Explaining the “Brain Drain” from Older Industrial Cities: The Pittsburgh Region

Abstract

In an effort to understand why so many college graduates are leaving western Pennsylvania, recent college graduates from three Pittsburgh-area universities were surveyed about their career and location decisions. The results indicated some increase in those staying between 1994 and 1999. A logistic regression analysis showed that an improving economy, low housing costs, and ample opportunities for continuing education were the major reasons. However, the region is still losing disproportionate numbers of minorities and graduates in high-tech fields and is attracting few immigrants. The major competition was from neighboring states rather than the Sun Belt. Low salaries and lack of advancement opportunities, especially for women, minorities, and twocareer couples, were the primary reasons. The results suggest several policy recommendations to help retain recent area graduates and to attract more highly skilled workers to the region.How do recent college graduates decide where to live and work? And how can they be persuaded to remain in the region where they attended college? These are vital questions for many states and cities currently experiencing a "brain drain"-a net outflow of college graduates, particularly those in scientific or technical fields. This article reports on a large survey of recent university graduates from the Pittsburgh region and uses a multivariate model to predict their decisions to stay or leave that region. The results can tell us a great deal about what young people value in their work, how they go about finding jobs, and the relative importance of monetary incentives, family ties, and lifestyle choices in their career and location decisions. THEORIES OF BRAIN DRAIN AND MIGRATION PATTERNSThe "third wave" of state and local economic development is focusing on issues of human capital and the shortage of workers with the requisite skills for the new economy (Hornbeck & Salamon, 1991). Human capital issues are particularly troubling to older industrial cities and agricultural states that have experienced little or no population growth in recent decades. Slow population growth and the graying of the population point to slower rates of job creation and declining tax revenues in the future. Wilensky (2002, p. 497) describes a demographic trend common to many

Education, race/ethnicity and out-migration from a border city

“…Although Gottlieb and Fogarty (2003), for example, confirm the long-term and positive association between education and income growth in over 260 metro areas covering a period of nearly 20 years, they readily acknowledge the chicken-and-egg nature of the equation. Hansen, Ban, and Huggins (2003), for example, discuss the case of Pittsburgh, where a robust supply of college graduates and an improving economy are not sufficient to retain young people. While the effects of the local economic benefits of education are easy to include in an economic model, they are not so easy to produce in the real world.…”

Will They Stay or Will They Go? Community Features Important in Migration Decisions of Recent University Graduates

“…Results of the aforementioned Gallup survey corroborated many of Glaeser et al's (2001) and Polgreen's (2004) conclusions: The ability to meet people and make friends, availability of jobs, availability of outstanding colleges and universities, and lifestyle amenities such as parks, open spaces, nightlife, and culture were important determinants of where to live for this group (Kim, 2010). Other researchers (Florida, 2006;Hansen et al, 2003;Winters, 2011) have supported the importance of universities to attracting human capital or creative talent and providing desired opportunities for continuing education. Hansen et al's (2003) study of recent university graduates revealed that amenities touted as important in previous studies, such as night life, nationally ranked sports teams, geography, climate, outdoor recreation, and many young people were at the middle or bottom of the list of important features.…”

“…Other researchers (Florida, 2006;Hansen et al, 2003;Winters, 2011) have supported the importance of universities to attracting human capital or creative talent and providing desired opportunities for continuing education. Hansen et al's (2003) study of recent university graduates revealed that amenities touted as important in previous studies, such as night life, nationally ranked sports teams, geography, climate, outdoor recreation, and many young people were at the middle or bottom of the list of important features. Florida (2002) concurred that spectator sports were not high on the list of amenities for the creative class; instead, more authentic and "bohemian" amenities were desired (e.g., ethnic restaurants and live music venues).…”

Motives behind the mobility of university graduates – A study of three German universities

“…However, graduates do not stay automatically in the region. Hansen et al (2003), for instance, found for the Pittsburgh region that sufficient job opportunities, offers for further education, and low-cost housing are helping to keep graduates; few advancement opportunities, especially for women and minorities, push graduates away. In general, the attraction of graduates is stronger for more metropolitan regions (Haapanen and Tervo 2012), especially when their population is more diverse and tolerant (Florida 2002).…”