Examining Elite Preferences for Policy Discretion in Refugee Inclusion

• In Event: Political Economy of Elite Decision-Making in Africa

Abstract

This research project delves into the policy dynamics of refugee inclusion in African host countries, highlighting the role of elite preferences in the strategic use of policy discretion. It identifies a significant gap in academic literature that largely focuses on refugee-specific laws, overlooking how refugees' rights to services, employment, and legal standing are often influenced by broader policies in education, labor, and immigration. Many African nations, perceiving refugee settlements as temporary, adopt flexible, burden-sharing models, which do not guarantee refugees a permanent status and are subject to change with domestic and international political pressures.

The study posits that this policy flexibility—characterized by discretionary and revokable measures—is a deliberate strategy by host governments to maintain negotiation leverage with high-income countries and adapt to shifting political conditions. Through a combination of survey experiments targeting Kenyan political elites and elite interviews with stakeholders in 16 African nations, the research tests the hypothesis of intentional policy incongruence. This incongruence, often manifesting in sectoral policies that are either silent or contradictory regarding refugees, creates ambiguity and uncertainty, thereby granting host governments the ability to easily alter refugees’ rights without formally changing laws or policies.

Initial findings suggest that politicians generally favor more adaptable policies, which can be interpreted differently in response to changing incentives. These incentives are influenced by domestic politics, international relations, and financial considerations from global actors. The research sheds light on the nuanced and variable approaches of policymakers towards refugee inclusion, underlining the intricate political and economic forces that drive policy decisions in an environment where global responsibility-sharing is professed but not consistently practiced.

Author

• Shelby Carvalho, Harvard University