phrase “brain drain” was coined in the 1960s, when the United States began to hoard UK doctors. In that case, one developed country took advantages of another; the US emerged from the Second World War in 1944 with 80 percent of the world’s gold reserve in bullions; the UK had been severely hit and deprived of its empire during the course of the war. Today economic and social statistics show that “brain drain deals a double blow to weak economies, which not only lose their best human resources and the money spent training them, but then have to pay an estimated $5.6 billion a year to employ expatriates” (Castro 2007).

Meanwhile a World Bank report entitled, “International Migration, Remittances and the Brain Drain,” made public in October 2005, yielded the following results: “In the last 40 years, more than 1.2 million professionals from Latin America and the Caribbean have emigrated to the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. An average of 70 scientists a day has emigrated from Latin America in the course of 40 years” (Cagral 2005).

The brain drain phenomenon has continued with globalization, leading to devastating impacts around the world. For example, there are 150 million people around the world involved in science and technology activities, and the 90 percent is concentrated in the seven most industrialized nations, like USA and UK, curiously the same nations where the terminology was coined. A number of countries, particularly small nations in Africa, the Caribbean and Central America, have lost over 30 percent of their population with higher education as a result of migration.

In recent years, encouraging this type of emigration has become an official state policy in a number of North countries, which use incentives and procedures especially tailored to suit this end. A clear example is the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, approved by the US Congress in 2000, increased the temporary work visa (H-1B) allotment. The aim of this increase in the visa cap was to encourage the entry of highly qualified immigrants into the United States who could occupy positions in the high-technology sector. Though this figure was reduced in the 2005 fiscal year, the flow of professionals towards this country has remained steady. Similar measures were promulgated by the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and Australia.

Turning now to Cuba, the country has a long way to escape this situation. The reality is that a lot of young people, especially educated professionals, are fleeing the island in droves. Tens of thousands have emigrated in the past two years. Even though the exodus has alarmed the government, it remains largely unreported, a taboo topic for state media. One of the reasons this topic is censured is due to its sensitive political implications. As the Journalist Harold Dillas wrote about this phenomenon,

If Cuba has technical resources that exceed its economic need owing to the hypertrophy of the educational system and the reduction of its bureaucratic apparatus, and if it has a social and economic system that frustrates people’s aspirations, it’s understandable that people will emigrate with their degrees in hand. (Dillas 2012)

However, there are also other factors that exceed the Cuban government’s will to solve the brain drain. Most of them are external factors and they are related with USA. Some data shows that between 1959 and 2004, Cuba has graduated 805,902 professionals, including medical doctors, and the United States’ unjust policy towards our country has deprived us of 5.16 percent of the professionals who graduated under the Revolution (Castro 2007). These numbers are from 2007, ten years ago, and so much has changed since then in Cuban-US policies.

The situation became so grave since then that even The New York Times published an editorial article in 2014 about the issue: “There is much to criticize about Washington’s failed policies toward Cuba and the embargo it has imposed on the island for decades. But the Cuban Medical Professional Parole Program, which in the last fiscal year enabled 1,278 Cubans to defect while on overseas assignments, a record number, is particularly hard to justify” (New York Times 2014). It was hypocritical for the United States to value the contributions of Cuban doctors who assisted in international crises like the 2010 Haiti earthquake while working to subvert that government by making defection easy. As the editorial also stated “American immigration policy should give priority to the world’s neediest refugees and persecuted people. It should not be used to exacerbate the brain drain of an adversarial nation at a time when improved relations between the two countries are a worthwhile, realistic goal” (New York Times 2014).

On the other hand, the Cuban government has argued that it will not permit the emigration of professionals who are essential for national development, considering this as a measure to protect the country from the brain drain policies practiced by developed countries that negatively impact on Third World economies. “I believe –wrote Harold Dilla- that Cuba, like any other country in the world, has the right and is obliged to defend its human resources and the investments it has been made in them. But it cannot do this in just any manner” (Dilla 2012).

Perhaps Cuba needs to clearly lays out the rules that it is adopting for its protection. Measures like every professional must fulfill a national social service obligation to pay for their studies or else they should not receive their diploma. Otherwise they could financially reimburse the government if they don’t wish to perform any social service. But all of this should be quite clear and subject to contractual agreements.

The main reason for people inside and outside the country commonly forgets about the effects of USA policy on this issue is precisely because of the Cuban government’s stance on it. Governments shouldn’t have the right to prevent a person from leaving the country or returning freely for professional reasons, as well as no government should have the right to approve policies incentivizing brain drain. Therefore Cuban government should realize that every Cuban high-level professional is a veritable mine of knowledge, experiences and relationships; they represent authentic social capital that should be availed upon through positive policies. But maybe, if Cuba could find a way, not even the USA policies would make our “brain” leaves the Island, and then it would be added as an exception to Monterroso’s short story.

Bibliography

Caglar Ozden, Maurice Schiff. “International Migration, Remittances, and the Brain
Drain”. October 2005. http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTDECPROSPECTS/0,contentMDK:22756591~pagePK:64165401~piPK:64165026~theSitePK:476883,00.html

Carrol, Rory. “Cuba suffers exodus of the best and the brightest as economy remains
in the doldrums” In The Guardian. May 9, 2010.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/09/cuba-raul-castro-emigration

Castro, Fidel. “The brain drain” In Cubadebate. July 17, 2007.
http://en.cubadebate.cu/reflections-fidel/2007/07/17/brain-drain/

Dilla Alfonso, Haroldo. “Cuban Immigration Reform & Brain Drain” In Havana
Times. October 31, 2012. http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=81250

Monterroso, Augusto. “La exportación de cerebros”. November 9, 2011.
http://www.taringa.net/post/arte/7866120/La-exportacion-de-cerebros-po
r-Augusto-Monterroso.html

Imagine a Japanese living room. What would you expect to see? Would it surprise you that Popeye, The Flinstones, or The Jetsons might be playing on TV? Currently, Japan is recognized as a nation of anime, but its development wouldn’t have existed without the US. The US and Japan share a unique cultural relationship when it comes to anime.

Both the United States and Japan receive economic benefits from the explosion of Japanese anime. First, as for Japan, anime is spread out in all over Japanese society. For example, most convenience stores in Japan collaborate with anime industries to increase the sale of their products, and it is beneficial for the anime industries to advertise their anime as well. Also, there are many TV or portable games which are based on anime sold in Japan, and there are lots of singers singing only anime songs. Anime is rooted in Japanese society very deeply and widely, and it sustains Japanese economy. Additionally, the influence of Japanese anime has extended to the United States. Nissim Otmazgin, a senior lecturer in the Department of East Asian Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, says in his article that Japanese anime had a huge impact on the economy in the United States as well, and it produced more than US $ 4.84 billion sales in 2003.[1] Although the revenue in export has dropped, anime is still a good market in the United States: programs of anime television are still made, products continue to be marketed and consumed, and anime-related events such as the Los Angeles Anime Expo and Baltimore’s Otakon attract hundreds of thousands of American fans.[2] Even though both countries benefit economically, the citizens of Japan and the United States view anime quite differently.

First, the hierarchic position of anime in Japan is very high. In Japan, there are a lot of professional schools of anime where students can learn everything related to anime, for example how to draw the anime characters, to assemble the story of anime, and so on. Japan puts the emphasis on anime industry, and grows animators who create high-quality anime all over Japan. Although American animation, cartoons, was an imported culture from overseas and was not main culture in Japan, anime has become an important culture for Japanese society. As a result, Japanese anime is enjoyed not only in Japan but also nationally. On the other hand, the perception of animation in the United States is different from Japan. Shinobu Price, a daughter of Joe Price who is a renowned Japanese art historian and collector, says that “Westerners often treat animation, or “cartoons,” with such hierarchical disdain that forces it to be labeled as an inferior art form… or “unrealistic” in its portrayal of the human condition.”[3] Western seems to see cartoons as just a trivial culture in their countries.

Also, the reason why the events related to Japanese anime is held in the US is Japanese anime has wide range of genre. Compared to American animation, Japanese anime has unlimited genre in it, and therefore attracts youngsters of a variety of ages. According to Shinobu Price, audiences can find the following stories in Japanese anime: “wrenching dramas, cheesy romances, storybook adventures, spooky thrillers, historical fantasies, robot shows, gothic fairy tales, slapstick parodies, futuristic dystopias, sports dramas, sci-fi series, gimmicky sci-fi series, sexy cyberpunk techno-mythologies, misogynistic violent pornography, sword and sorcery stories, spoofs of sword and sorcery stories, epic environmental cautionary tales, Norse Goddess romantic comedies, not to mention your normal, everyday life family soap opera.”[4] From these genres, audience can select whatever she/he wants to enjoy. On the other hand, she points out that Western animation, especially American animation, is made for kids (or at least stereotyped such as), and “cannot get out from the realm of fairly tales with manufactured happy endings and token animal sidekick.”[5] The wide range of genre helps Japanese anime penetrate into the society in the United States.

Additionally, according to her, manga (so-called comics in Western countries, such as DC comics) helps to expand the range of audience. Unlike US comic such as DC or Marvel comic which are mainly for boys and men, about one-thirds of manga are comprised by shojo manga which is made for mainly girls and women in Japan.[6] Matt Thorn, a cultural anthropologist, says “In 2000, more than 1.5 billion manga magazines and books were sold, with gross revenues totaling \ 523 billion. Many of those were shojo manga.”[7] Almost of all Japanese anime is based on Japanese manga, and it means that Japanese anime is made for both men and women. Although American animation has both genres as well, they are either for men or for women. On the contrary, Japanese anime is created to get both men and women to enjoy at the same time. In other words, Japanese anime doesn’t have a clear border for gender. This is the reason for Japanese anime to be loved by any gender and ages.

There are several differences between anime and cartoons themselves between Japan and United States, but it doesn’t means either one is superior to the other one. Both anime and animation in Japan and the United States are different culture, and therefore the perception of them is different. One certain thing is that anime and cartoon are the strong bond which connects Japan and the United States.

 

In my trip to Rwanda, the most interesting complain that I heard from my Rwandan friends are about Chinese facial expression: different from European Americans (EA), Chinese people have “poker-face” and people can never tell their feelings from their faces. Unfortunately, what he complained are true. Chinese traditional culture considers that people who want to be noble men should show neither joy nor anger. Apparently, the understandings on “poker-face” are different. Diverse cultures form various understandings and facial expressions.

In theory, facial expression is a fundamental element in human social interaction. People’s facial expressions responding to emotions differ from culture to culture, with the exception of expressions to sensory stimuli like smells (Camras, Bakeman, Chen, Norris, Thomas, 2006). There is a significant difference between facial expression of Chinese and EA resulted in cultures. The individualism and indulgence dimensions in Geert Hofstede’s study can explain the differences as follows. This research paper will introduce the three most significant facial expression differences between Chinese and EA. Then it will explain the cultural issues underlying these differences with the help Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory. An interesting finding about the fundamental reason later will be addressed.

These have been interesting studies in scholars’ facial expression researches. Chinese respondents express emotions primarily through eyes while EA respondents reveal through eyebrows and mouths (Jack, Caldara, Schyns, 2012); Compared to EA respondents, Chinese respondents rarely express interest-excitement and disgust-revulsion facial expressions (Chan, 1985). Chinese respondents facial expression of anger-rage is more easily identifiable than the one expressed by EA respondents (Chan, 1985).

Chinese are more reserved and calm when excited or disappointed. They use eyes to express emotions while the EA respondents use eyebrows and mouth. Facial expressions represent internal representations, which demonstrate emotional signals influenced by diverse cultures (Jack et al., 2012). According to Hofstede (2016), the United States culture is strongly individualistic and Chinese culture is more collectivist. EA people are aware of “I”, would love to express personal feelings, and advocate the “right of privacy”. On the contrary, Chinese culture, a collectivist culture, advocates “we” and harmony (Hofstede, 2016). Respondents who belong to Chinese culture fall under “stress on belonging”. Moreover, as Confucius said, gentlemen should be able to control emotions and maintain gravity. Being able to control emotions and reveal neither joy nor anger is one of the characters of noble men in Chinese concepts. Therefore, EA respondents are likely to express emotions with explicit and incidental facial expressions by moving eyebrows and mouth. Chinese respondents influenced by the harmony and collectivism culture tend to express emotions with implicit and controlled facial expressions especially when expressing excitement and revulsion.

Though Chinese respondents can control mild emotions well, they are less reserved in strong negative emotions, such as anger. According to Hofstede (2016), people in restraint culture are “less likely to remember positive emotions” and fewer of them think that they are happy. They even consider leisure is not important. On the contrary, people with high indulgence, the EA respondents, value leisure more highly, like to remember positive emotions, and believe themselves to be happy. Think of it this way. Positive emotions and more sensitive in feeling happy can balance strong negative emotions. Besides, fewer restrictions allow people in less restraint culture express strong negative emotions freely. Therefore, it is possible for people who live in less restraint culture and more sensitive about positive emotions to weaken strong negative emotions. Thus, as the researches reveal, Chinese respondents are more likely to become irate and influenced by negative emotions while EA respondents respond to anger in a milder way.

Carmas (2006) provided another interesting possible explanation—mom. EA mothers express more positive emotions than Chinese mothers (Carmas, 2006). Chinese mothers are outstanding in aggravation and strictness (Carmas, 2006). Therefore, as revealed in the study, Chinese mothers’ aggravation and strictness result in less smiling and more negative mistrust (Carmas, 2006). Combining this finding with Freud’s psychic determinism theory, no doubt the oppressive feeling and stress influenced by Chinese mothers’ aggravation and strictness contribute to Chinese respondents’ rare facial expressions in response to excitement and revulsion as well as their high levels of anger and restrained feelings. Mothers are the first and the most intimate teachers. By influencing individuals, mothers create human history, and influence diversity in cultures.

While we think of facial expressions as innate and natural, they are clearly culturally determined. With a greater understanding of intercultural competence and people’s facial expressions, intercultural communication can be conducted much more smoothly and effectively. However, people should not stereotype the general understanding of Chinese facial expression since Chinese people’s backgrounds are varied from gender, ethnicity, region, social and economic status, and generation.

References

Camras, L.A., Bakeman, R., Chen, Y. Norris, K., & Thomas, R. (2006). Culture, Ethnicity, and Children’s Facial Expressions: A Study of European American, Mainland Chinese, Chinese American, and Adopted Chinese Girls. Emotion, 6(1), 103-114. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.6.1.103

Chan, D. W. (1985). Perception and Judgment Of Facial Expressions Among The Chinese. International Journal of Psychology, 20(6), 681.

Jack, R.E., Caldara, R., & Schyns, P.G. (2012). Internal Representations Reveal Cultural Diversity in Expectations of Facial Expressions of Emotion. Journal of Experimental Psychology,141, 1, 19–25. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/xge-141-1-19.pdf

National Culture. (n.d.) In the Hofstede Center. Retrieved from http://geert-hofstede.com/national-culture.html

 

 

 

            As an oil industry sales executive, John Shipwright equipped himself with a handy booklet about Chinese business practices and etiquette and headed to Shanghai, China alone to close a sales deal. After two days’ negotiation about the delivery, the Chinese customer agreed to an order-to-installation cycle that would take six months for whole delivery— John considered the deal done and couldn’t wait to go home. However, the Chinese customers brought up the delivery issue again and that was where John lost his temper and shouted, “What? You want to talk about delivery again?” The Chinese team was at a loss and asked the interpreter what was wrong. Because of this misunderstanding, both sides postponed the negotiation without arranging another meeting, and the U.S. company that John Shipwright represented lost this deal to a competitor (Graham & Lam, 2003, p. 3-4).

            The negotiation failure above is due to an underlying lack of awareness regarding cultural differences. Negotiation is a formal dialogue between two parties to search for a resolution. To a large extent, negotiation is influenced and shaped by culture, “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others” (Hofstede, 1991, p. 5). With the rise of globalization, there is a growing trend of international negotiation, emphasizing the increasing importance of understanding cultural differences. In this article, I will apply three most important and relevant culture dimensions from Hofstede’s culture dimensions theory—power distance, long-term orientation and individualism — to negotiation styles.  Table 1 illustrates Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and will inform the forthcoming analysis. Based on that, I will also explain differences between Chinese and the U.S. negotiation styles to provide basic understanding to negotiators from both sides.

Table 1

Hofstede’s Six Culture Dimensions for China and United States

	China	U.S.A.
Power Distance	80	40
Long-Term Orientation	87	26
Individualism	20	91

Note. The power distance index expresses the degree to which the less powerful members of a society accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. The long-term orientation index shows whether a culture values (long term) pragmatic or (short term) normative. A higher score means more persistence and thrift in a society. The individualism index reflected the degree to which individual interests are given priority over the group. Source from http://geerthofstede.nl/dimension-data-matrix.

            First, we can look at this case in terms of power distance. As shown in Table 1, China scores 80 in the power distance dimension: Chinese society enjoys a strict hierarchy and firmly believes that inequalities of power among people are acceptable, making the status and division between supervisors and subordinates quite clear. The U.S. score is relatively low compared with the Chinese one, and the score gap of 40 points reveals that although the U.S. recognizes inequality within the team, differences between team members on the American side based on hierarchy are not unbridgeable. This distinction results in two different approaches to selecting negotiators. The U.S. side, with a relatively low power distance culture, is more likely to appoint people as negotiators or even negotiating leader because they are able to solve the problem. By comparison, as a relatively high power distance culture, the Chinese side is more likely to choose negotiators and assign roles in the negotiating team based on the existing hierarchy. In the oil industry sales case, the U.S. team only sent a sales executive to China because they thought Shipwright had the authority and ability to decide on delivery issues; meanwhile, the Chinese team was composed of several people who had their own focus and Shipwright could not figure out the leader, contributing to the negotiation failure.

            We can also view this case in terms of long-term versus short-term orientation. With a high score of 87, China is a culture paying more attention to the future and long term benefits or costs. The U.S., on the other hand, scores a relatively low 26, which implies its focus on the present and short-term interests. A perfect reflection of this difference could be the Chinese “relation-based” negotiation approach and the U.S. “task-based” approach (Samovar, Porter, McDaniel, & Roy, 2016, p. 352). During the negotiation, the Chinese would consider not only the interests at the moment but also the potential development afterwards, so they would not rush in negotiating details. Instead, they would start with general principles and common value discussion and then spend most of the time building relations. The American, on the other hand, would strive to complete the task assigned to them, separating the people from the issue and focusing on their own goals for this negotiation. Once they know where the interests are, they prefer getting straight down to business. In the case, the Chinese team repeatedly asked about delivery issue where an agreement had been reached, a sign of confirmation and relationship building. John Shipwright, on behalf of the U.S. team, considered task completed and totally ignored the signal. What was worse is that Shipwright regarded the Chinese customers unreasonable and shut the door of further negotiation possibilities.

            Finally, an examination of individualism versus collectivism can also further our understanding of the case.  A score of 20 indicates that China is a highly collective culture, where people are loyal to their groups and act in the groups’ interests. As Hsu (1981) pointed out, Chinese people emphasize the group goal and appreciate “relational harmony.” On the other hand, the Americans score a high 91, indicating that they are more concerned about personal interests rather than their group. According Ma and Alfred (2010), a more individualistic negotiator would be expected to demonstrate “self-assertive behavior.” The more individualistic U.S. negotiators would prefer handling divergences with rational competitiveness and pursue their own self-interests, while the collectivistic Chinese would prefer handling conflict in indirect ways to preserve relationship. This also indicates why the U.S. negotiators tend to make the first offer: they are more likely to assert their interests directly. Meanwhile, the Chinese negotiators tend to react to the offer and defend their interests indirectly because they do not want to be the first to break the harmony. Things would also have changed if Shipwright had realized that the Chinese team was searching for more benefits but they did not want to break the harmony.

            Ultimately, it is clear that China and the U.S are growing accustomed to each other’s negotiation styles. However, the main differences deeply rooted in culture still largely influence the negotiation dynamics and results. Therefore, understanding each other’s culture is crucial to the conclusion of an agreement, and the application of Hofstede’s culture dimension model can enhance this understanding. Going back to the case mentioned earlier in this paper, if the U.S. negotiator had identified the true leader according to the Chinese negotiators’ titles first, spent some time building relations and general principles and understood the underlining demands of the Chinese customers, Shipwright would not have struggled and lost this client. Meanwhile, if the Chinese negotiators had understood the American task-based approach and clarified their interests more quickly, it would have saved both sides much time and effort. A mutual understanding of each other’s culture can greatly smoothen negotiations and contribute to successful agreements.

 

References

Graham, J. L., & Lam, N. M. (2003). The Chinese negotiation. Harvard Business                              

            Review, 81(10), 82-91.

Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, J. G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of

            the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hsu, F. L. (1981). Americans and Chinese: Passage to differences. Honolulu, HI:

            University of Hawaii Press.

Ma, Z., & Jaeger, A. M. (2010). A comparative study of the influence of

            assertiveness on negotiation outcomes in Canada and China. Cross

            Cultural Management: An International Journal, 17(4), 333-346

Samovar, L. A., Porter, R. E., McDaniel, E. R., & Roy, C. S. (2016).

            Communication between cultures. San Francisco, CA: Cengage Learning.