Chapter 1 Framing refugee reception
The idea of ‘reception’ is at the very heart of refugeehood: it speaks directly to the forms of welcome and protection offered to persons seeking refuge in host states. Yet the notion of reception itself remains ill-defined both conceptually and in practice. This is true in international law, in the policy norms and practice of host states and international organisations, and within academia more broadly.1 When reception is examined in literature, it is often seen as an ephemeral moment (such as registration) of a much larger interaction between refugee and host state. Yet this portrayal does not reflect the multi-directional and multi-locational dynamics of contemporary refugee arrival, particularly the role reception policies play in a refugee’s ability to move within the host state and engage with local populations and markets in pursuit of their personal and economic aims.
The aim of this chapter is to provide the theoretical underpinnings of the book. Specifically, the chapter’s task is to develop – by taking a state-focused approach – a preliminary understanding of reception and to set out a conceptual framework that can respond to the question of why states receive refugees in different ways.2 This is achieved by utilising literature from refugee and forced migration studies and associated fields that have investigated the arrival and initial welcome of refugees.
The chapter is split into two parts, investigating distinctive but overlapping conceptual aspects of reception. The first half of the chapter examines a range of interdisciplinary literature to develop an initial conceptual understanding of refugee reception. This body of work understands reception as a process. This process encompasses the host state’s and other key actors’ behaviours, which interact with a refugee’s ability to engage with local communities and markets when attempting to pursue their own personal and economic aims. The first half of the chapter then moves to consider how states understand this form of cross-border arrival. It is important to do this, given the global trends showing that states are increasingly adopting reception policies that are in direct conflict with the international commitments they made when they became party to the global refugee regime. The first half of the chapter ends with an investigation of how key reception sites (the camp and urban space) can be understood in terms of state responses to refugee arrival, as well as how these sites shape a refugee’s ability to settle. Taken together, these three strands of analysis set out an approach to understanding refugee reception, which will then be developed throughout the book, with the goal of establishing a grounded conceptualisation of refugee reception in the context of Southern Africa.
The second half of the chapter introduces the book’s conceptual framework through which the notion of reception will be analysed. The adoption and adaption of Betts and Orchard’s theory of norm implementation as the book’s conceptual framework is a result of the literature reviewed for this project.3 Accordingly, the literature canvassed in the first half of this chapter is drawn upon to identify key concepts (and the connections between them) that are relevant to understanding refugee reception and differing state reception policies. This, along with the initial fieldwork phase, informed the selection of a fitting conceptual framework within which to embed the study.4
Understanding reception
The concept of reception remains largely elusive within the fields of refugee and forced migration studies. When it is discussed, it is regularly framed as an ephemeral moment or one element, such as a registration procedure, of a larger set of interactions between the refugee and the host state. This is perhaps understandable in mass influx contexts. In these situations, with the setting up of emergency camps, the idea of reception can appear self-evident. Registration, accommodation and aid are all supplied at the point of entry onto the territory. This ‘reception phase’ then ends when refugees move from emergency transit camps to more permanent camps or are permitted into urban areas.5
This scenario, nevertheless, does not fully reflect the role reception policies play in the contemporary dynamics of refugee arrival and attempts by refugees to meet basic needs and find economic opportunities within the host state – particularly in the majority world. In contrast to the – at times highly managed – arrivals at emergency transit camps, states regularly encounter more sporadic and/or circular patterns of refugee movement (Landau, 2018a). In these situations, the notion of reception is much harder to articulate. For example, refugees in many regions of Africa frequently move back and forth across a border between a ‘home’ state and host state (Bakewell, 2014). They may settle for periods of time within a local host population in border areas during times of unrest, and then return ‘home’ when conditions across the border calm down.6 Equally, refugees regularly find their way independently to urban spaces in host states. In these urban sprawls, the idea of refugee reception is equally hard to determine, especially as there is often no formal policy or practice in place beyond initial registration (Polzer, 2009; Hovil and Maple, 2022).7
Consequently, a lack of clarity surrounding the concept of reception itself persists. Indeed, fundamental questions such as ‘what is reception in the context of cross-border movement of refugees?’ and ‘what does reception involve?’ remain unanswered. Equally, from the perspective of key actors, do understandings of reception fluctuate at different levels of analysis (that is, between the global and national or the national and the local)? For instance, how does a host state’s framing of reception compare to a more global understanding of reception by UNHCR actors, based on the implementation of international norms contained within the global refugee regime? Finally, when narrowing attention to specific reception sites, further questions arise, such as ‘how should refugee reception in urban spaces be understood or conceptualised?’ With the line between camp and local areas often becoming blurred, is a simple understanding of reception (such as a refugee’s stay being formalised before being moved to a refugee camp) any longer sufficient? These varied questions remain highly significant as state-based reception policies unquestionably play a key role in how refugees settle in host states. Yet, without first addressing the initial conceptual queries about what reception is, it is difficult to move on to more developed enquiries concerning the role of reception in determining how refugees settle and engage with local communities and economies.
The ‘context of reception’ approach
To generate an understanding of refugee reception, the book takes its lead from the ‘context of reception’ approach, as introduced by Portes and Böröcz (1989). Acquired from migration studies, this approach is primarily interested in the host state and its methods of integrating migrants into the local labour force (Guarnizo et al., 1999; Portes and Landolt 1996; van Amersfoort and van Niekerk, 2006).8 At the heart of this perspective is the belief that to understand reception you need to investigate ‘how state policies shape newcomers’ experiences when attempting to integrate and their opportunities for mobility’ (Asad, 2015:282). This can range from how government policies affect a migrant’s access to labour markets, to how policy interacts with changing perceptions of the public (Grosfoguel, 2004).
This understanding of cross-border reception acknowledges that the ruling political settlement’s role is not exclusive. In addition to the national government, the actions of a multiplicity of actors, at different levels within society, can all play an important part. Indeed, state policy designed to constrain or control migrant movement is often modified or contested by the ‘countervailing actions of other participants in the process’ (Portes and Böröcz, 1989:626). Reception is therefore framed as a process informed by a multitude of factors (including cultural and social ones) at different levels of the state. With this assertion, the ‘context of reception’ approach diverges in two key regards from more traditional understandings of refugee reception and refugee movement: firstly, in how it frames the host state in terms of arrival and secondly, by viewing reception as a process rather than an ‘event’.
A multi-scalar lens
Taking these points in turn, research that investigates host states in terms of refugee-hosting and protection often remains broad in focus, with a tendency to draw holistic conclusions that create an image of a ‘black box’ state (Betts, 2009b). Through this lens, states are seen as acting in self-interest, with their identity and actions fixed and interests pre-defined (Betts, 2009b). There are undoubtedly benefits to generalising actions when examining and attempting to map and/or predict state behaviour. Nevertheless, this approach regularly misses the complexity of situations within individual states (Ravenhill, 1990).
In contrast, by utilising the ‘context of reception’ approach, this book can incorporate a multi-scalar lens to understanding state responses to refugees.9 At its core, this lens allows research to probe into how reception policies are conceived, shaped and implemented at different levels of the state. For these purposes, policy and practice are examined at these different levels: the international level – for example, the global refugee regime, the 1951 Refugee Convention and global UNHCR policy; the national level – for example, national refugee law and national refugee policies; the local level – for example, local level or municipality policy and practice; and finally the sub-local level – for example, the role and impact of other refugees and local communities.10 In this way, a multi-scalar analysis underlines the importance of recognising the ‘plurality of actors involved’ in the reception of refugees (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, 2019:40).
Despite this, the focus of the ‘context of reception’ approach remains predominantly at the national level. Indeed, alternative forms of reception at the sub-local and local levels are still ‘nested in larger geopolitical hierarchies’ (Jaworsky et al., 2012:4). This justification for a state-focused understanding of reception is not, however, a dismissal of the role of the ‘global’ or ‘local’. Rather, it is a starting point for further research into a more dynamic concept of reception. Indeed, as examined below, the local level can be a site of real divergence from the national in terms of how reception policies are implemented. Concurrently, it also illustrates how each level is deeply connected to the welcome refugees receive in a host state. For example, where refugee movement into urban spaces becomes associated with a sense of instability, the resulting community tensions (particularly when expressed through violence towards forced migrants) can feed into politics played out at the national level.
Thus, localised attitudes regularly ‘scale up’ and contribute to policy change at the national level. At the other end of the scale, the global refugee regime (via international legal frameworks, key regime norms and international actors) can also ‘cascade down’ and play an influential role in reception policies at the national and local level. The adoption of this alternative, multi-scalar method of examining host states in relation to the implementation of refugee policies, is developed further when the chapter introduces the book’s conceptual framework below.
Reception as a process
Turning to the second point, the ‘context of reception’ approach conceptualises reception as a process rather than a one-off event. As highlighted above, when reception has previously been discussed in the fields of refugee and forced migration studies, it has traditionally been portrayed as a mere moment in time, such as the crossing of a border or gaining status via registration procedures. In contrast, there are no definite parameters in terms of duration to reception within this broader migration approach. Instead, reception is seen as a process whereby the state (and other actors) interacts with a migrant’s ability to move and engage with local communities and settle. Indeed, as argued below, reception (and by extension reception policies) at the national and local level reflects ongoing processes of negotiation and renegotiation between different key actors.
Contemporary research on refugee movement and mobility does highlight a point of departure from Portes and Böröcz’s (1989) original work. While the ‘context of reception’ approach sees reception as an ongoing process, it nevertheless understands migrant movement as unilinear (one-directional) until the point of arrival, when movement effectively ends (Grosfoguel, 2004). In contrast, recent academic work within the context of the majority world shows that refugee movement is often circular or pendular, sporadic and unpredictable (Omata and Kaplan, 2013; Chapotera, 2018). This is particularly evident in the environs of modern-day cities in Africa (Landau, 2018b; Omata and Kaplan, 2013). For example, many refugees continuously move between different urban spaces (in-country and between host states) in search of better social and economic opportunities (Landau, 2018a). This indicates that purely destination-focused understandings of reception need to be modified (Collyer and King, 2016; Flahaux and De Haas, 2016).
Appraisal of the ‘context of reception’ approach
By integrating the ‘context of reception’ approach with contemporary research that questions more traditional notions of refugee movement, the previous section has set out an initial working understanding of reception. Accordingly, it will act as the foundation and guide for developing a conceptualisation of refugee reception in specific settings in future chapters. The adoption of a state-focused lens to reception nevertheless also brings challenges, particularly concerning the role of other actors. Firstly, the ‘context of reception’ approach has been critiqued for being too state-centric, with the role of the international and local often dismissed or overlooked (Grosfoguel, 2003). Portes and Böröcz (1989) do acknowledge the influence of international governance systems which, as noted above, are incorporated into the book’s analysis and indeed form a core element of the adopted conceptual framework. Also, this area of scholarship has developed and expanded in recent years (Jaworsky et al., 2012). Specifically, this understanding of reception has been applied at lower levels, such as cities (Cadge and Ecklund, 2007; Bloemraad, 2006; Guarnizo et al., 1999). At this level, the role of contextual factors (such as local networks and social capital in reception) has also been examined (Waldinger, 2001).
Secondly, the ‘context of reception’ model stresses the importance of understanding ‘how state policies shape newcomers’ experiences when attempting to integrate and their opportunities for mobility’ (Asad, 2015:282, emphasis added). Based on the research carried out for this book, the book substitutes ‘pursue their own personal and economic aims’ for ‘integration’. This is because, as examined thoroughly in future chapters, it is evident that not all refugees and forced migrants choose to ‘integrate’ into local communities. Many refugees in Southern Africa understand urban spaces in host states more as resources than new ‘homes’. As a result, ‘integration’ has become a contested term in some of the recent scholarship on urban displacement in Africa (Landau, 2018a). Equally, for the purpose of this book, at a minimum, ‘personal and economic aims’ is understood as the social and economic ability of a refugee to meet their urgent needs, which may include accessing protection and assistance from local, national and international structures.11
Notwithstanding this shift in terminology and understanding, the emphasis nevertheless remains on state responses. Specifically, this conceptualisation of reception is concerned with the implications of state-based reception policies on refugees’ attempts to pursue their own personal and economic aims. Attention, therefore, remains at the state level rather than taking a more localised approach and looking at how refugees experience reception. Thus, in the next two sections, understanding is developed around a key element of this initial discussion of refugee reception: namely the processes by which host state policy shapes refugees’ experiences and responses when attempting to settle in the host state.
How states understand refugee reception
The chapter now examines how host states (as the key actors in this book) understand this form of cross-border arrival. Specifically, this section asks whether there is something inherent within the construction of the refugee figure that makes states’ attitudes to their reception unique. This will be addressed by investigating an emerging body of literature within the fields of forced migration and human geography that examines how host states conceptualise the offer of reception to refugees. In doing so, this section continues to develop and integrate different strands of understanding surrounding state-based refugee reception.
Taking inspiration from the work of Derrida (2000), Pitt-Rivers (2012) and Nancy (2000), a growing body of research has started to conceptualise state-offered reception (also discussed in terms of hosting or hospitality) in terms of the limitations inherent within the offer (Collyer, 2014). This ‘qualified’ welcome normally manifests itself in two ways: firstly, reception is usually temporary in nature and excludes any claim to a right to residence per se; secondly, acceptance into the host’s territory confers conditional rights and obligations to the migrant via international and domestic law and policy. Thus, beyond an initial welcome, reception can normally be understood as conditional and restrictive (Stronks, 2012).12 As observed by Fiddian-Qasmiyeh and Berg (2018:3), this conditional component of state reception often has a spatial dimension, for example, a refugee camp.13
The conditional and temporary aspects of the welcome offered to refugees can be traced back to the creation of the global refugee regime. The modern system of states is based on the notion of ‘sovereign’ states, whereby membership of a state is required before rights and protections can be forthcoming (Arendt, 1951). When refugees cross a border, they effectively arrive without such ‘membership’ and hence are perceived as victims or ‘objects of pity’, who need to be welcomed by a political community in order to have an identity as a right-bearer (Aleinikoff, 1995). This goes to a paradox at the heart of the refugee definition. By becoming formally recognised as a refugee, an individual accrues the rights and norms contained within the global refugee regime. Indeed, member states party to the global regime have an obligation to incorporate these international norms into their reception policies. However, in practice refugees often also must give up certain rights – and ultimately dehumanise themselves – to gain other fundamental ones. This is because refugees, as ‘people on the move’, are less threatening to states than other migrants, as they can legitimately be contained. They have lost the protection and membership of their home state and so to seek protection from another, they become guests with little choice but to submit to the conditional reception offered (Aleinikoff, 1995).
This understanding of the refugee, and the temporary and restricted spatial nature of the welcome regularly afforded to them, can be observed in host states in both the minority world and the majority world. In Africa, states have been praised for their ‘generous’ welcome towards refugees. Nevertheless, as examined in the next chapter, this essentially amounts to maintaining an ‘open door’ policy towards forced migrants since the end of colonial regimes (Rutinwa, 1999; Fielden, 2008; van Garderen and Ebenstein, 2011). However, once a refugee moves past this initial ‘welcome’ (that is, being allowed entry at the border), reception policies are usually conditional and restrictive. For example, the welcome afforded to refugees in countries such as Malawi and Zambia is provisional and based on the expectation that they remain in refugee camps (Lindley, 2011; Darwin, 2005).
Within many refugee-hosting states in the majority world, this conditional approach to reception equally applies to UNHCR and the global refugee regime more broadly. As Banerjee and Samaddar (2018) note, humanitarianism in post-colonial countries is often a double-edged sword. It saves lives but also regularly reduces the persons involved to objects of charity. Indeed, refugees are often only able to access core norms and services attached to the regime if they remain within the confines of a refugee camp (Schmidt, 2014).
In host countries in the minority world, reception policies can appear to be very different, with refugees regularly granted a range of key global refugee regime norms, including freedom of movement (Zieck, 2018).14 As such, at least in policy and law, state-offered reception in these states can seem magnanimous. Nevertheless, even when a refugee has access to large urban centres, host states (at various levels) often find ways of reminding the refugee that they remain a guest and as such that the city is not ‘theirs’ (Sanyal, 2014; Hovil and Maple, 2022). Similar to the refugee camp, where space is demarcated or ‘walled’, within the perceived chaos of modern cities sovereign power is still likely to be asserted (Darling, 2009; Pasquetti and Picker, 2017; Sanyal, 2014). Moreover, in both the minority and majority world, gaining a form of permanent legal status is often very difficult (Daley, 2013; Manby, 2016), the result being that refugees stay as permanent guests, regardless of the time they spend in the territory.
Pugh (2011:6) goes further in commenting on this guest and host dynamic, by referring to an ‘invisibility bargain’ whereby international migrants are expected to conform to a set of unwritten expectations. Within this unspoken agreement, the state tolerates the presence of some migrants (even some without legal documentation) if they bring economic value while simultaneously remaining politically and socially invisible. In essence, migrants are not expected to make ‘political demands on the government, and … they essentially are relegated to serving, but not participating as equals, within the host society’ (Pugh, 2011:6).
This book builds on this existing body of work by investigating how obligations relating to arrival and reception are divided between the host (the state) and the guest (the refugee) in Southern Africa. By way of illustration, a host state may incorporate international norms and rights from the global refugee regime into their national frameworks, yet reception policies (de jure or de facto) on the ground, via processes of negotiation, may in effect ‘dissuade’ refugees from demanding these rights while they attempt to settle in the host state.
The observation that reception is implicitly conditional is nevertheless open to critique. Firstly, Fiddian-Qasmiyeh (2016) suggests that it is not always inevitable that a ‘welcome’ will bring some form of tension or conditionality. Secondly, within these discussions, the national government is generally framed as the sole gatekeeper, with unique powers to permit and/or restrict varying forms of ‘membership’ within the state. Yet, practices occur at the lower levels of the state that may resist these ‘fatalistic invocations’ of hosting refugees and migrants (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh and Berg, 2018:3), for example, the invaluable role local communities and settled refugees play in the reception of new arrivals (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, 2015).
Such criticisms largely stem from an objection to seeing the state as a ‘black box’ and framing reception (or hosting or hospitality) solely from the perspective of the national government. Indeed, seen in this way, the critiques serve as a valuable prompt to reflect on the multitude of networks and structures (at different levels) that refugees utilise when attempting to settle in a host country. However, these critiques appear to stop short of directly engaging with the assertion that reception policies adopted at the national level are likely to contain inherent limits to reception (for example, spatial restrictions). This issue will be addressed in future chapters by interrogating these concepts via a state-focused analysis, as well as through acknowledging the role of lower levels in creating alternative forms of reception and welcome. Moreover, by adopting the conceptual framework that will be set out in the second half of this chapter, the book develops this area of work further by examining the key factors behind how the relationships and power dynamics between state actors and other key stakeholders evolve.
Understanding reception sites
This section examines relevant contemporary research to draw out key understandings regarding the refugee camp and the urban space as reception sites.15 Specifically, academic work from the fields of forced migration studies and human geography are used to show how refugee camps and urban areas as geographical spaces inform and contest the host state’s offer of reception; the relationship that forms between these spaces via reception policies and refugee movement; and how these spaces interact with refugees’ attempts to pursue their own personal and economic aims. In this way, the section will incorporate concepts from the previous two sections, including the conditionality of reception, while concurrently developing new strands of understanding around refugee reception.
There is, however, a significant discrepancy between the quantity of academic work conducted on these two geographical areas. Research on the camp space is extensive, with refugee camps more broadly remaining the focus of academia in relation to refugee arrivals throughout the 1990s and early 2000s (Da Costa, 2006; Crisp, 2017).16 In contrast, little work has looked at the urban space as a site of state-based reception for refugees, particularly in the context of Africa. Instead, literature in this area has focused on topics such as self-settlement, local networks, and localised forms of hospitality (Hovil, 2007, 2016; Subulwa, 2019). Nevertheless, by engaging with literature that has investigated the movement of refugees into urban spaces from a ground-level perspective, some key insights relevant to this book can be gleaned.
The refugee camp as a site of reception
For the purposes of understanding the refugee camp as a site of reception, a key starting point in the literature is the considerable body of research that has adopted the work of modern political philosophers such as Foucault (1979), Arendt (1958) and Agamben (1998, 2005). Certainly, Agamben’s work (1998) has generated a substantial amount of research (Owens, 2009; Ramadan, 2013; Turner, 2016; Martin 2015). A full exploration of this literature is not within the scope of this book. Nevertheless, it is illuminating to introduce specific elements of Agamben’s work that have been popularised in forced migration literature as they are relevant to analysing the refugee camp as a site of reception, and ultimately to the question of why states respond to refugees in particular ways.
One of Agamben’s key contributions has been in framing how governments situate the camp space as a geographical and political space removed from the interior and political life of the host state. According to Agamben, refugees are a ‘disquieting element’ to the normal order of states, nations and citizens (Agamben, 2000:21). As a way of removing the ‘problem’, refugees are relocated to designated and separate spaces. Relying on the work of Hannah Arendt, who saw camps as the denial of political space (Nyers, 2006:17), Agamben (1998) argues that inside refugee camps, refugees are solely biological beings – as mere animals – without political rights. As Bauman (2002) puts it, they are ‘in’ national spaces, but they are not ‘of’ these spaces.17 This construction of refugee camps sees refugees reduced to ‘bare life’, in permanent ‘states of exception’ outside the law (Owens, 2009).
There is a wealth of academic literature on refugee camps that has adopted these concepts to analyse the separation of refugees from the interior and the political life of the host state (Owens, 2009; Ramadan, 2013; Malkki, 1992; Diken and Laustsen, 2005). Key observations within the wider field that draw from these concepts include how UNHCR regularly becomes a ‘surrogate state’ in terms of running refugee camps (Slaughter and Crisp, 2008). In doing so, these humanitarian spaces relieve the host state of its obligations towards refugees within its territory (Hyndman, 2000). In essence, by placing refugees in camps, the responsibility to care for their well-being is transferred to international actors. In these humanitarian spaces, refugees are warehoused and ‘managed’, with little political space (Sanyal, 2017; Hyndman, 2000; Minca, 2015).
This type of representation of the camp space has nevertheless been challenged and reappraised in recent years (Martin, 2015; Ramadan, 2013). Critical geographers have particularly questioned these portrayals of the refugee and the geographical space (Sanyal, 2014). Firstly, the depiction of ‘bare life’ in refugee camps diminishes the role of the human agency in creating political and economic opportunities, despite the inherent limitations within these sites of reception (Owens, 2009). Far from being devoid of political activity, unique forms of politics regularly emerge in these spaces (Sanyal, 2014; Ramadan, 2013; Darling, 2009; Newhouse, 2015). Secondly, academics have observed how ‘spaces of exception’ tend to spread out into their neighbouring environments (Martin, 2015; Sanyal, 2014). As Sanyal (2017) notes, camps in Kenya, Lebanon and Jordan may have started as tents during emergency responses, but over time permanent structures are built and informal economies begin to grow.18 The evolution of the refugee camp in many countries in the majority world has led academics to question how we understand and conceptualise these complex reception sites (Agier, 2008; Montclos and Kagwanja, 2000; Sanyal, 2014).
These critiques are well-grounded, indeed a great deal of empirical evidence now directly contradicts fatalistic conceptualisations of the camp space (Hyndman, 2000; Turner, 2016). Furthermore, purely in relation to academic benefit, Crisp (2015) raises concerns around the ‘over-intellectualisation’ of the refugee camp. He notes how a considerable amount of contemporary work based on post-modernist social theory, such as Agamben’s work, is at times almost impenetrable. There nevertheless remains analytical value in engaging with key concepts from Agamben (1998, 2005) as a starting point for discussions exploring this site of reception. This is particularly pertinent when investigating reception from the perspective of the host state, rather than responses to official camp policy by refugees or local populations. For example, a host state’s overarching reception policy may aim to frame the refugee camp as a place of exception through which most refugees are removed from the interior – even if the reality on the ground is different.
The urban space as a site of reception
In contrast to refugee camps, the urban space as a site of refugee reception has until recently remained under-researched. Practical issues play a role in this bias towards studying encampment practices, for instance, national laws can be analysed and access to sedentary populations can be secured in camps or government-run settlements. Conversely, refugees who self-settle in urban spaces are often harder to locate and less willing to come forward (Schmidt, 2003; Sommers, 2001). Furthermore, state responses to refugees in urban spaces, particularly in the majority world, are often realised more through local-level practices than recorded in national policy or set out in national law (Schmidt, 2014).
In the last decade, with refugee movements increasingly following global patterns of urbanisation, research on urban displacement more broadly has nevertheless begun to grow substantially (Landau, 2018a). Indeed, key insights into urban reception can be extracted from recent work focusing on vast global cities, such as Beirut, Istanbul and Johannesburg, which have all witnessed substantial increases in forced migrant movements (Martin, 2015; UNHCR, 2018b). However, this emerging area of research has predominantly focused on the local and sub-local level, rather than at the state level (Landau, 2018a).
Firstly, contemporary research has investigated the role of mobility and agency in refugees finding their own form of de facto local integration (Long, 2014, 2009; Adepoju et al., 2007; Sturridge, 2011; De Haas, 2009) and/or ‘urban citizenship’ via local networks and localised hospitality (Basok, 2009; Varsanyi, 2006; Hovil, 2016; Landau, 2014; Sanyal, 2017; Porter et al., 2019). The modern-day city cannot always be seen as a place of real social cohesion, yet migrants are still able to negotiate ‘alternative forms of inclusion’ (Bakewell, 2018:235). These local negotiations between refugees and local power holders place refugees and their hosts at the centre of this understanding of ‘reception’ (Polzer, 2009). Thus, refugees are framed as political actors using political leverage like other local groups or communities (Polzer, 2009). By extension, this understanding from the ground up of reception in the urban space (particularly in the majority world) relegates national bodies and international actors like UNHCR to minor roles (Landau, 2007). Landau and Amit (2014:547) go further, suggesting that for these self-settled refugees, the international refugee regime and national refugee policy may be ‘something akin to a distant weather pattern with only indirect (and rarely determinative) effects on local actions’.
Secondly, forced migration studies and connected migration fields have also started to scrutinise the role of local authorities in reception (Darling, 2017; Walker, 2014; Squire, 2011). In particular, there has been an emphasis on the role municipalities can play in refugee arrivals when policies at the national level continue to shrink the asylum space (Darling, 2017). Large urban spaces have the potential for a different kind of ‘cosmopolitan, egalitarian model of rights and ethical responsibility towards others’ (Darling, 2009:649), for example, as ‘sanctuary cities’ (Basok, 2009; Varsanyi, 2006), ‘cities of refuge’ (Darling, 2009) or ‘welcoming communities’ for refugees and migrants (Bucklaschuk, 2015). Indeed, by engaging with city-level institutions and bureaucracies, it is possible to observe how concepts of localised citizenship are often replicated in local-level governance and urban planning (Guarnizo, 2011).
By adopting a multi-scalar approach to analysing reception, the ‘local’ becomes more than just a sovereign site of ‘(in)hospitable decisions’ (Darling, 2009:649). It may be that, but it can also be a space of ‘local citizenship’ and local solutions to protracted displacement (Hovil, 2007). Indeed, it is conceivable to reimagine the urban space as a political space of rupture, where core global refugee regime norms that were blocked at the national level can re-emerge.
There is a risk, nevertheless, that this recent academic attention to the city as a site of reception is reconceptualising the urban space into one of unconditional hospitality and kindness. As observed by Samaddar (2018), on the ground in cities such as Johannesburg, refugees and migrants often gain social and political space only through persistence and hardship, rather than this being benevolently offered to them by the city or even locals. Equally, similarly to refugee camps, forms of confinement regularly appear in urban spaces. These can result directly from national and local reception policies or indirectly from more general policy that creates barriers to access. Indeed, threats of bribes, eviction, detention and the temporality of legal documents can all limit the movement of individuals in urban areas (Pasquetti and Picker, 2017; Chekero, 2023).
Links between the two reception sites
Finally, a persistent theme within the literature concerning these different reception sites has been the emphasis on the locational distinctions between the refugee camp and the urban space (Sanyal, 2014).19 Thus, during the 1990s and early 2000s, research often ended up in ‘geographical silos’, resulting in little interrogation beyond a binary analysis of refugee camps and urban spaces as diametrically opposed to each other. However, recent shifts in academic focus and the adoption of different conceptual lenses have added new depth and nuance to our knowledge about these geographical sites. Contemporary research shows how the camp space is in fact regularly connected to the urban space (Omata and Kaplan, 2013; Chapotera, 2018). In situ, in Africa, the camp and urban spaces are linked daily via movement and technology (Betts et al., 2017; Omata and Kaplan, 2013). As Bakewell (2014) suggests, there is a need to recognise the fluidity between refugee camps and urban and rural areas, as people continue to find ways to move between these different reception sites.
Subsequent chapters reassess these two spaces from the viewpoint of reception, and in doing so build on contemporary research that challenges the notion that these sites are diametrically opposed to each other. In contrast to previous work, however, the book will approach the topic from the perspective of the host state. An assumption inherent within some existing research is that the movement that regularly connects these two spaces is either conducted covertly (that is, without permission and conflicts with the national reception policy) or with the state turning a blind eye to the movement of the refugee(s). The subsequent analysis highlights the possibility that some of this circular movement is accepted or even encouraged by state bodies and actors as part of the ‘bargain’ host states make with refugees when receiving them. In line with Polzer (2009), there is also the possibility that the form reception takes continues to evolve (including the acceptance of additional refugee movement) due to ongoing negotiations between key actors and entities in these spaces.
In summary, the first half of this chapter has utilised different but connected bodies of work to elucidate the concept of refugee reception. In doing so, it suggests that understanding the core concept of refugee reception requires an appreciation of it as a process, rather than a singular moment or set of requirements to regularise status. Thus, it resists the notion that reception ends with the regularly praised ‘open door’ policy of many states in the majority world.20 As a complex process, reception involves negotiations between the state and other key actors that ultimately shape a refugee’s ability to engage with local communities and markets in pursuit of their own personal and economic aims. Consequently, the state-focused perspective taken acknowledges the plurality of actors involved at the different levels of the state, while retaining a focus on state-run reception policies and practice. In this way, the architecture of reception (such as policy designed to permit or constrain movement) is regularly contested or modified by the behaviour of different participants in the process.
Using Betts and Orchard’s theory of norm implementation, the remainder of this chapter will now turn to developing the book’s conceptual framework. This is employed to advance an understanding of the processes by which global refugee regime norms are implemented, altered or contested at the national level. Member states that are party to the global refugee regime have an obligation to implement international norms in their reception policies. This suggests that in theory at least, a degree of uniformity might be expected to be observed in how states receive refugees. However, reception is not fixed but regularly negotiated and renegotiated between various actors in different reception spaces. As such, diverse factors at different levels of the state may influence policy and in doing so contest implementation of international norms, creating unique outcomes in terms of how refugees are received and treated.
The implementation of refugee reception policies
Betts and Orchard’s (2014) theory of norm implementation is concerned with how international norms are implemented and how they play out in practice at the national level. The theory is based on a constructivist understanding of regimes, international norms and institutions. Importance is therefore placed on domestic normative and ideational structures, with identity, shared beliefs and values all exerting influence on political and social action (Hurd, 2008; Reus-Smit, 2005). As such, norms can develop, evolve and ultimately shape political discourses (Reus-Smit, 2005). This can occur at the international level through a process of socialisation whereby states can be persuaded to amend their views and behaviour over time (Betts, 2009a). It can also occur at the national and local levels, whereby a state’s identity is shaped through interactions with its own society and the various identities that make up that society (Jackson, Sørensen and Møller, 2019).21
The theory of norm implementation also argues that to understand the level at which norms impact on outcomes, there is a need to know how they are implemented as prescribed actions at the national level (Job and Shesterinina, 2014). Taking the 1951 Refugee Convention as an example, member states have an obligation to allow refugees particular freedoms. These include the freedom of movement; to own and dispose of property; and the right to seek employment (Crisp, 2004).22 Equally, Article 34 envisages forms of integration and the potential for citizenship. Yet, implementation of regime norms is left to states, resulting in practice being hugely varied between regions and individual states (Canefe, 2010).
As a way of examining and explaining these variances, Betts and Orchard (2014) suggest that the process of norm implementation at the domestic level opens up political contestation, with norms then becoming subject to reinterpretation and redefinition, and even being ignored by state actors. This can result in differing understandings of key regime norms developing and ultimately lead to different approaches to the reception of refugees in practice. Indeed, when two states ratify the 1951 Refugee Convention and incorporate the norms it contains into domestic law, it is not axiomatic that these norms will come to be implemented in the same way in practice.
Betts and Orchard (2014) also distinguish ‘implementation’ from the concept of ‘compliance’. Constructivists see compliance as the act of rule-following itself, not the mechanisms through which compliance is achieved. In other words, a state either complies with a norm or does not. Implementation on the other hand is a process which furthers the adoption of a new norm. The norm implementation framework is therefore concerned with why a state obeys or ignores a norm rather than if a state adopts the norm into national law.23
Ultimately, the theory of norm implementation by Betts and Orchard (2014) was adopted as the book’s conceptual framework for the following reasons: the theory is fundamentally interested in why states behave in specific ways, as opposed to how states should behave; factors that can influence state behaviour and policy are not framed as mutually exclusive but rather have the potential to engage and contest with each other, resulting in unique localised outcomes.
Adopting the theory of norm implementation to investigate refugee reception policies
To frame and scrutinise variations in responses to refugees (that is, why states respond to refugees in the way they do) and the role these approaches have on refugees’ ability to pursue their own personal and economic aims, the book utilises the theory of norm implementation. In essence, an implementation lens is adopted that is broadly based on member states’ obligations to implement the core norms contained within the global refugee regime. This is achieved by integrating the heuristic tripartite model that lies at the heart of Betts and Orchard’s (2014) work. This model sets out three key ‘causal mechanisms’ that can ‘constrain or constitute implementation efforts driven by particular actors’ (Betts and Orchard, 2014:12): as per Figure 1.1. These three mechanisms are composed of ideational, material and institutional factors.
These three factors are not mutually exclusive, yet they ‘provide a way of identifying critical implementation mechanisms that can then be examined as operationalizable variables’ by in-depth qualitative research (Betts and Orchard, 2014:13). Each of the ‘factors’ in turn may play a role in altering or constraining regime norms ‘by enabling or limiting its impact and salience within domestic policy and practice’ (p. 13). Thus, this trilogy of factors will be employed to help identify key variables that are influencing responses of states to the arrival of refugees in Southern Africa.
Figure 1.1: A conceptual framework examining implementation of refugee reception policies
Firstly, ideational factors can modify or change the implementation of norms through the cultural context of domestic politics. In this way, an international norm can mean very different things at a national level when combined with the pre-existing cultural and historical setting of the individual state. Thus, cultural ideas and identity, shared beliefs, national institutions and legal frameworks may all constrain or shape international norms during the implementation process. As Cortell and Davis (2005) note, constructivism sees international norms having more impact when they have domestic salience, meaning when they mirror or support local values, beliefs and practice.
Acharya (2004) suggests that contestation can also occur between international norms and pre-existing regional normative social orders. As Cortell and Davis (2005) observe, when international norms conflict with local beliefs and understanding, actors may find that relying on international norms to support a policy may be ineffective. Equally, the national legal system may also influence the implementation process by ‘serving as a constraining ideational structure in legitimising (or not) different international norms and allowing them to take effect’ (Betts and Orchard, 2014:15). For example, variables such as whether the national system is based on common law or statute, the perceived strength of the rule of law and the number of lawyers in the country, may all interact with the international norm resulting in differing practices at the national level.
Secondly, material factors such as the capacity of the state also affect the implementation of the global refugee regime at the national and local levels. The effectiveness of techniques such as pressure or persuasion, deployed by other states, donors, institutions and non-state actors, will also be strongly influenced by capacity issues. For example, the ability to ensure all refugees receive full protection as set out in the 1951 Refugee Convention will depend greatly on the ability of the host state to respond through financial, humanitarian and developmental assistance. Political pressure applied by minority world states on states in the majority world to implement elements of the refugee regime, will mean little if it comes without financial support and if host states simply do not have the capacity to respond (Hovil and Maple, 2022; Arar and Fitzgerald, 2023). Other material factors such as genuine security concerns may also influence the implementation of key norms.
Finally, institutional structures that interact with the implementation of norms at the national level will differ greatly between states and potentially also between specific districts of an individual country, which in turn will affect how a norm is interpreted at the national and local level. For example, how government departments split responsibility for a particular policy between the national and local level can influence the implementation of a norm.
Bureaucratic contestation may also play a role in deciding which aspects of a norm will be implemented and which will be ignored. For example, inter-agency conflicts and competition for resources across national and local-level ministries can result in variations in how an international norm is translated into practice. National institutions and bureaucracy have received less attention in relation to how states respond to refugee movement than have issues relating to material structures such as capacity and security. Nevertheless, specific bureaucratic identities and contestation at different levels of government can affect the way the refugee regime is implemented within a state.24 Furthermore, as Deere (2009) notes, bureaucratic contestation brings international institutions into the implementation process, whereby international actors interact with national actors to shape and contest international norms.
A multi-scalar understanding of host states’ responses to refugees
By adopting Betts and Orchard’s theory of norm implementation as the conceptual framework, emphasis is again placed on a multi-scalar understanding of the host state. Betts and Orchard (2014:274) acknowledge the role that individuals can play in enabling implementation (using terms such as ‘enablers of implementation’ and ‘norm implementators’). This book goes further by placing particular importance on the applicability of the trilogy of factors at the international, national and the local level. This method allows greater flexibility in analysis to incorporate reasons why specific policies are implemented, contested, changed or recast at ‘various levels of power and in different sites’ (Williamson, 2015:17). For example, refugees can receive different treatment at the local level in their interactions with local authorities or partners, compared to more restrictive national approaches. As observed above, this suggests that the global refugee regime (and its core norms) may skip levels when blocked at the national level and reappear at lower levels. Equally, the ‘regime is its practice’ – meaning changes to the regime at the local level have the potential to feed back into the national level (and even into regional or global levels) (Schmidt, 2003).
Betts and Orchard (2014) also keep analysis at different levels separate (especially between the international and national levels). In contrast, this book is interested in how international, national and local dynamics may interact and tussle with one another to create structural mechanisms that shape the implementation of regime norms and policies. A multi-scalar lens enables such an examination to take place, focusing in particular on how processes are influenced within different levels of governance, how they interact between levels, and the effect this has on refugee reception.25 The outcome of these different dynamics can be seen in shifting approaches to refugee arrivals, and the way that their acceptance in spaces (such as urban areas) may run contrary to the formal national legal framework. Thus, ‘implementation’ is informed by the ‘enmeshment of international and domestic or local logics and practices’ (Schmidt, 2014:267). Indeed, the book argues that reception policies of host states are not fixed constructs, but rather continual processes that are constantly shaped by the different factors at different levels of analysis.
A critical reflection on the book’s conceptual framework
There are some potential limitations in utilising this approach to investigate the issue of refugee reception. Firstly, the framework focuses on how and why reception policies operate as they do in practice, rather than on addressing the question of how reception should operate. In doing this, an argument can be made that it provides few criteria with which to evaluate the information it offers (Shapcott, 2010). Yet as examined above, the difference between how state practices express core norms and how they are set out in the 1951 Refugee Convention, makes answering the question of how a regime norm should operate extremely complex. Indeed, state practice alters how regime norms are understood. Equally, by examining what a state is doing (and why) concerning policies and specific reception sites, the book references explicitly how and why states are either obeying or ignoring key regime norms such as freedom of movement or employment rights. Finally, by improving the understanding around state responses to the arrival of refugees, the hope is that academia is then better equipped to be able to suggest new pragmatic methods and techniques for improving the implementation of core regime norms.
Secondly, it is fair to say that great importance is placed on the ‘global’ within Betts and Orchard’s model. This emphasis risks assigning more weight to the role of the global refugee regime in reception policies in Africa than is warranted. Similarly, the prominence given to the ‘global’ risks ignoring the role of the ‘local’ in shaping reception policy on the ground. Indeed, as previously noted, recent work in the urban space in Southern Africa suggests that some refugees have little to no interactions with national legal frameworks or global governance regimes. A multi-scalar approach mitigates these risks by enabling the framework to investigate the applicability of global governance frameworks and national reception policies at the level of the city. Furthermore, rather than dismissing or ignoring the existing body of scholarly work looking at local and sub-local levels, future chapters will build on and complement this body of research to gain a more holistic picture of reception in Africa.
Finally, the heuristic tripartite model – as a core element of the framework – sets out the key causal mechanisms that can affect the implementation of refugee reception policies. On one level, this ‘trilogy of factors’ can be seen as a purely descriptive set of factors or categories, which are intrinsically difficult to critique: they are highly logical and relevant sets of typology. To move analysis beyond mere categorisation and to develop understanding around causation, a reflexive methodological approach was adopted to ensure impartial evaluation (which acknowledges preconceptions and assumptions) and to test the validity of the overarching conceptual framework. Put differently, to utilise the framework in a fruitful way, the methodological approach selected for the book needed to be sufficiently reflexive to be open to opposing arguments and alternative factors emerging through the fieldwork, rather than being tied to a strict typology of prescribed factors. This reflexive research approach is expanded upon in Chapter 3.
With regards to causation specifically, the reality on the ground means that it is unlikely that the research will reveal neat causal links between a factor or a combination of a factors and a state-run refugee reception policy. Rather, in using this framework there is an expectation of reception policies at the national and local level being formed and/or contested via the result of ongoing and highly contingent processes of negotiation between institutional actors (Betts and Orchard, 2014). During these ‘negotiations’, specific factors – such as material ones (that is, capacity) – may conflict with others – such as ideational ones (legal and normative obligations to implement human rights ideals). In this way, the reception of refugees is understood as ‘a political process of contestation in which a range of structures and actors share and channel what norms do in practice’ (Betts and Orchard, 2014:281). As Ragin (1987) notes in relation to the intricacies of social phenomena, refugee reception is not merely a function of the many factors that account for the ultimate result. The specific response to refugees stems from the effects of circumstances, whereby ‘a particular combination of factors have to merge before a given effect can occur’ (Lor, 2011:14).
In closing, this chapter has situated the disparate responses to refugee arrivals seen in Southern Africa, within a theoretical context. By using a state-focused lens and incorporating literature from connected academic fields, the chapter advances a preliminary understanding of ‘reception’: an understanding that is relatively unique for refugee studies, due to the field generally overlooking or minimising the topic in the past. In turn, a conceptual framework has been introduced that is suitable to respond to the question of why states receive refugees in different ways. The next chapter builds on this analysis, by evaluating broader academic debates within the fields of refugee and forced migration studies that allude to why states in Africa, even close neighbours, have such dissimilar reception policies.
Notes
1. It is interpreted in European case law: EU law affirms that reception begins once an asylum application is made (ESRC, 2017).
2. The chapter is concerned with the reception offered to refugees by a host state. Other forms of reception at the local and sub-local level will nonetheless be discussed.
3. See van der Waldt (2020).
4. See Ravitch and Riggan (2016).
5. See Schmidt (2014); Deardorff (2009).
6. During this time there is little to no interaction with formal state infrastructures (at least at the national level) nor with the global refugee regime.
7. Even these systems of registration can be ad hoc.
8. See Portes and Rumbaut (2006); Jaworsky et al. (2012).
9. Based on the work of Castles (2015).
10. See Williamson (2015). In the context of the two case studies there are other levels of analysis: the regional level (for example, the influence of the African Union (AU)); the sub-regional level (for example, the influence of SADC); and the mezzanine level of the provincial government. While touched on in the book, these levels are not key priorities due to the minor role they play in refugee reception in Zambia and South Africa.
11. Thus, while taking core elements from the term ‘self-reliance’, the book attempts to avoid the implication that a refugee’s intention is always to be independent from the moment of arrival (UNHCR, 2005).
12. See also Derrida (2005).
13. See also Derrida (2000); Derrida and Dufourmantelle (2000).
14. This ‘generous’ reception is only offered to the lucky few who are granted refugee status. Donor states in the minority world have devised numerous policies to evade responsibility sharing and ‘contain’ forced migrants in the majority world (Hovil and Maple, 2022).
15. These geographical spaces are selected due to their popularity and dominance as official and unofficial spaces of reception for refugees and forced migrants in the chosen case studies. Nevertheless, border and rural areas will also be examined where relevant to drawing out a more complete picture of reception in Southern Africa.
16. As a sample see Harrell-Bond (1998); Black (1998); Crisp and Jacobsen (1998); Crisp (2000); Jamal (2003); Smith (2004).
17. See also Bloch and Donà (2018).
18. See also Jansen (2016); Newhouse (2015).
19. There are notable exceptions to these approaches (Hyndman, 2000; Crisp, 2008).
20. Meaning that reception appears to be framed as the act of allowing a refugee onto a host state’s territory.
21. The approach of Betts and Orchards (2014) complements the work of Finnemore and Sikkink (1998) who were interested in how norms are formed at the international level.
22. In relation to the international refugee regime, it is generally understood that the most important norms, principles and rules can be found in the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Statute of UNHCR (Betts, 2009a).
23. See also Alderson (2001); Arar and FitzGerald (2023).
24. See Schmidt (2014); Landau and Amit (2014).
25. See Delaney and Leitner (1997).