scholarly journals Thrive or Survive? Explaining Variation in Economic Outcomes for Refugees

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 716-743 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Betts ◽  
Naohiko Omata ◽  
Louise Bloom

In the context of protracted refugee situations, there has been a revival in concern among policymakers to transcend the so-called humanitarian-development divide and create greater opportunities for self-reliance. Yet, these discussions too often neglect an analytical focus on refugees' own economic lives, and their own interactions with markets. Despite a growing literature on the economic lives of refugees, much of that work has lacked theory or data. The work that has been quantitative has generally focused on the economic impact of refugees on host countries rather than explaining variation in economic outcomes for refugees. In order to explain variation in economic outcomes for refugees, this paper asks three questions about the economic lives of refugees: 1) what makes the economic lives of refugees distinctive from other populations; 2) what explains variation in refugees' income levels; and 3) what role does entrepreneurship play in shaping refugees' economic outcomes? In order to answer these questions, the paper draws upon extensive qualitative and quantitative research conducted in Uganda by the Humanitarian Innovation Project at Oxford University. The quantitative data set is based on a survey of 2,213 refugees in three types of contexts: urban (Kampala), protracted camps (Nakivale and Kyangwali settlements), and emergency camps (Rwamwanja). It supplements this with qualitative research from other parts of Africa and the Middle East. The economic lives of refugees are argued to be distinctive not because refugees are any different qua human beings but because they often occupy a distinctive institutional space. Following new institutional economics, the paper argues that “refugee economies” represent a distinctive analytical space insofar as refugees face different formal and informal institutional barriers and distortions in their economic lives compared to nationals or other migrants. Even within the same country, refugees exhibit significant variation in their economic outcomes, most notably in their income levels. A number of variables are significant in explaining this variation. These include: regulatory context, education, occupation, social networks, gender, and the number of years spent in exile. Entrepreneurship is an important explanation for “outliers” within the refugee community, explaining why some refugees have significantly higher incomes. However, refugees also often play a wider role within the community, creating opportunities for others. Furthermore, a significant part of refugee entrepreneurship is social rather than simply for-profit. In order to enhance opportunities for greater refugee self-reliance, policymakers need to develop a better understanding of the transnational, national, and local markets within which refugees participate. Instead of engaging in top-down interventions, enabling environments should be created that enable autonomous, community-led initiatives to flourish.

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (7) ◽  
pp. 51-61
Author(s):  
Agata Adamska ◽  
Tomasz J. Dąbrowski

The article deals with the issue of identifying and measuring institutions. As an example, reputation was taken into consideration. The analysis leads to the conclusion that reputation could be treated as an institution and could be measured in the context of its impact on economic outcomes. This measurement can be carried out at three levels of detail: micro, meso and macro, among these the third is the least recognised in new institutional economics.


2010 ◽  
pp. 110-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Avdasheva ◽  
N. Dzagurova

The article examines the interpretation of vertical restraints in Chicago, post-Chicago and New Institutional Economics approaches, as well as the reflection of these approaches in the application of antitrust laws. The main difference between neoclassical and new institutional analysis of vertical restraints is that the former compares the results of their use with market organization outcomes, and assesses mainly horizontal effects, while the latter focuses on the analysis of vertical effects, comparing the results of vertical restraints application with hierarchical organization. Accordingly, the evaluation of vertical restraints impact on competition differs radically. The approach of the New Institutional Theory of the firm seems fruitful for Russian markets.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 31
Author(s):  
Raquel Fernández González ◽  
Marcos Íñigo Pérez Pérez

The return of institutions to the main research agenda has highlighted the importance of rules in economic analysis. The New Institutional Economics has allowed a better understanding of the case studies that concern different areas of knowledge, also the one concerning the management of natural resources. In this article, the institutional analysis focuses on the maritime domain, where two large civil liability regimes for pollution coexist (OPA 90-IMO), each in a different geographical area (United States - Europe). Therefore, a comparative analysis is made between the two large regimes of civil responsibility assignment applying them to the Prestige catastrophe. In this way, the allocation and distribution of responsibilities in the investigation and subsequent judicial process of the Prestige is compared with an alternative scenario in which the applicable compensation instruments are governed by the provisions of the Oil Polution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), in order to establish a rigorous analysis on the effects that the different norms can have in the same scenario. In the comparative established in the case of the Prestige, where the responsibilities were solved very slowly in a judicial process with high transaction costs, the application of rules governed by the OPA 90 would not count with such a high degree of imperfection. This is so, since by applying the preponderance of the evidence existing in OPA 90 there would be no mitigation for the presumed culprits. On the other hand, the agents involved in the sinking would not be limited only to the owner, but also that operators or shipowners would be responsible as well. In addition, the amount of compensation would increase when counting in the damage count the personal damages, the taxes without perceiving and the ecological damage caused in a broad sense, damages not computable in the IMO.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document