Directory of Commonwealth Scholars and Fellows 1960 – 2002

Governments offer scholarships for a variety of reasons. Typically, however, they represent a balance between
enlightened self-interest and a genuine desire to help others. One motive might be to ‘win friends’ in other parts
of the world, who, if favourably impressed, will in turn influence policy or public opinion towards their former
hosts in later life. Another might be to provide key skills to the next generation of leaders and practitioners,
particularly in developing countries, as part of strategies to improve living standards there. In the case of the
CSFP there is the additional hope that, by undertaking these activities in the name of the Commonwealth, we will
strengthen support for that institution.
Sometimes, these aims are thought to conflict. In general, there is more overlap between them than is commonly
recognised. Whether the aim is to influence others or to help them, scholarships need to attract individuals who
will rise to the highest levels of their professions – where they can influence both policy and have a catalytic
effect on others. This embraces senior figures in health, education and other key services, as much as it does for
central government and the private sector.
One area where the interests of development policy and self-interest overlap is the general desire to ensure that
award holders return to make an impact on their home country. This is not to say that scholarship holders who
remain with their hosts represent a wasted investment for that country. Far from it – in an economic sense, they
typically repay the investment of their award several times over during their careers, often in key shortage areas.
In reality, however, that is not the main purpose of Commonwealth Scholarships, and the terms of award issued
by individual countries reflect this. Typically, award holders are required to return to their home countries as a
condition of their scholarship or fellowship. Many home countries reinforce this with a ‘bond’ system, through
which award holders are required to return for a specific period.
The effects of this are clear from the following profiles, which show that the vast majority of award holders do
return to their home countries. In the United Kingdom, an interim survey published at the time of the last
Education Ministers conference produced a figure of over 90%, whilst suggesting that this might have been
slightly exaggerated by the method of tracing respondents. A subsequent survey of home country nominating
agencies put the figure at 85-90%. The Canadian figure is lower – perhaps due to the proximity of the United
States – but still comfortably over two-thirds.
Moreover, these figures relate to numbers of individuals currently working in their home country. Often the real
situation is much more complex. Our profiles reveal several examples of alumni who have worked abroad for some
years before returning to their country of origin, and others who have only moved from their country of origin
several years after their CSFP award. Many of those working overseas are clearly undertaking work of relevance to
their home country – for example in international organisations, NGOs or embassies. Of those pursuing academic
careers abroad, several have relevant research or teaching interests, and maintain collaborations with universities in
their homeland. All of these would claim that their current location does not imply a lack of concern for, or
willingness to contribute to, the country from which they were nominated.
It is also interesting to note that the highest prevalence of award holders not returning home comes not from
developing country students, but those from developed Commonwealth countries, who study in other developed
countries. In some ways, this is not surprising. Such students tend to be slightly younger, on average, than those
from developing countries, and less likely to have employment or family obligations. Some may consciously plan
to work overseas during the early part of their career, others are likely to form personal attachments – a feature of
awards over which the Plan administrators have little control! Movement does, however, appear to be two-way,
with for example Canadians remaining in the United Kingdom and vice-versa, so can probably be attributed more
to the aspirations of individuals than the relative attractions of the countries concerned generally.
In analysing the occupations of alumni, it is interesting to note the high proportion working in the public sector
and, in particular, academic life. Again, this is not surprising. Some of the nominating agencies that propose
candidates for the scheme actively seek those likely to contribute to the public service on their return. In the
United Kingdom, significant numbers of awards are reserved for staff who are already employed in higher
education. Historically, a high proportion of awards has been at doctoral level; for their recipients academic life is
an obvious career path. In these circumstances, the results suggest that the Plan has met its aims.
ix