The State is currently in talks with top professionals in the field to design vibrant macro-economic policies to bring back lost talent, The Sunday Morning learns.
“We are in discussions with esteemed Sri Lankan professionals globally, including Professor Gomika Udugamasooriya, to encourage them to use their expertise for the betterment of Sri Lanka,” Deputy Minister of Education and Higher Education Dr. Madhura Senevirathna informed The Sunday Morning.
His words reflect a growing sense of urgency within Government circles, as Sri Lanka faces an unprecedented wave of graduate migration.
An ongoing study carried out by the University of Peradeniya has shown that approximately 30% of the country’s university graduates migrate after completing their studies, with the majority never returning to contribute to the domestic economy.
The statistics
Reflecting on the last five years, University of Peradeniya Professor in Economics Prof. Wasantha Athukorala noted that between 2019 and 2023, a total of 138,980 students had graduated from Sri Lanka’s State universities.
He pointed out that the largest share came from the Arts stream with 55,755 graduates, followed by Management (27,619), Science (14,935), Engineering (8,261), Computer Science (6,533), Medicine (5,953), Agriculture (4,901), Allied Health Sciences (4,442), Law (3,440), Technology (2,721), Education (1,638), Architecture (1,349), Indigenous Medicine (974), Dental Sciences (248), and Veterinary Science (230).
“What these figures show is that Arts and Management together account for nearly 60% of all graduates. When it comes to outward migration, the most mobile graduates are in Management, Science, Engineering, Computer Science, Agriculture, Allied Health, Technology, and Architecture. Many of these graduates have a good chance of securing opportunities abroad, and in some departments, the migration rate is close to 100%.”
Prof. Athukorala also addressed the cost borne by the State. “If we look at Government expenditure on university education, the recurrent expenditure, without counting capital investment, was Rs. 86 billion in 2023, Rs. 79 billion in 2022, Rs. 69 billion in 2021, Rs. 68 billion in 2020, and Rs. 72 billion in 2019. On average, this works out to about Rs. 75 billion each year over the last five years, which is essentially what the State spends to cover the cost of maintaining the higher education system and producing graduates.”
He estimated that it cost the State around Rs. 500,000 per year to educate a single student, amounting to roughly Rs. 2 million for a four-year degree. Using a higher estimate of Rs. 700,000 per year, the total investment climbs to about Rs. 2.8 million per graduate.
“If we multiply this figure by those who have migrated in the last five years, the cost to the country becomes staggering. If we assume only 30% of graduates migrate, the cumulative loss is around Rs. 100 billion. This means that in just five years, the cost of migration exceeds the entire recurrent expenditure of the university system for a single year.”
Although the average number of State university students who have migrated is approximately 30%, Prof. Athukorala suggested that it varied by faculty. “In some science departments, such as Chemistry, the migration rate is almost 100%, while in fields like Arts and Indigenous Medicine it remains relatively low, at around 5%. The exact percentage is less important than the fact that a large proportion of skilled graduates are leaving, which is a major drain on the nation’s human capital and public finances,” he said.
Deputy Minister Dr. Senevirathna admitted that while international migration of skilled labour was not unique to Sri Lanka, the scale of the phenomenon in the local context was troubling.
“We cannot and should not prevent our young people from exploring global opportunities. But we have a responsibility to make sure that Sri Lanka remains a viable destination for their future. Our focus now is to create structural conditions where graduates not only wish to stay, but also one where those who leave feel compelled to come back. This is not merely a question of education; it is a question of macroeconomic policy, competitiveness, and stability.”
Aligning with national economic planning
According to Dr. Senevirathna, one of the central weaknesses of Sri Lanka’s education system has been its disconnection from broader economic planning. For decades, universities produced graduates in fields such as Arts, Social Sciences, and General Sciences without adequately matching them to the skills demanded by the labour market. As a result, graduates often found themselves underemployed or unemployed at home, even as foreign economies eagerly absorbed their expertise.
“We are consulting with leading Sri Lankan academics and professionals, both here and abroad, to identify the bottlenecks,” he said. “They have been very clear in their feedback: unless Sri Lanka can offer competitive salaries, credible research platforms, and opportunities for career advancement, there is no incentive to return. That is why our ministry is aligning closely with the economic team to design policies that integrate higher education directly into the national development framework.”
Loss of trust
The Deputy Minister added that a new emphasis was being placed on disciplines such as Supply Chain Management, Artificial Intelligence, Data Science, and advanced technical fields.
He noted that Sri Lanka had already fallen behind regional peers in nurturing industries linked to innovation and knowledge creation, and that unless the education system was re-engineered to meet these demands, the brain drain would only accelerate.
He also acknowledged that vocational and technical education would need to be re-imagined so that those not pursuing purely academic paths could still enjoy meaningful career opportunities that kept them within the country.
While educational reform is central, Dr. Senevirathna also emphasised that policies alone would not be enough to stem the tide. “We must restore faith in the system,” he said, referencing the turbulence of the last few years.
Quantified financial losses
Prof. Athukorala, quantifying the real cost of this trend, explained that educating an undergraduate in Sri Lanka required between Rs. 400,000 and Rs. 1.4 million annually, depending on the faculty and discipline. With roughly 33,000 graduates produced in 2023 alone, the State invested approximately Rs. 86 billion in higher education for that year in recurrent costs.
“This is a huge public investment,” he said. “It is funded by taxpayers, many of whom will never see the inside of a university. Their expectation is that the graduates will contribute to national development through innovation, service, and professional expertise. But instead, the best of them leave. That is the true cost of this exodus.”
He pointed out that the financial outflow was only one dimension of the problem. “It is not only a matter of financial loss. When the brightest graduates leave, they take with them innovation, research potential, and leadership capacity. It creates a vacuum in the system. We lose not only workers but future policymakers, researchers, and entrepreneurs as well. The long-term consequences are immense.”
Calls for reimbursement and accountability
Prof. Athukorala proposed a corrective mechanism to mitigate this imbalance. “I propose that graduates who permanently migrate should be required to reimburse a portion of the public investment in their education,” he said.
“We are not talking about punishing them but about fairness. If the State spends millions to provide you a free degree, and you decide to settle abroad, then you should repay part of that cost, perhaps between $ 10,000–15,000. This money can be reinvested in the education of other students. It is a way to ensure accountability.”
The proposal mirrors practices in certain countries that require public scholarship recipients to serve a mandatory number of years in the country or repay their costs if they choose not to. However, Prof. Athukorala stressed that repayment was only one part of the solution.
“We cannot force anyone to stay. People leave because the domestic conditions are not attractive. Salaries are low, research opportunities are limited, and professional careers are often stagnant. Unless we change these fundamentals, the exodus will continue. The repayment system is simply about justice for taxpayers. The real solution is to create conditions where people willingly remain.”
Turning migration into an asset
Dr. Senevirathna, while acknowledging the problem, also insisted that Sri Lanka must rethink how it framed the issue of migration.
“We should not see migration purely as a loss,” he said. “Our diaspora is an enormous asset. Many Sri Lankans abroad are willing to support universities here through partnerships, mentorship, and even direct investment. If we can build systematic linkages, then migration can also become a source of strength. The challenge is to manage this relationship in a way that serves Sri Lanka’s interests and we are working towards that goal.”
Prof. Athukorala similarly noted that the experience of countries such as India and China demonstrated that brain drain could eventually be converted into ‘brain circulation.’ During the 1980s and 1990s, both countries experienced massive outflows of graduates. However, through investments in research parks, technology hubs, and attractive incentives for returnees, they were eventually able to reverse the trend.
Today, many of their globally trained professionals have returned, bringing with them networks, capital, and expertise that have significantly advanced national development. “Sri Lanka must learn from these examples,” he insisted. “We cannot stop people from leaving, but we can give them a reason to come back.”
Retaining top talent
Meanwhile, educationist Dr. Tara de Mel noted that retaining graduates required addressing not just jobs but also the entire ecosystem that influenced a young professional’s decision to stay or leave.
She proposed several actionable policies, including the creation of research and innovation grants to provide local graduates with competitive funding. Additionally, she suggested the Government invest in improvements to quality of life, such as better urban infrastructure, transport, and safety, to make the country a more attractive place to live.
Other proposals included creating transparent professional development pathways with clear merit-based career ladders and establishing formal graduate networks and mentorship schemes to connect young talent with successful local professionals.
Dr. de Mel warned that making migrating graduates repay the State for their education could create inequity, potentially deterring students from lower-income backgrounds who feared long-term debt. From a logistical standpoint, she highlighted the difficulty of enforcing repayment from graduates who had permanently settled abroad.
Rather than a one-size-fits-all solution, Dr. de Mel proposed more nuanced models such as income-contingent repayment schemes, where graduates would only contribute once their salary exceeded a certain threshold. Another option is a bonded service, where graduates could repay their debt by working in underserved sectors like rural schools or hospitals.
To mitigate the financial loss of educated talent, Dr. de Mel underscored the need to transform universities into hubs for “job creators, not just job seekers”. She recommended that universities embed entrepreneurship and digital skills into all disciplines and that regular consultation with key industries be made mandatory through university-industry councils. Furthermore, she championed the idea of establishing startup incubation within universities, providing seed funding and tax incentives for graduate-led ventures.
Dr. de Mel further elaborated on policy frameworks that balanced student freedom with a social obligation to the country. She proposed moving away from mandatory repayment by offering incentives for returnees, such as tax breaks or research funds, through graduate return programmes.
Another idea was the use of public-private partnership bonds, where companies co-fund degrees with a work-locally-or-repay clause. She also stressed the importance of actively engaging the diaspora through structured platforms for remote contribution and knowledge-sharing.
Focusing on the critical need for collaboration between academia and industry, Dr. de Mel emphasised the importance of co-designing programmes with industry leaders and establishing formal sector skills councils to set training priorities.
According to her, these collaborative efforts are essential to ensure new postgraduate and vocational pathways create high-demand, high-value jobs that provide compelling reasons for graduates to stay.