Refugees: Overcoming prejudices

By Alexander Betts

Today there are more people displaced by persecution, conflict, and other crises than at any time since the Second World War – 82.4 million, with 26 million having crossed a border as refugees. However, amid the politicization of asylum and immigration, in both rich and poor countries, refugees increasingly face challenges of accessing international protection. Part of the problem stems from misinformation. The media and politicians sometimes distort public perception, portraying refugees as an inevitable burden on receiving communities.

In my recent book, The Wealth of Refugees: How Displaced People Can Build Economies, published in 2021, I argue for an evidence-based approach to refugee policy. Drawing upon extensive qualitative and quantitative research in East Africa – including an original survey of more than 16,000 refugees and host community members in camps and cities in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda – I argue that given inclusive policies, it is possible for refugees to be, and be perceived to be, contributors to their host communities. I draw upon that research to challenge five popular myths about refugees in Africa. 

In rich regions of the world, there is a common perception that all refugees want to travel to Europe, North America, or Australasia. The reality of refugee mobility is quite different. Eighty-six per cent of refugees are hosted by low- and middle-income countries, and nine out of ten of the leading refugee countries are in the global South. 

It is true that aspirations to move to rich countries are great. But many also acknowledge that this is unrealistic. For example, in Addis Ababa, more than ninety-five per cent of refugees hope to move on to a third country. However, more than half recognize that this is likely to be unrealistic in the near future. 

In Kenya, although a significant number of refugees do change their residency in a given year, the majority of movement is internal. For those moving internationally, most movements are either within East Africa to neighbouring Uganda, or through organized relocations such as repatriation or resettlement. Only a tiny proportion – far below one per cent per year – are moving inter-regionally to Europe or other rich countries.

The implication is that we need to recognize that most refugees are – and will continue to be – hosted by low- and middle-income countries in their regions of origin.

There is a common assumption that receiving communities inevitably regard the presence of refugees as a burden. Yet, given the right policies, refugees are sometimes regarded positively. In some remote border regions, the presence of refugees and humanitarian organizations may be one of very few sources of jobs and markets. For the local Turkana community of Kenya, for example, the presence of the Kakuma refugee camps offers a market for their firewood and livestock, employment opportunities, and access to schools and clinics.

Across our focus countries, we have found that what matters most to host communities is the quality of economic interaction. The people with the most positive attitudes towards refugees tend to be those who benefit economically from their presence. We have also found that contact makes a difference – higher levels of intergroup interaction are strongly associated with more positive host community attitudes, particularly in cities. Furthermore, most people’s attitudes towards refugees are strongly correlated with those held by their families and neighbours – suggesting that attitudes are formed within immediate communities.

The implication is that host communities can be welcoming towards refugees, and there are policies that can be adopted to strengthen inclusion. Put simply, refugee policies also need to support host communities, and the relationship between refugees and hosts. 

Refugees have socio-economic rights under international refugee and human rights law. These include the right to work and freedom of movement. However, many refugee-hosting countries impose restrictions on these entitlements. They do so because they believe that allowing refugees to work will create tension with the host community. The result is that refugees in countries such as Kenya and Tanzania have to remain for many years in refugee camps, without access to employment. The evidence suggests this has negative consequences for refugees’ rights and well-being, and that it may also be bad for host countries.

Uganda is one of few African countries to allow refugees to work and choose their place of residence. This approach has significant benefits for refugees. Refugees in Uganda have sixteen per cent higher incomes than refugees in neighbouring Kenya. 

There is some evidence that such policies benefit not only refugees, but also host country citizens. For example, in Kampala, the Ugandan capital, we found that some twenty-one per cent of refugee households have a business that employs at least one other person, and that forty per cent of their employees are host nationals. For many Ugandans, refugees contribute to the economy as producers, consumers, and entrepreneurs.

The implication is that we need to actively promote – and incentivize – the right and opportunity for refugees to work, no matter where they are in the world.

Reflecting the broader global trend in urbanization, most refugees are now in cities. However, this is not the case in sub-Saharan Africa, where the overwhelming majority of registered refugees are in camp-like settings. According to UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, just sixteen per cent of Kenya’s refugees are in the capital, Nairobi; six per cent of Uganda’s are in Kampala; and four per cent of Ethiopia’s are in its capital city, Addis Ababa. The urban-rural distribution reflects government restrictions, the relative availability of assistance versus employment, and the preferences of refugees.

The composition of urban and camp cohorts is generally different. Those in cities tend to be older and male, and those in camps tend to be younger and female. Sometimes refugees divide their families, with those able to work moving to the city, and those with assistance needed or care responsibilities remaining in the camps. 

Our research in East Africa reveals three key insights. First, refugees earn more, own more, and work more in the city, but are not necessarily happier, healthier, or better fed than those who live in camp-like settings. Second, host communities are generally more positive towards refugees in rural than urban settings. Third, there is temporary and permanent movement between camps and cities in both directions.

The implication of these insights is that neither urban nor rural residency is inherently better for refugees than the other. Each option represents a constrained choice with relative pros and cons.  Refugee policies need to focus on improving access to entitlements in both urban and rural contexts.

Refugee protection and assistance are often viewed as purely humanitarian acts. International law and advocacy certainly play an important role in shaping refugee protection. However, it is also important to recognize that refugee assistance takes place in the context of complex and often ambiguous politics.

The politics of refugee rights is evident in examining what motivates even the most progressive and generous refugee-hosting countries. For example, Uganda’s widely praised self-reliance policy needs to be understood in a historical or political context. Far from being a recent creation, it has emerged over time with the support of successive presidents.  

The implication is that international humanitarian organizations need to be aware of the political context in which refugee protection takes place. Rather than simply relying upon advocacy, different strategies and incentives are needed to promote refugee rights in different countries.