The Myth of Self-Reliance. Naohiko Omata
Читать онлайн книгу.
dependency and self-reliance vis-à-vis external aid is not an inverse correlation. As noted above, when refugees’ basic rights are severely restricted, self-reliance may not be attainable in the first place, regardless of whether refugees receive external support or not.
Given the ubiquity of protracted displacement and the dwindling availability of aid, enhancing economic independence for refugees is undoubtedly a critical issue of concern. Yet it remains unclear to what extent refugees can build sustainable livelihoods and achieve economic autonomy in the face of identified challenges. Drawing on both qualitative and quantitative research, this in-depth study of Liberian refugees in Buduburam camp seeks to shed light on this question and the fundamental problems outlined above.
Key Concepts of the Book
This section provides an overview of the principal concepts that the book draws upon: namely, refugee livelihoods, the role of social networks in refugees’ economic strategies, and their repatriation and economic reintegration. While this book mainly focuses on refugees’ economic survival inside the camp, it also explores the lived experiences of refugees’ return and economic readjustments. These are pivotal experiences that refugees inevitably confront after extended displacement. While surveying the literature, the section highlights important analytical and empirical gaps.
Livelihoods in Forced Migration
The analysis of livelihoods in general has been enriched by a range of institutions and scholars in development studies, poverty alleviation and agricultural economies (see Ellis 2000; Francis 2000; Helmore and Singh 2001; Scoones 1998, 2007). Among various livelihood-oriented analytical frameworks, perhaps the most widely known is the sustainable livelihoods framework (SLF) of the UK Department for International Development. Drawing upon Chambers and Conway’s definition of livelihoods, the SLF presents five types of livelihood assets, and illustrates how they are shaped and mediated by external vulnerabilities and structural and procedural factors such as law and regulations (DFID 1999). The essence of this framework is its focus on the strengths and potential of poor people and the strategies that they employ to make a living – rather than highlighting their vulnerabilities and needs (Farrington et al. 2002: 2).
The development of the SLF and the ensuing emergence of similar livelihood analytical frameworks has influenced researchers dealing with refugees’ economic activities (see de Vriese 2006; Horst 2006a; Korf 2004; WRC 2011; Young et al. 2007). The SLF has also substantially influenced UNHCR’s livelihood policy and programming. According to its ‘Livelihood Operational Guidelines’ (UNHCR 2012a), UNHCR employs the SLF as its organizational central framework to understand the livelihoods of displaced populations.
The research drawn from the SLF and similar analytical approaches has given some useful insight into refugee livelihoods, but critical gaps remain. For instance, the majority of existing studies gloss over socio-economic diversity among refugee populations, and thus fail to elucidate or draw attention to important differences in refugees’ economic statuses and strategies. In any community or population, different people suffer, survive or prosper in diverse ways, adapting to the environment in which they find themselves (Le Sage and Majid 2002). Personal characteristics, such as displacement history, family background, education, language skills and social networks, can have an effect on refugees’ livelihoods (Horst 2006a: 9). As this book shows, among refugees living in Buduburam camp, different individual or household characteristics had significant consequences for the degree of access to livelihood assets and subsequent formulation of economic coping strategies. Research on refugee livelihoods should aim to disaggregate the target population to account for such variance.
Also, research drawing upon the SLF and other models often does not sufficiently address the impacts of political and power dynamics on refugees’ economic strategies and outcomes (see Ashley and Carney 1999; de Haan 2006; de Haan and Zoomers 2006; Murray 2001). People’s livelihoods do not exist within a vacuum, but rather interact within a wider context of political, social, historical and economic conditions. In the case of refugee livelihoods, this complexity is amplified by their specific vulnerabilities and by the political economy of the various stakeholders (Jacobsen 2002; Lindley 2010). Shifts in refugee policy lead to significant changes in refugees’ existing subsistence, but this is an overlooked analytical and empirical gap in the literature. Over the duration of this study, Liberian refugees in Buduburam camp confronted changing circumstances that were imposed by external authorities, including the tightening of refugee policies by the host government, intense repatriation pressure and the cessation of their refugee status. Incorporating the impacts of these pivotal incidents on the economic lives of refugees was essential for the current research project.
Moreover, the SLF model does not adequately capture the complex web of social connections that are inherent and indispensable for the refugees’ economic activities. In the face of often challenging situations, refugees are reliant on their personal and social ties, and must constantly mobilize these contacts in order to achieve better access to resources (Amisi 2006; Andrews 2006; Doron 2005; Hamid 1992; Hammar 2014). As previous research on Liberian refugees in Buduburam camp has also indicated the particular importance of various types of network for subsistence (see Dick 2002a, 2002b; Porter et al. 2008; Tanle 2013), the analytical point of departure in this book is to look into the livelihood strategies of refugees through the lens of their social networks.
The Role of Social Capital in Refugees’ Economic Lives
According to Halpern (2005), the birth of mainstream academic interest in the concept of social capital dates back to the 1980s, but the notion of social capital gained particular ascendancy in the mid 1990s with Putnam’s work. In his study of civic associations in Italy, Putnam (1993a) approaches social capital in terms of community cohesion and argues that denser amounts of social capital are the essential differentiating factor of regional governments’ and communities’ success.
Although the concepts of social capital and social network remain popular in social science research, these terms are often criticized as being nebulously defined. For instance, Putnam conceptualizes social capital as ‘features of social life – networks, norms, and trust – that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives’ (Putnam 1996: 1). Coleman broadly defines social capital by its function as ‘a variety of different entities, with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain actions of actors within the structure’ (Coleman 1988: S98). This vagueness has generated confusion and criticism around the use of these concepts (see e.g. Fine 2001: 11–12; Portes 1998: 5). In particular, equating social capital with the resources acquired through it can gloss over a difference between possessors, sources and resources of capital, and may lead to a tautological explanation. Portes highlights the risk of obscuring this difference:
Saying, for example, that student A has social capital because he obtained access to a large tuition loan from his kin and that student B does not because she failed to do so neglects the possibility that B’s kin network is equally or more motivated to come to her aid but simply lacks the means to do so. Defining social capital as equivalent with the resources thus obtained is tantamount to saying that the successful succeeded. (Portes 1998: 5)
Among various definitions of social capital in the academic arena, perhaps the most durable one was presented by the French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu. He posited this elusive concept as ‘the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition – or in other words, to membership in a group’ (Bourdieu 1986: 51). This definition makes it clear that social capital is decomposable into two elements: first, the sum and quality of resources; and second, the social relationships that allow individuals to access these resources (Portes 1998; Siisiainen 2000). Bourdieu’s original definition emphasizes that the volume and quality of assets are dependent on the very potency of the social networks that one can effectively mobilize (Bourdieu 2005: 2, 198).
Due to refugees’ specific vulnerabilities as non-citizens in the host country and little access