The term, “brain drain,” has been controversial ever since the Royal Society (1963) coined it to refer to the emigration of British scientists to the United States and Canada. The ensuing debate has produced two schools of thought. The nationalists, such as Patinkin (1968) who assume that the brain drain is dysfunctional to nation-states and who more or less view the talented individual as a property of a nation-state, have found sympathetic audiences in most of the developing countries and also among the altruistic moralists of the developed world. The moralists are concerned with the propriety and logic of the recipient countries accepting brains from the underdeveloped while at the same time granting them foreign aid. In response, the internationalists, such as Johnson (1968), who assume that the brain drain is functional to the pervasive trend towards closer integration of world economy and community and who more or less view the talented individual as a commodity in the international rather than the national market, have also found an equally sympathetic audience, especially among the drainees themselves. Being even more underdeveloped than the other developing areas, Africa is seen by the moralists as an ideal example of the follies of the brain drain.