Across the globe, people are fleeing their homes for a variety of reasons. Persecution, war, natural disasters (including those triggered by climate change), and severe socio-economic deprivation can all force people to move into refugee status and require international protection.
Many states wracked by conflict fear the destabilizing effects of large refugee populations. They worry that a refugee population can unsettle an already fragile ethnic balance, or exacerbate existing tensions between the state and its displaced citizens. They also struggle to meet the needs of refugees and their own citizens, and resent massive donor contributions from wealthier, more distant countries.
Manipulating refugee groups for political or strategic purposes further increases the chance of violence. It encourages scapegoating and diminishes the effectiveness of international conflict mediation efforts, making temporary situations seem permanent and increasing the likelihood of resentment.
In the short term, facilitating more economic self-sufficiency in exile reduces tensions and can mitigate the risk of destabilization. For example, allowing refugees to work legally, rather than funneling them into informal, low-paying jobs in the illegal marketplace, can help them build their skills and networks. Offering trade concessions based on refugee labor would also support a growing policy argument in favor of “burden-sharing” by providing host countries with a more level playing field when it comes to accessing export markets. This is especially true when the economy of the host country itself is weakened by external pressures and is less well equipped to absorb the financial burden of supporting refugees.