Write your quotes here: by Hande Ozer

2025-02-14 10:46:46 UTC

Arnold, G (2012) states that "Remittances, although important, do not compensate developing countries for the loss of skills" (p.5). I share the same opinion with Arnold because remittances give money, but losing skilled people hurts important areas like healthcare and education making development harder.

zeynepnyuc — 2025-02-14 10:47:51 UTC

Arnold (2012) argues that remittances are an important part of an origin country’s income however, that remittances do not compensate for the skill loss (p.5). Although I agree with Arnold on skill loss he fails to adress the possible future skill gain that happens when immigrants return to their origin country.

2025-02-14 10:49:37 UTC

Arnold (2012), in his study states that even though remittances have a significant impact on sending countries' economies, they are not sufficient to compansate for lack of human capital caused by brain drain. I agree with him in his claim because remittances are not resulted from productive activities, which decrease their role in longer term economic activities of a country such as innovation and technology based developments.

2025-02-14 10:49:38 UTC

Arnold (2012) rightly argues that “remittances, while important, do not compensate for the loss of skills in developing countries” (p. 5), I totally agree with this because the migration of skilled workers undermines key sectors such as health and education which in turn hinders economic development.

2025-02-14 10:51:19 UTC

Arnold(2012) claims that remittances are insufficient to recoup the skills lost in developing countries due to immigration. Although I agree that the loss of skills can have negative effects, remittances are crucial for countries economies since it can provide noticable income to poor families.

zeynepnyuc — 2025-02-14 10:51:48 UTC

Arnold (2012) states that remittances are an important argument for host countries however, they do not eliminate a country’s loss of skills whatsoever. I agree with Arnold to some extent but I believe he fails to address the aspects relating to the host country’s perspective such as the loss of economical resources from remittances.

2025-02-14 10:52:20 UTC

Arnold(2012) assert that remittances do not offset deficit of skilled workers in developing countries. My view, however, contrary to what Arnold argued is that it has a paramount importance of boosting economy. It enables more funding acquisition to make investment of education.

2025-02-14 10:53:32 UTC

Remittances are important for the home countries, however home country faces some loss of skill so home countries do not benefit from this situation(Arnold, 2012, p.5). This approach do not accurately explain what the situation is because workers earn more than they will earn in the home country. Also most of the immigrant sender countries are developing countries so , it is likely that home country faces huge unemployment rates. Also,even if they employed their they would not earn as much , hence, it is best choice for them to be employed in other country and send remittances.

2025-02-14 10:54:50 UTC

Arnold(2012) asserts "Remittances, although important, do not compensate developing countries" (p.5). I am in the same view as Arnold's statement because remitannces that are sent to origin of country, in some points, are not effective solution. This is because it drives that country, mostly developing ones, into more poverty because of the fact that it does not make any policy which could improve domestic economy and not alleviate brain drain, and also its detrimental effects on developing countries.

-Melike D.

2025-02-14 10:55:00 UTC

Although remittances are significant, they cannot make up for the skill loss in emerging economies(Arnold,2012). Remittances provide financial support for the hosting countries, but they do not replace the expertise and productivity lost when skilled workers migrate.

2025-02-14 10:56:38 UTC

Arnold (2012) argues that remittances play a huge role in economy but does not cause a problem in developing countries for the loss of skills. I concur with the idea that remittances contribute significantly to both countries and I strongly believe that remittances does affect the developing countries economy.

2025-02-14 10:56:46 UTC

Arnold (2012) emphasizes that loss of qualified workers cannot be covered by remittances, which I personally agree. (p.5) Remittances seem to be saving those poorer countries’ economies today. However, loss of potential might be a threat in the long run.

2025-02-14 10:56:48 UTC

Arnold (2012) argues that although remittances provide financial benefits they don’t cancel the loss of skilled labor. (p.5) I agree with Arnold because remittances have impacts on financial improve but losing skilled labors cause some big problems for developing countries.

2025-02-14 10:57:00 UTC

Arnold, G (2012) himself writes “Remittances, although important, do not compensate developing countries for the loss of skills” (p.5). I agree that it is not beneficial as the country has a loss of skills but it it helping the economy in the households as money comes in. It is better than nothing.

2025-02-14 10:57:21 UTC

Arnold (2012) argues that although remittances contribute to economic support they cannot fully address the shortage of skilled labor. The claim that is undeniable. Skilled labor migration weakens essential sectors such as healthcare, education, and engineering, leaving developing nations in a cycle of dependence rather than self-sufficiency.

2025-02-14 10:57:22 UTC

Arnold (2012) argues that remittances are crucial to developing countries however they do not compensate for the loss of skilled labor. I agree that loss of skilled labor is a considerable disadvantage but remittances play a far bigger role in the countries economic development and its GDP.

2025-02-14 10:57:26 UTC

I agree with Arnold G's (2012) point that remittances are undeniably important for the country of origin because it provides financial support that can help sustain the economy of the country. However, while remittances contribute economically, they do not fully make up for the the long-term consequences of skilled individuals leaving their home country.

Because when talented people emigrate, they apply and use their expertise in foreign markets, which directly benefits the destination. This benefit is more crucial than the benefit it has for the origin countrys economy.

2025-02-14 11:02:23 UTC

“Remittances, although important, do not compensate developing countries for the loss of skills (Arnold, 2012)”. I agree on Arnold’s point, even if the remittances are significant for the hosting country, losing all the young brains who would have served to their economy is an unavoidable disadvantage for the origin country.