Return to IRR Model, to MESAS Page, to the MESAS Resources Page, or to the Social Resources Page
Similarities in Refugee and Resettlement Situation
The IRR model has been embraced and applied in a number of studies and in some operational resettlement activities, as will be shown in the last part of this paper. However, a question raised recently is whether this model, initially defined for resettlement caused by development programs, can provide research advantages in studying refugee displacements as well.[2] This question came up in the context of efforts and trends towards bridge-building between the two key research domains concerned with displaced population-the research on refugees and the research on development -resettlers; trends that are clearly getting stronger and gaining ground. Indeed, both involuntary resettlers (displaced by development projects) and refugees fleeing violence (wars or armed civil conflicts) confront many strikingly similar social and economic problems. These two groups are the largest subsets of displaced populations worldwide. Research currently carried out separately on resettlement and post-conflict reconstruction stands to gain substantial knowledge by breaking out of separation and insularity.[3]
In order to bring these two domains closer, it would be necessary, first, to develop within each more theory building. Abstracting the general from the particular and the individual will help to illuminate what is common in these two categories of situations and people. Each domain must strive to develop overarching concepts, inventories of findings, structured comparisons, and theoretical models as intellectual stepping stones toward such knowledge articulation (Cernea 1996a). There are also institutional difficulties to overcome such a reciprocal transfer of knowledge, as Harrell-Bond and Voutira (2000) correctly point out with reference to the practices of major international agencies. But this does not reduce the role of scholars in striving for knowledge integration: In fact, it increases this role. Taking a comparative perspective, Harrell-Bond and Voutira also highlight the challenge and the difficulties of "arriving at a theoretical model of resettlement which applies to different situations of forced migration-those resulting from impoverishment, civil strife, or 'development' projects which uproot populations." Voutira and Harrell-Bond emphasize that impoverishment is a "consequence of virtually all types of displacement…. methodologically [impoverishment] allows for a common denominator in refugee and oustee experience." Yet because the causes of impoverishment and the definition of "success" are not the same, it is necessary to keep score of the differences.
Indeed, the issue is not to take one conceptual framework and "apply" or transpose it tale-quale elsewhere, on another category of processes.[4] The challenge is to test the value-added it provides as a research tool and use it creatively for throwing light on other processes as well. In this spirit, Kibreab (2000) argues that the impoverishment risks and reconstruction model is a relevant tool for refugee related research and practical relief work. "In spite of the ostensible dissimilarities between oustees' and refugees' situations", Kibreab writes, "a closer examination of the issues reveals that the so-called differences do not limit the scope of the model, but, rather, make it compellingly relevant."
Forward to Four Basic Functions of the Model
Backward to A Model of Risks and Risk Avoidance
---------------------------
[2] The discussion about using and expanding this model to the condition of refugees was started at the Oxford International Conference of 1996 on Resettlement and Refugees. It continues in the volume Risks and Reconstruction (M. Cernea and C. McDowell, eds., 2000), conceptually linked to the present paper, which analyzes the impoverishment risks and social disarticulation affecting both populations. Such discussion is enriching the knowledge about both subsets of displaced populations.
[3] This potential for gains is four-fold. Empirically, the two bodies of research could enrich each other by comparing their factual findings. Theoretically, they could broaden their conceptualizations by exploring links and similarities between their sets of variables. Methodologically, they could sharpen their inquiry by borrowing and exchanging research techniques. And politically, they could influence the public arena stronger by mutually reinforcing their policy advocacy and operational recommendations.
[4] In this paper I do not propose to explore in detail the extent to which this conceptual framework can provide investigative advantages in studying refugee displacements as well. I believe that there is considerable potential for this extension, if mechanical "application" of the model is avoided. Occasionally, however, I will point out similarities between resettlers and refugees, which invite a systematic exploration of this model's potential. Specialists in refugee studies are even better placed to test the model and determine with adequate adjustment, if or how it can help account for refugees' risks and post-conflict recovery.
Return to IRR Model, to MESAS Page, to the MESAS Resources Page, or to the Social Resources Page
