Security, Economy and the Modes of Refugees’ Livelihood Pursuit: Focus on Karen Refugees in Thailand

Abstract

This article is a case study of Burmese Karen refugees residing in refugee camps in Thailand. It examines how the relations between a host government and international relief agencies are shaped by the issues of security and economy and how these issues consequently affect the livelihoods of refugees. The study divides the history of Karen refugees into three periods: 1984 to 1995, 1995 to 2005, and 2005 to 2011. The influences on the government's attitude toward refugees and toward the international relief agencies are identified for each period and the modes of the refugees' livelihood are examined. The study contends that the host government's concerns about security and economy are key factors shaping the government's refugee policies, relations between the government and international relief agencies, and the mode of refugees' pursuit of a livelihood. When security issues are dominant, the attitude of the government toward international relief agencies is negative and consequently the refugees' options are restricted. In contrast, when economic issues are dominant, the government takes a positive stance toward international relief agencies, which play a bigger role, and the welfare of refugees improves.

Refugee livelihoods: a comparative analysis of Nairobi and Kakuma Camp in Kenya

“…Refugee livelihoods emerged as a pressing agenda in the forced migration policy and academic arena in the early 2000s, owing to the rising prevalence of protracted refugee situations (Crisp, 2003; Milner, 2014). In addition, the body of literature on refugee livelihoods has been enriched over the past 15 years (see, for example, Kaiser, 2006, 2007; Werker, 2007; Porter et al, 2008; Lindley, 2010, Buscher, 2013; Omata, 2013, 2017; Hammar, 2014; Jacobsen, 2014; Lee, 2014; Palmgren, 2014; Alloush et al, 2017).…”

“…Third, refugees' economic strategies are regularly shaped by the political economy of asylum. As widely discussed, the securitisation of refugees by host states not only limits their access to labour markets (Fábos and Kibreab, 2007; Lee, 2014; Turner, 2015), but also it fosters negative perceptions of refugees among host populations (Obi and Crisp, 2000; Horst, 2006; Crisp, Morris, and Refstie, 2012). These viewpoints can feed into discrimination, harassment, or even open extortion and unwarranted detention by the police (Jacobsen, 2006; Crisp, Morris, and Refstie, 2012; Betts et al, 2018).…”

The State, Ethnic Community, and Refugee Resettlement in Japan

“…Referring to Migdal (1988: 31), I argue that focus on the struggles between the state and the ethnic community provides “new insights into the processes of social and political change.” In these struggles, as Jacobsen (2002) observes, incoming refugees – resettled refugees in this case – can be resources for the state and the ethnic community to build up their own separate capacities. Of course, the current study does not dismiss other actors, such as NGOs and local residents, that play a role in refugee issues (Lee, 2014; Whitaker, 2002). Indeed, as Shipper (2008) demonstrates, in the case of Japan, civil society organizations and local governments contributed to the promotion of foreigners’ rights.…”

From Language Brokering to Digital Brokering: Refugee Settlement in a Smartphone Age

“…Many Karen in Burma have suffered at the hands of the military during a decades-long civil war (Williams, 2012). As hostilities intensified in the 1990s, an increasing number of Karen fled their villages for refugee camps in Thailand (Kenny & Lockwood-Kenny, 2011; Lee, 2014). Western countries, including Australia, began resettling Karen from the Thai border camps in the 2000s (Spivey & Lewis, 2015).…”