Thread by @antonhowes

When it comes to attracting the top scientists, engineers and inventors, the UK takes the approach of build-it-and-they-will-come. It lowers barriers to entry or makes the country more attractive to immigrants.

But historically, it has been much, much more proactive.

Thread:

For centuries, the UK proactively identified and persuaded particular skilled workers to settle in the country. They weren't just lowering barriers; they were poaching - a policy I like to call promigration.

Take England's copper industry, which by the 19thC was world-beating.

The industry was kickstarted in the 16thC when the government arranged for hundreds of German metallurgists and their families to come to the country, bringing the expertise to mine and refine copper, zinc, and silver.

Or take the 17thC civil engineers who drained the Fens

Many of these engineers were brought over from the Dutch Republic, and persuaded to stay by granting denizenship rights by letters patent. Prominent engineers like Cornelius Vermuyden were even knighted.

Yet Britain was not alone in having promigration policies.

By the 18thC, Russia and France were actively enticing English ironworkers, watchmakers, and other mechanics.

In 1719, Britain even banned the emigration of skilled artisans (definitely not something to emulate today!), and spent vast sums re-enticing them back.

Even later, in the 19thC, when the UK was at the forefront of mechanical engineering, the government was still aware of the tensions over talent.

When Marc Isambard Brunel fell into debt in the 1820s, the government bailed him out on the condition that he not move to Russia!

(Had it not done so, then his son, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, would probably have become a globally famous Russian or a French engineer, rather than a British one.)

So what can the UK today learn from this history?

The government already attempts to lower barriers to entry. The new Innovator, Start Up, Global Talent, and Investor visas may all have their flaws, but their creation shows the UK's intent.

Otherwise, however, it simply tries to make itself more attractive.

It has created regulatory sandboxes in which companies can legally experiment with new technologies like drone deliveries.

And it makes it easier for UK startups to compete with the high-paying US for managers, e.g. with a scheme for taxing stock options as capital gains.

But there are few actual promigration policies, to proactively find and then encourage particular people to move. (The exception, perhaps, is the Global Entrepreneur Programme, which helped companies like Nutmeg and Seatfrog to relocate.)

So here are some lessons:

The government might want to consider rewarding the people who identify foreign talent and arrange for them to immigrate.

In the past, this involved granting royal pensions or knighthoods. Today, it might involve incentives for a government agency to want to find top talent.

Another lesson is that the government can attract foreign inventors and engineers by hiring them directly - exactly what happened in the 16th to 18th centuries.

After all, people are more likely to want to immigrate if they think the bureaucracy is on their side.

And of course there's a role for private organisations too. Take the Institute for Advanced Study, in the US, which actively & successfully recruited researchers who fled European fascism in the 1930s.

Although UK universities hire globally, there's nothing quite the same.

Regardless, to remain competitive, the UK will have to step up its efforts.

Other countries are adopting similar policies to it, such that it no longer stands out quite as much.

And meanwhile, countries like Singapore have been using proactive promigration policy for years.

So, as I argued in my piece for @TenThinkTank below, the UK should probably look abroad, and especially to its own past, if it isn't to lose out on a future Isambard Kingdom Brunel.

tenentrepreneurs.org/blog/finding-t…