Several South African focused studies have identified the numerous challenges faced by refugees in securing their legal rights to employment, education, health care, etc. There is a need therefore to investigate the extent to which such challenges are conterminous with bureaucratic institutions (such as government departments) limitations in fully implementing the refugee policy. In cognisance of the many shortcomings associated with state-assisted integration models, we examined how bureaucratic efficiency (in the provisioning of refugee rights) can be achieved, i.e. the feasibility of instituting dependency partnerships between the state and civil society. A case study based interpretive research design technique was adopted, drawing from one focus group discussion with Congolese refugees and face-to-face in-depth interviews with three purposively selected NGO representatives. We used two theoretical perspectives, namely the theory of monopolisation and Weber’s theory on bureaucracy, to analyse how bureaucratic arrangements can negatively impact on the implementation of the refugee policy and consequently on the refugees’ quality of life and standard of living in their host country. We identified that primary cultural factors, amongst others, unruly practices, social closure, and institutional biases widen the chasm between the formulation of a progressive refugee policy and its efficient implementation. The setting up of human rights education interventions and dependency partnerships is recommended as a means of improving bureaucratic efficiency in the transfer or implementation of refugee social protections.

No abstract

In antithesis to the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development (socioeconomic inclusion for all) and a relatively progressive refugee policy framework (Refugee Act 130 of 1998), refugees in South Africa continue to face targeted exclusion and reduced living potentials. Impediments to refugee groups ability to ‘thrive and not just survive’ (as called for in the 2018 Global Compact on Refugees), are examined in this paper through a synopsis of the conditions surrounding their access to legal documents (a conduit to socioeconomic rights), their equitable participation/inclusion within the formal labour markets, financial sectors etc. In examining these issues, a case-study-based interpretive research design technique with eight FGD participants and two life history participants (drawn from Congolese refugees’ residing in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa) was done. Several conceptual frameworks as well as a single principal theory (Murphy’s theory of monopolization) were utilized so as to fully examine forced migrant groups socioeconomic participation/inclusion in South Africa. This articles findings revealed that primary cultural, as well as structural agentive processes of obstruction significantly inhibit refugee groups full socioeconomic participating in the life of their host communities. The said obstructions included but were not confined to: adverse forms of incorporation, opportunity hoarding, as well as the normative unobtainability of social, cultural, and symbolic forms of capital.

Mobility and transport needs, challenges and experiences are embedded in everyday life. An examination of mobility and transport issues contributes to our understanding of social change, stratification, differentiation, inequalities, structures and processes. This is an indication that sociological understandings of mobility and transport are relevant and critical to contemporary society, particularly the daily experiences and realities of marginalised and vulnerable social groups. This review paper then makes two contributions. The first demonstrates the extent to which the concepts 'mobility' and 'transport' extend our understanding of everyday lives, needs, experiences and challenges. Secondly, the paper highlights a selection of dominant and emerging themes, including the conceptual, methodological and epistemological deficiencies. This presents opportunities for further sociological accounts of youth in general and youth mobility in particular. This paper then is a 'primer' to encourage the exploration of 'new' avenues and domains within sociology in general and the Sociology of Youth or Childhood in particular.

No abstract