This article focuses on a comparative analysis of theoretical and philosophical approaches to the formation, development, and contemporary interpretations of the intellectual migration phenomenon. Based on ontological and methodological criteria, the study comparatively analyzes the instrumental-political, neoclassical-rational, existential-humanistic, critical postcolonial, and hybrid-anthropological approaches explaining the mobility of highly qualified professionals in the context of globalization. The analysis demonstrates that scientific perspectives on intellectual migration are shifting from the traditional “brain drain” paradigm to more complex approaches such as “brain gain” and “brain circulation”.

intellectual migration, brain drain, brain gain, brain circulation, human capital, transnationalism, relative poverty (relative deprivation), migration theories, comparative analysis.

Alimov, S. (2021). The philosophical aspects of the transformation of the moral environment of migrants. In Общественные науки в современном мире: политология, социология, философия, история (pp. 84-87).

Aparicio Castro, A. L., et al. (2025). Estimating and conditional forecasting bilateral migration flows between South America and Europe. International Migration Review, 1–40.

Boucher, S., Stark, O., & Taylor, J. E. (2005). A gain with a drain? Evidence from rural Mexico on the new economics of the brain drain. University of California, Davis.

Castles, S. (2009). Development and migration—Migration and development: What comes first? Global perspective and African experiences. Theoria.

Castles, S., & Miller, M. J. (1998). The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world (2nd ed.). Macmillan Press.

De Haas, H. (2010). Migration and development: A theoretical perspective. International Migration Institute, University of Oxford.

Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.

Fricker, M. (2013). Epistemic justice as a condition of political freedom. Synthese, 190(7), 1317–1332.

Guarnizo, L. E., Portes, A., & Haller, W. (2003). Assimilation and transnationalism: Determinants of transnational political action among contemporary migrants. American Journal of Sociology, 108(6), 1211–1248.

Kanning, M. (2012). A philosophical analysis of intellectual property: In defense of instrumentalism (Graduate thesis). University of South Florida.

Money, J. (2025). The politics of migration in the 21st century: Employing systemism to advance research strategies. Social Sciences, 14(2), 98.

Portes, A. (1976). Determinants of the brain drain. International Migration Review, 10(4), 489–508.

Portes, A., Guarnizo, L. E., & Landolt, P. (1999). The study of transnationalism: Pitfalls and promise of an emergent research field. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22(2), 217–237.

Rees, P., & Lomax, N. (2020). Ravenstein's laws of migration: A comparison of 19th century and contemporary approaches. Comparative Population Studies.

Stark, O. (2004). The new economics of the brain drain. World Development, 32(1), 15–22.

Stark, O., & Taylor, J. E. (1991). Migration incentives, migration types: The role of relative deprivation. The Economic Journal, 101(408), 1163–1178.

Stark, O., Helmenstein, C., & Prskawetz, A. (1997). A brain gain with a brain drain. Economics Letters, 55(2), 227–234.

Yang, D. (2025). Brain drain or brain gain? New evidence points to benefits of skilled migration. Science.