Refugee integration: Research and policy.

Abstract

More people are currently displaced from their homes by war and conflict than ever previously recorded, and many are displaced for decades. As a result, there is increasing interest in promoting stable, if not permanent, solutions. The success of these solutions is in part evaluated by how well refugees are integrating into their new communities. Integration, in its broadest sense, refers to inclusion and participation, both economically and socially. Although the focus is often on how refugees change to integrate, successful integration requires a social context that supports inclusion and participation. The focus of this special issue is on the ways in which policies of settlement at the international, national, regional, and local level support or hinder integration by affecting the social context. These policies can affect the social context by directly limiting economic and social participation, but also by intentionally or unintentionally shaping community attitudes. The articles in this special issue consider the impact of policies on the social context along the entire migration pathway, from asylum seeking and refugee camps, to resettlement in new countries or return to countries of origin. The articles come from a range of disciplines and countries but a common theme that emerges is how policies shape refugee identities, stereotypes and interactions in ways that then affect community welcome. These articles shed light on the importance of policies and initiatives that challenge our attitudes and beliefs about refugees as an important element for successful integration. Public Significance StatementRefugee settlement policies at the national and local level influence refugee integration by shaping refugees' ability to participate socially and economically. They also have long-term impact on integration by shaping community attitudes through their impact on stereotypes, perceptions of threat, and opportunities for positive interactions.

Informal healthcare provision in Lebanon: an adaptive mechanism among displaced Syrian health professionals in a protracted crisis

“…For example, Sweden is generous with social policies but very restrictive in work integration while the US is restrictive in social policies and encourages rapid integration [13]. In the case of the Syrian crisis, Lebanon, like Sweden, was very restrictive due to the limited fiscal understanding of refugee labour market integration on one hand [10, 16] as well as the the fear of permanent integration of refugees, especially in a protracted crisis situation that can often last between 10 and 20 years [4, 6]. Although the Syrian crisis has had a net negative impact on the economy, the Lebanese government can ease this impact by increasing flexibility in labour market regulations.…”

“…Several underlying factors influence labour market integration for refugees. These include the perceived threat based on the absolute number of refugees compared to the host community [4]. The educational and skills level of the refugee population are seen as potential competitors, negatively impacting the structure and macroeconomic stability of the host community such as: increasing competition for jobs in an already fiscally constrained setting [5].…”

“…Fear of permanent integration, particularly in protracted crises, often lasts between 10 and 20 years. [4, 6]. Hence, the governments of most host communities restrict the formal participation of refugees in the local labour market leading many to work informally as an adaptive survival mechanism.…”

“…Most of the evidence base focuses on the informal economies of low-skilled workers such as agriculture and construction [4, 10]. Recently, the focus on the high skilled workers such as HCWS in particular started to emerge [11].…”

Ecologies of care: mental health and psychosocial support for war-affected youth in the U.S.

“…Key informants expressed grave concern for what these changes would mean for refugee families, both of MENA origin and otherwise. While these same participants remained confident that, by working together, families, schools, and communities could continue to support newcomers, it is clear that policy interventions at the national and subnational levels will be necessary to sustain and expand an inclusive context of reception [54, 55].…”