Yet, this is far from being true. The developed countries, once a source of such emigration themselves (more than 100,000 European scientists left for USA in wake of Second World War) - actively seek to become its destination by selectively attracting only skilled and educated citizens of developing countries. They offer them higher salaries, a legal status (however contingent), and tempting attendant perks. The countries of origin cannot compete, able to offer only $50 a month salaries, crumbling universities, shortages of books and lab equipment, and an intellectual wasteland.

The European Commission had this to say last month:

"The Commission proposes, therefore, that Union recognize realities of situation of today: that on one hand migratory pressures will continue and that on other hand in a context of economic growth and a declining and aging population, Europe needs immigrants. In this context our objective is not quantitative increase in migratory flows but better management in qualitative terms so as to realize more fully potential of immigrants' admitted."

And EU's Social and Employment Commission added, as it forecast a deficit of 1.7 million workers in Information and Communications Technologies throughout Union:

"A declining EU workforce due to demographic changes suggests that immigration of third country nationals would also help satisfy some of skill needs [in EU]. Reforms of tax benefit systems may be necessary to help people make up their minds to move to a location where they can get a job...while ensuring that social objectives of welfare systems are not undermined."

In Hong Kong, "Admission of Talents Scheme" (1999) and "The Admission of Mainland Professionals Scheme" (May 2001) allow mainlanders to enter it for 12 month periods, if they:

"Possess outstanding qualifications, expertise or skills which are needed but not readily available in Hong Kong. They must have good academic qualifications, normally a doctorate degree in relevant field."

According January 2002 issue of "Migration News", even now, with unemployment running at almost 6%, US H1-B visa program allows 195,000 foreigners with academic degrees to enter US for up to 6 years and "upgrade" to immigrant status while in residence. Many H1-B visas were cancelled due to latest economic slowdown - but US provides other kinds of visas (E type) to people who invest in its territory by, for instance, opening a consultancy.

The UK has just implemented Highly Skilled Migrant Programme which allows "highly mobile people with special talents that are required in a modern economy" to enter UK for a period of one year (with indefinite renewal). Even xenophobic Japan allowed in 222,000 qualified foreigners last year (double figure in 1994).

Germany has absorbed 10,000 computer programmers (mainly from India and Eastern Europe) since July 2000. Ireland was planning to import twenty times as many over 7 years - before dotcoms bombed. According to "The Economist", more than 10,000 teachers have left Ecuador since 1998. More than half of all Ghanaian medical doctors have emigrated (120 in 1998 alone). More than 60% of all Ethiopian students abroad never return. There are 64,000 university educated Nigerians in USA alone. More than 43% of all Africans living in North America have acquired at least a bachelor's degree.

Barry Chiswick and Timothy Hatton demonstrated ("International Migration and Integration of Labour Markets", published by NBER in its "Globalisation in Historical Perspective") that, as economies of poor countries improve, emigration increases because people become sufficiently wealthy to finance trip.

Poorer countries invest an average of $50,000 of their painfully scarce resources in every university graduate - only to witness most of them emigrate to richer places. The haves-not thus end up subsidizing haves by exporting their human capital, prospective members of their dwindling elites, and taxes they would have paid had they stayed put. The formation of a middle class is often irreversibly hindered by an all-pervasive brain drain.

(continued)

"In democracies middle class is nation proper. The typical member of a national community is a member of middle class. When democratic governments need a social group they can address, a universal class that carries overarching, common interest of country, they appeal to middle class. This appeal, while it calls on a common interest, also acknowledges that there are conflicting interests within society. The middle class is not everyone, but it is majority and it represents what everyone else can become."

Russia has a long way to go to achieve this ubiquity. Its middle class, far from representing consensus, reifies growing abyss between haves and haves not. Its members' conspicuous consumption, mostly of imports, does little to support local economy. Its political might is self-serving. It has no ethos, or distinct morality, no narrative, or ideology. The Russian middle class is at a Hobbesian and primordial stage.

Whether it emerges from its narcissistic cocoon to become a leading and guiding social force, is doubtful. The middle class' youth, urbaneness, cosmopolitanism, polyglotism, mobility, avarice and drive are viewed with suspicion and envy by great unwashed - overwhelming majority of Russia's destitute population. Empowered by their wealth, new bourgeoisie, in turn, regards "people" with naive admiration, patronizing condescension, or horror.

Granted, this muted, subterranean, interaction is not entirely deleterious. It is social role of rich to generate demand by provoking in poor jealousy and attempts at emulation. The wealthy are trendsetters, early adopters, pioneers, buzz leaders. They are engine that engenders social and economic mobility.

A similar dynamic is admittedly evident in Russia - but, again, it is tampered by a curious local phenomenon.

Writing for Globalist, two Brookings Institution scholars, Carol Graham, a Senior Fellow of Economic Studies and Clifford Gaddy, a Fellow of Foreign Policy and Governance Studies described it thus:

"The eyes of Russia's middle class, on other hand, are figuratively directed downward, towards poor. In fact, as poverty in Russia increased dramatically in 1990s, middle class's reference norms shifted downward as well. As a result, Russia may be only country in world where 'subjective poverty line' is falling. That is, amount of money that Russians say that they need in order to stay out of poverty has been steadily falling over past five years. It is even below objective poverty line. For time being, at least, these curious Russian attitudes, along with existence of non-monetary virtual economy, have insulated country against political upheaval."

The list of anomalies is not exhausted.

The new middle class comprises embryonic legitimate business elite - entrepreneurs, professionals and managers - but not remnants of financially strapped intelligentsia. It is brawn with little brains. In dissonance with western Europe, according to a survey published in last two years by Expert magazine, majority of its members are nationalistic, authoritarian and xenophobic. Their self-interested economic liberalism is coupled with social and political intolerance. But two thirds of them support some kind of welfare state.

Thus, there are major differences between middle class in West and its ostensible counterpart in Russia.

The Russian parvenus - many of them women - do not believe their state, their banks, or their compatriots. They fear a precarious future and its inevitable calamities though they are not risk averse and are rather optimistic in short run. They keep their money under proverbial mattress, invest it surreptitiously in their ventures, or smuggle it abroad. They are not - yet - stakeholders in their country's stability and prosperity.

Often bamboozled by other businessmen and fleeced by a rapacious bureaucracy, they are paranoid. Tax evasion is still rampant, though abating. They trust in equity and avoid debt. Some of them have criminal roots or a criminal mindset - or are former members of Russia's shady security services.

Three fifths, according to Expert-Komkon survey, find it "hard to survive" when "observing all laws". "Strong leaders are better than all sorts of laws" is their motto, quoted by Izvestia. Generally, they are closer to being robbers than barons.

Early capitalism is always unruly. It is transformed into a highly structured edifice by ownership of land and realty (the prime collateral), protection of private property, a functioning financial system comprised of both banks and capital markets and just and expedient application of rule of law.

Russia has none of these. According to Business Week, bank deposits amount to 4 percent of country's mid-size GDP - compared to half of GDP in other industrialized countries. Mortgages are unheard of, deposits are not insured and land ownership is a novel proposition. The judiciary is venal and incompetent. Might is still right in vast swathes of land.

The state and oligarchs continue to represent a rent-seeking opportunity. Businessmen spend time seeking concessions, permits, exemptions and licenses rather than conducting business. The "civic institutions" they form - chambers of commerce, clubs - are often mere glorified lobbying outfits of special and vested interests. Informal networks of contacts count more than any statute or regulation. In such a mock "modern state" no wonder Russia ended up with a Potemkin "middle class".