Labour market integration for refugees: A social justice framework

Kool, Tamara; Nimeh, Zina Working Paper Labour market integration for refugees: A social justice framework UNU-MERIT Working Papers, No. 2024-012 Provided in Cooperation with: Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT), United Nations University (UNU) Suggested Citation: Kool, Tamara; Nimeh, Zina (2024) : Labour market integration for refugees: A social justice framework, UNU-MERIT Working Papers, No. 2024-012, United Nations University (UNU), Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (UNUMERIT), Maastricht This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/326908 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ #2024-012 Labour market integration for refugees: A social justice framework Tamara Kool and Zina Nimeh Published 27 May 2024 Maastricht Economic and social Research institute on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT) email: [email protected] | website: http://www.merit.unu.edu Boschstraat 24, 6211 AX Maastricht, The Netherlands Tel: (31) (43) 388 44 00 UNU-MERIT Working Papers ISSN 1871-9872 Maastricht Economic and social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology UNU-MERIT UNU-MERIT Working Papers intend to disseminate preliminary results of research carried out at UNU-MERIT to stimulate discussion on the issues raised. 1 Labour Market Integration for Refugees: A Social Justice Framework1 Tamara Kool2 & Zina Nimeh3 “Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.” (UDHR 1948, Art. 23) Abstract This paper examines the labour market engagement of protracted refugees. Despite international guarantees for the right to work, many refugees face legal and bureaucratic barriers, leading to exclusion from host communities and over reliance on diminishing humanitarian aid. By synthesizing literature on labour market participation of refugees against the backdrop of social justice theories, and taking a social exclusion angle, the paper constructs a conceptual framework for a better understanding of labour market engagement that includes both formal and informal sectors. It highlights the need for policies that support agency and self-reliance for refugees. Key Words: Refugee Labour Market, Social Justice, Social Exclusion, Agency JEL Classification : J46, J48, J68, J78, Z18 1 This working paper has been informed by the research conducted in the PhD thesis: Kool, T. A. (2022). Beyond the right to work: labour market engagement of protracted refugees through a social exclusion lens. [Doctoral Thesis, Maastricht University]. Proefschrift-AIO. https://doi.org/10.26481/dis.20220519tk 2 Verwey-Jonker Instituut; [email protected] 3 Maastricht University/UNU-MERIT; [email protected] 2 Introduction In an ideal world the root causes of conflict are timely addressed, and social justice prevails (United Nations, 1999). However, violence erupts due to exacerbated horizontal inequalities, internal political struggles, grievances or interstate conflict, and as a consequence, individuals are faced with displacement. The increasing number of people finding themselves in a protracted refugee situation, excluded from host communities, without any prospect to any durable solutions as originally foreseen under the 1951 Refugee Convention is concerning. The continuing tendency to warehouse refugees (Jacobsen, 2001; Omata & Kaplan, 2013), oft within neighbouring countries (Gomez & Christensen, 2010; UNHCR, 2021), has led to a state of limbo during which refugees continue to rely on external assistance. While assistance with time declines as humanitarian aid falls short in the long run and the transition from humanitarian aid to development remains limited (Christensen & Harild, 2009; Lakhani, 2013), refugees continue to be in a vulnerable position that is exacerbated by their lack of inclusion in the host community. Still, refugees should not just be considered passive victims but actors in their own rights. Regardless of the situation in the host country, the refugees find ways to enact on their own agency and engage in the labour market to ensure a certain level of selfreliance (e.g., Betts et al., 2017; Haan & Zoomers, 2005; Jacobsen, 2014; Omata & Kaplan, 2013). This recognition is in line with the discourse in international community on self-reliance as also exemplified by the UNHCR Handbook for Self-Reliance and the Global Compact of Refugees (UNGA, 2018; UNHCR, 2005). In addition, the recent concept by the UNHCR, Refugee Livelihood and Economic Inclusion Global Strategy Concept Note 2019-2023, further links the notion of self-reliance and resilience of refugees to economic inclusion. It identifies economic inclusion as “access to labour markets, finance, entrepreneurship and economic opportunities for all” (UNHCR, 2018, p. 3).4 The question may be raised firstly, how this access is shaped, and secondly, what inclusion entails. Within the debate, often the Right to Work as envisioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is referred to. This is further enshrined in Article 6 and 7 of the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966). When discussing the application to refugees, General Comment 23 by the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) further affirms that refugees should be accorded rights in relation to work as per nationals. Likewise, under article 17 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, refugees should be granted the most favourable treatment which according to some equals 4 This concept has since been further developed by the World Bank, which defines economic inclusion as “the gradual integration of individuals and households into broader economic and community development processes” (Andrews et al., 2021, p. 19) and for which they consider social safety nets (SSN), livelihoods and jobs, and financial inclusion. Within this study we focus on labour market engagement of refugees, to make this distinction clear, this study focuses on (non-)inclusionary labour market practices. 3 those of nationals (see also the discussion in Costello & Cinnéide, 2021; Hathaway, 2021).5 The literature concurs thus that under international law, the right to work is ensured to refugees and displaced persons. Yet, regardless of international law, restrictions to the right to work remain and the legal practices among countries are highly diverse (see for example Wirth et al., 2014; Zetter & Ruaudel, 2016). A Global Report from 2014 by the Asylum Access and the Refugee Work Rights Coalition highlights that only a limited number of countries support a refugee’s right to work as per international law. Most countries have put in place restrictions or have prohibited access of refugees to the labour market altogether. Additionally, refugees face challenges such as a backlog in terms of status recognition, restriction on mobility, or bureaucratic barriers (fees, paperwork, banking regulations etc.) (Essex-Lettieri et al., 2017; Wirth et al., 2014; Zetter & Ruaudel, 2016). The access to work, in particular decent work, can be constrained by unfavourable sociopolitical, legal and policy contest (e.g., Hovil, 2014; Jacobsen, 2014; Zetter & Ruaudel, 2016). As Zetter and Ruaudel (2016) conclude “[o]nce established, the legal framework on the right to work remains inflexible in most countries; conversely, although policies may be more fluid in general they remain restrictive” (p.xi). It is therefore important to understand how various policies interact, and reinforce or undermine each other as these in turn, may affect the access to the labour market and/or work rights (see also Costello & Cinnéide, 2021). For example, while more restrictive measures may be adopted in the formal sector, governments may turn a blind eye to the informal sector as refugees may be seen as a source of cheap labour (Zetter & Ruaudel, 2016). Nonetheless, the informal economy is often prevalent in many lowand middle-income countries (LMICs) where refugees are located. Therefore, it can be questioned whether access to work should solely be understood in terms of the Right to Work, which is often centred on formal or legal work. Rather, this paper argues, it is important to understand to what extent and under what conditions refugees engage in the labour market, while recognising also the existing structures in place. This paper therefore aims to further challenge our thinking on issues pertaining to engagement of protracted refugees in the labour market by unfolding some of the complexities when it comes to labour market participation. First, it connects the various strands of literature on labour market participation of refugees. Next, the paper takes on a social justice perspective arguing for placing this discussion in context of social exclusion literature. Lastly, it ties the various discussions together in a conceptual framework. 5 Nonetheless, some might argue that Art. 2(3) of the ICESCR may serve to restrict economic rights such as the right to work, in lieu of considerations of the national economy, though as also argued by Costello and Ó Cinnéide (2021), its interpretation should be interpreted narrowly and in context of its origin. 4 1. Labour Market Dimensions The literature on labour market participation of refugees is quite diverse and overall, five main approaches to refugees and the labour market can be identified: 1) econometric studies on determinants of labour market participation of refugees, which is mainly focused on highincome countries; 2) forced migration and livelihood literature; 3) refugee and camp economy; 4) self-reliance of refugees; and lastly, 5) the impact on host community. These five streams though separate are quite interlinked. The next sub-sections seek to connect the various strands of literature and discuss firstly, determinants of labour market participation, as well as the role of policies and institutional context in shaping the access of refugees to the labour market. 1.1. Setting refugees apart from economic migrants The receptiveness of labour markets to immigrants is determined by structural conditions such as social stratification, welfare state provisions and labour market segmentation (Castles et al., 2014). Already immigrants face a different trajectory of labour market participation compared to host communities in recipient countries; thus, they start from an economic disadvantaged position. Borjas (1994) argues that this is determined by labour market demand, and both economic and migration policies. Case studies on the US and UK further illustrate that refugees tend to face a gap in labour market outcomes compared to economic migrants which cannot be explained by human capital alone (Bloch, 2008; Connor, 2010). Even when accounting for change over time, the employment gap of refugees never fully closes. The extent of the gap may be shaped by the cultural affiliation between the host country and country of origin as the case of Sweden highlights (Lundborg, 2013). Oft, in lowand middleincome countries, refugees tend to face additional challenges due to loss of economic and noneconomic assets as well as face additional restrictions in terms of accessing the labour market due to lack of documentation or status, which thus sets them even more apart from other economic migrants (e.g., Doocy et al., 2011; Loiacono & Vargas, 2019; Schuettler & Caron, 2020). A better understanding is therefore needed on the determinants of and dynamics behind labour market participation of refugees. The next sub-section sets out the determinants as per econometric studies, highlighting the need to examine more contextualised studies in the field of livelihood and self-reliance of forced displacement to examine the labour market participation of refugees. 5 1.2. Determinants of Labour Market Characteristics Quantitative studies on the determinants of labour market outcomes (whether unemployment, occupational level, public assistance or annual earnings) highlight the role of education, gender, health, language ability and to some extent neighbourhood context on labour market outcomes (e.g., Connor, 2010; Lundborg, 2013; Potocky-Tripodi, 2001, 2004; Waxman, 2001; Yu et al., 2012). Yet, these studies mostly encompass socio-demographic characteristics and are very much informed by classical economic literature and tend to be located in high income countries. In LMICs where refugees tend to face more restrictive policies, econometric studies on labour market engagement of refugees are emerging (e.g., Betts et al., 2017; Bilgili et al., 2017; Loiacono & Vargas, 2019). The findings indicate that particularly individual characteristics, social capital, location as well as aspirations mattered in terms of who finds access to the labour market and the level of well-being attained. Yet, most studies neither include the role of refugee policies and only limitedly account for the heterogeneity among refugee groups. This signals the need for a closer examination on how the access to the labour market in LMICs is shaped. Studies on refugees and the labour market in LMICs, where most refugees are located, centre around the notions of livelihood and self-reliance, and refugee economy. Though some are quantitative, the majority of studies take a qualitative methodological approach. Self-reliance in particular is concerned with: “the social and economic ability of an individual, a household or a community to meet its essential needs […] in a sustainable manner and with dignity - developing and strengthening livelihoods of persons of concern and reducing their vulnerability and long-term reliance on humanitarian assistance” (UNHCR, 2005, bk. 2, p.1). Recent discussions argue for the need of a holistic approach, comprising both economic and non-economic needs (see also the policy brief by Easton-Calabria et al., 2017)6 though most studies seem to approach the notion of self-reliance from an economic perspective (Skran & Easton-Calabria, 2020)7. Nonetheless, its neoliberal undertone that sees it the refugee as an “autonomous and self-disciplined individual” (Easton-Calabria & Omata, 2018, p. 6), places it often as an exit-strategy to the “care-and-maintenance models” (Crisp, 2003). It is thus oft equated with being able to live without external assistance (Easton-Calabria & Omata, 2018). Self-reliance is generally placed as the objective of livelihood programming. 6 This research brief compiles a collection of inputs resulting from a two-day workshop on rethinking refugee self-reliance, convened by Evan Easton-Calabria and Claudena Skran. 7 A recent development is the call for measuring self-reliance highlights which following a pilot in 2014/15 resulted in the Self-Reliance Index (see also Leeson et al., 2020; Refugee Self-Reliance Initiative, n.d.). 6 The concept of sustainable livelihood as developed by Chambers and Conway (1991), concerns “the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims and access) and activities required for a means of living” (p.6) that is able to cope with and recover from shocks. It thus comprises both tangible and intangible assets that contribute to material and social capital that shapes individual’s living. This was next developed into a policy tool, the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework by the DFID (1999) and further operationalised by Levine (2014). It is often discussed in relation to agrarian livelihoods (see Hunter, 2009; Jacobsen, 2002) though recognition on urban livelihoods has been included (Campbell, 2006; Jacobsen, 2006; Wake & Barbelet, 2020). Underlying the notion of livelihoods is the recognition of agency on the side of individuals (Haan & Zoomers, 2005). Overall, the literature re-affirms the relevance of the different capitals – human, social, financial, natural and physical capital – in shaping the livelihoods of displaced individuals in both formal and informal economy (e.g., Calhoun, 2010; DFID, 1999; Haan & Zoomers, 2005; Jacobsen, 2002, 2005, 2014; Werker, 2007). In particular, the combination of human, social and material capital affect a person’s agency to cope with changes and risks and explore livelihood opportunities (Omata & Kaplan, 2013). Social capital – either formal or informal networks – can ease the access to the labour market (Teye & Yebleh, 2014), though often immediately following flight a refugee’s social networks tends to have fallen apart (Jacobsen, 2014). While social capital can facilitate economic participation, its challenge is that in combination with exclusionary practices, this may result in dual labour market segmentation (e.g. in the case of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon (Abdulrahim & Khawaja, 2010)). Further, the access to material capital – whether through humanitarian assistance, remittances and local resources – may prove an additional determinant of to what extent an individual is able to actively shapes his or her participation (Jacobsen, 2001, 2002, 2005). 1.3. Urban vs Camp settlement While the studies concur that human, social and financial capital all have the potential to contribute to the livelihoods of refugees, a critical note is raised with regards to the legal and policy framework in place. The access to social, human, and material capital is generally shaped by (place-specific) institutions (Haan & Zoomers, 2005; Werker, 2007). Refugees often face unfavourable socio-political, legal and policy climate in the host country compared to other migrants (Jacobsen, 2014). The manner in which they are able to engage with the economy, depends on the status of the refugees, the manner of settlement, and freedom of movement (Betts et al., 2017; Haan & Zoomers, 2005; Hovil, 2014; Jacobsen, 2002, 2005, 2014; Werker, 2007). The manner of settlement plays out through encampment policies. While generally, host countries may put in place encampment policies to provide humanitarian visibility and since 13 Recognising that many refugees achieve at least some form of economic and social integration and the extent to which this is achieved is in part related back to the rights that are assigned, this study argues that one should critically consider to what extent groups are included and differ from the host community in terms of opportunity as this has an effect on both socioeconomic security and in turn may result in social exclusion of the individuals (Berman & Phillips, 2000). By not including refugees in the labour market, the states run the risk that refugees are marginalised even further. Therefore, a critical look at the structural barriers affecting the ability of refugees to participate is essential. The literature on social exclusion12 can be stated to inform these processes as it unfolds the marginalisation of groups alongside similar dimensions as the social citizenship and integration literature – namely political, economic and social dimensions (Berman & Phillips, 2000; Bhalla & Lapeyre, 1997; Silver, 2015). Yet, the concept of social exclusion should be seen as process that captures non-inclusive mechanisms (Atkinson, 1998; Fischer, 2011). The level in which a group is excluded may differ as individuals may be excluded in one dimension, while being included in others at the same time (Fischer, 2011; Kabeer, 2000). Thus, the concept of social exclusion should be understood as a dynamic construct where both between and within group exclusion may occur, and subgroups can be observed. Multiple fault lines may be at stake that reinforce each other. To better understand the position of the refugees on the labour market, this study particularly focuses on exclusion in the economic sphere which in itself may be said to be an indicator for social exclusion at large. The next sub-section discusses the concept of social exclusion with regards to non-inclusion of refugees in the labour market. It seeks to detail both the mechanisms through which non-inclusion occurs and identifiable fault lines as well as noninclusionary labour market outcomes. 3. Social exclusion and refugees in the labour market In low and middle-income countries, economic exclusion has been stated to be “at the heart of the problem of exclusion” (Bhalla & Lapeyre, 1997, p. 430). Considering employment is a key element to structurally integrate into society and to maintain a certain level of wellbeing, non-inclusionary practices in the labour market need to be considered within their relational capacity as these capture “inadequate social participation, lack of social integration and lack of power” (Berman & Phillips, 2000, p. 330). The level of exclusion experienced is determined by the interaction between individuals and 12 While studies differ on the exact definition of social exclusion, they agree that it should be understood as a process in which a group of people is marginalised from participating in social life (Atkinson, 1998; Kabeer, 2000; Vranken, 2001). Provided it includes a relational aspect incorporating the local context, the concept may be applied in both developing and developed countries (Bhalla & Lapeyre, 1997; Saith, 2001; Silver, 2015). This study particularly focuses on the economic dimension of social inclusion. 14 communities. This interaction can result from social closure and societal structures and processes (Fischer, 2011; Kabeer, 2000; Vranken, 2001). Social closure results in restrictions of access to resources (Kabeer, 2000; Vranken, 2001). Within the context of the labour market access for refugees this may be influenced by social capital, financial resources available, spatial segregation due to encampment policies, and restrictions in terms of work rights. Within this, it is important to recognise that the access of an individual to the labour market is not static but rather dynamic, and his or her position can change over time. Social structures and processes, on the other hand, take the shape of institutional biases via values, beliefs, rituals, and institutional procedures (Kabeer, 2000). These can also come from unruly practices. In particular, these are linked to the legal rights that an individual has access to. When it comes to policies, refugees’ realisation of economic rights is dependent on access to other rights such as social, civil and political rights. In the case of refugees, these rights link back to the type of settlement, restrictions on freedom of movement, access to resources, and status (e.g., Haan & Zoomers, 2005; Jacobsen, 2001, 2014; Lakhani, 2013; Turner, 2015; Zetter & Ruaudel, 2016). Even if refugees have been granted the de jure right to work, de facto this may prove to be much more complicated as they lack access to documentation and financial institutions, face difficulty obtaining work permits, or their rights are subverted through other regulations which for example, may require partnerships with nationals when setting up a business (see amongst others Jacobsen, 2005; Schuettler & Caron, 2020; Zetter & Ruaudel, 2016). A study on livelihoods of Sudanese refugees in Egypt identifies three layers of marginalisation: 1) restrictive rights and access to public services, 2) distrust on the side of the host community and 3) willingness and aspirations on the side of refugees to partake in the economy (Grabska, 2005). These layers are affected by discriminatory practices that persist in society. These may play out through hiring practices by the host community. Further, they affect the willingness to work on the side of refugees. To exemplify, the study by Loiacono and Silva Vargas (2019) on Uganda indicates that the level of trust between refugees and host communities as well as the understanding of refugee rights, shape both the hiring practices by firms, as well aspirations on the side of refugees. After all, the perception by the refugee on risk and possibilities resulting from policies, can further influence how they shape their labour market engagement in the host community. Even if policies are in place that enable the right to work, refugees may perceive these to place them at risk in the future if reverted as they would then be classified as active in the labour market (Wake & Barbelet, 2020). Thus, social closure and societal structures are closely linked to each other. Restrictive policies that deny equal rights directly affect the labour market participation of refugees, and indirectly the access of refugees to labour market institutions and structures (Gorodzeisky, 2013; Silver, 2015). Whereas cultural, linguistic, or ethnic affinity may allow for a more welcoming reception (Jacobsen, 2001), restrictive, non-inclusionary policies may be adopted by states for fear of national identity, security and/or competition over socio- 15 economic resources can result in non-inclusionary policies (e.g., Gorodzeisky, 2013; Jacobsen, 1996; Lakhani, 2013; Turner, 2015). As a result, refugees often face unfavourable socio-political, legal and policy climate in the host country compared to other migrants (Jacobsen, 2014). 3.1. Fault lines in relation to refugees In short, the outcome of refugees on the labour market is shaped by the institutional regime in place. This regime is determined by the role of various actors and the regulatory environment – see also the discussion in section 2.1.4, in combination with non-inclusionary practices pertaining to status, rights and location. These non-inclusionary practices culminate in fault lines that underly the exclusion refugees face in the labour market. They can be described as a gap, wall or barrier to being included in society. From a theoretical perspective, the fault lines can be shaped by social closure, societal structures and processes, as well as spatial fault lines (Vranken, 2001) and in turn affect an individual’s outcome in the labour market. Fault lines can have long lasting consequences. Recognising that social exclusion should be seen as a process (Fischer, 2011) and that policies may change over time, a critical look is required to how labour market outcomes for refugees are linked back to the different fault lines in place. While refugees already face social inequality, refugee-related policies – such as legal status, encampment and labour market policies for refugees - may change over time due to security, identity, competition, and global political considerations. This in turn further affects labour market outcomes of refugees. Recognising that the rights for refugees may change over time and are not static, this study moves beyond the argumentation that the policies at the time of arrival shape outcomes (Nimeh, 2012). 3.2. Non-inclusionary Indicators of Labour Market Engagement The refugee policy is thus a key determinant of the vulnerability of refugees and their ability to pursue livelihoods (Haan & Zoomers, 2005; Jacobsen, 2002, 2014). It is closely linked to the location where individuals reside, as many oft find themselves either in camps, informal settlements or in concentrated poorer areas, educational attainment as well as ability to translate education into certain job opportunities, distance from work and public services etc. Elements that are already stated to underly segregation or exclusion in the economic dimension and affect income, production and recognition (Bhalla & Lapeyre, 1997; Silver, 2015). The economic dimension is closely linked to the social element as well, as the social dimension underlying social exclusion affects the manner in which one has access to the labour market (Bhalla & Lapeyre, 1997). Particularly when refugees are reliant upon structures such as the informal sector due to the lack of right to pursue livelihoods (Jacobsen, 2014), social capital is important in shaping the access of refugees to labour market opportunities. Although, as also 16 indicated above, this may result in dual labour market structures with a primary labour market characterised by stability and upward mobility and a secondary labour market that provides low wage jobs (Reich et al., 1973). Due to a lock in effect resulting from social capital, refugees can end up in the second tier (e.g., Abdulrahim & Khawaja, 2010; Potocky-Tripodi, 2001, 2004). The right to work shapes these indicators to a certain extent. However, it does not stop at the ability to participate in the labour market (see also Atkinson, 1998). Recognising that informal employment, casual labour and self-employment could be common forms of employment in the host country, the quality of employment relative to the host community should be considered (Bhalla & Lapeyre, 1997; Saith, 2001; Silver, 2015). From a rights-based perspective the following four components underlie the right to work: 1) access to decent and productive work; 2) just and safe working conditions; 3) protection from forced labour and employment; and 4) training, skill upgrading, and professional development (OHCHR, 2012). Due to the high share of informal employment in many lowand middle-income countries, underemployment, vulnerability of employment, and precariousness of work are useful indicators to consider in context of non-inclusionary labour market engagement. The precariousness of labour market engagement and vulnerability of employment captures the “short time horizon, bad working conditions, low earnings, partial or full exclusion from access to social security” (Bhalla & Lapeyre, 1997, p. 429). In addition, elements such as job turnover or second jobs or forced labour may be reflective of vulnerability. Lastly, underemployment captures to what extent education is able to translate into labour market outcomes. These outcomes are in part shaped by policies as also argued above. As Werker (2007) also sets out in the case of camp economy, residence of an individual and the type of activities open to refugees has an effect on whether refugees are able to match their skills. Further, the experiences by Palestinian refugees in Lebanon showcases amongst others how mobility restrictions, such as check points, and legal entitlements, results in lower working conditions (Hanafi et al., 2012; Hanafi & Tiltnes, 2008). Hence, when discussing the non-inclusionary labour market engagement of refugees, a twostage framework should be adhered to – see Figure 1 below. This captures firstly, whether an individual engages on the labour market or not. This stage is informed both by the legal right to work as well as the agency of a refugee to engage in the labour market. Next, it sets out to understand under which condition an individual can engage in the labour market. It thus goes beyond approaching labour market participation from a socio-economic security perspective in which one considers whether someone is employed or unemployed (Berman & Phillips, 2000). 17 Figure 1: A Non-Inclusionary approach to Labour Market Engagement Source: Authors’ Illustration 4. Conclusion: Deriving at a Conceptual Framework Having set out the various debates on labour market participation of refugees, and discussing the relevance of a social exclusion perspective, we conclude this paper by setting out a conceptual framework underlying labour market engagement of refugees from a social justice perspective – see Figure 2. Accounting for the relational and dynamic aspect that underlie social exclusion, this framework considers that the policy pertaining to refugees may change over time. On a micro-level, the refugee’s position is shaped by both individual and household characteristics including the human, social, and material capital; this is in turn influences their ability to participate in the labour market. However, policies pertaining to status, mobility and right to work shape the extent to which they participate in the labour market as well as under which conditions they engage (e.g., Zetter & Ruaudel, 2016). However, to be able to enact on their agency, the participation of refugees in the labour market is influenced by overarching conditions such as national economic conditions and the relation between the host community and refugees. After all, elements affecting the status of refugees and the policies taken towards refugees include the negative perception by the host community due to concerns on security and competition over resources. These conditions affect both to what extent refugees are able to capitalise on their capitals as well as how policies are shaped. In the analysis, it should be recognised that refugee populations in host countries are heterogeneous by nature, and it would therefore be a falsity to approach them as a homogeneous group. There are differences in economic strategies between and within groups of refugees resulting from fragmentation in the market, legal distinction (including cause for displacement) and access to capital (Betts et al., 2014). Additionally, different policies towards 18 refugees may be adapted both between and within states (see for example Davis et al., 2017; Frost & Shteiwi, 2018; Hanafi, 2014). This in turn determines labour market outcomes. Furthermore, the discussion in section 2.1 highlighted the different interplays for urban and camp refugees. This in turn results in different trajectories for both groups in the short and long run. While on the short term, perspectives to national security may affect decisions such as encampment (e.g., Turner, 2015), the policies affecting protracted refugees are more likely to stem from perceived self-identity/national identity. This can affect the willingness to hire or participate and may result in labour market segmentation (see Hanafi et al., 2012). It is also expected that human capital through education becomes more important in case of protracted refugees. Regardless of duration, location where one resides continue to play a role in shaping the institutional environment. While the framework recognises the heterogeneity among different refugees in the host community, for both urban and camp refugees, human and material capital are important characteristics in shaping labour market engagement. In contrast, urban refugees are expected to benefit more from social networks compared to camp refugees, although this may result in a dual economy structure (Abdulrahim & Khawaja, 2010; Reich et al., 1973). In terms of camp economy, the structure may offer opportunities. Werker (2007) particularly stresses the interplay between institutional environment, demographics, and humanitarian assistance on the likelihood of labour market participation in the refugee camp economy. While access to humanitarian resources could contribute to income-generating activities, their ability to participate in the labour market is simultaneously curbed by their restrictive legal status. Restrictions on freedom of movement, such as the ability to leave the camp, may further curb opportunities. In all cases, policies pertaining to status, encampment, and the right to work affect the extent to which refugees are able to utilise their skill set and subsequently, end up working in suboptimal conditions. The conceptual framework which is presented in this paper aims to provide a comprehensive illustration for examining the labour market engagement of refugees stemming for a social justice perspective. It highlights the dynamic and relational aspects of social exclusion and underlines the critical role of adaptable and context-specific policies in shaping refugees' opportunities and constraints. Ultimately these policies should support the refugees in exercising their agency, engaging in the labour market, and achieving self-reliance. Amid constantly evolving global challenges, this can be beneficial not only for the refugees but also for the host communities, contributing to economic growth, social cohesion, and the fulfilment of humanitarian responsibilities. 19 Figure 2: Labour Market Engagement of Refugees Framework Source: Authors ‘Illustration 20 References Abdulrahim, S., & Khawaja, M. (2010). The Cost of Being Palestinian in Lebanon. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(1), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183x.2011.521363 Al-Mahaidi, A. (2021). Securing economic livelihoods for Syrian refugees: the case for a human rights-based approach to the Jordan Compact.pdf. The International Journal of Human Rights, 25(2), 203–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2020.1763314 Andrews, C., Montesquiou, A. de, Sánchez, I. A., Dutta, P. V., Paul, B. V., Samaranayake, S., Heisey, J., Clay, T., & Chaudhary, S. (2021). The State of Economic Inclusion Report 2021: The Potential to Scale. World Bank. Atkinson, T. (1998). Social Exclusion, Poverty and Unemployment. CASE Paper, 4, 9–24. Berman, Y., & Phillips, D. (2000). Indicators of Social Quality and Social Exclusion at National and Community Level. Social Indicators Research, 50(3), 329–350. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1007074127144 Betts, A., Bloom, L., Kaplan, J., & Omata, N. (2014). Refugee Economies: Rethinking Popular Assumptions. Humanitarian Innovation Project, University of Oxford. https://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/files/files-1/refugee-economies-2014.pdf Betts, A., Bloom, L., Kaplan, J., & Omata, N. (2017). Refugee Economies. Forced Displacement and Development. Oxford University Press. Bhalla, A., & Lapeyre, F. (1997). Social Exclusion: Towards an Analytical and Operational Framework. Development and Change, 28(3), 413–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/14677660.00049 Bilgili, Ö., Loschmann, C., & Siegel, M. (2017). The Gender-Based Effects of Displacement: The Case of Congolese Refugees in Rwanda. KNOMAD Working Paper, 21. Bloch, A. (2008). Refugees in the UK Labour Market: The Conflict between Economic Integration and Policy-led Labour Market Restriction. Journal of Social Policy, 37(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/s004727940700147x Borjas, G. J. (1994). The Economics of Immigration. Journal of Economic Literature, XXXII, 1667–1717. Bosniak, L. (2017). Status Non-Citizens. In A. Shachar, R. Bauböck, I. Bloemraad, & and M. Vink (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Citizenship (pp. 313–336). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198805854.013.14 Calhoun, N. (2010). With a little help from our friends: a participatory assessment of social capital among refugees in Jordan. New Issues in Refugee Research, 189. 21 Campbell, E. H. (2006). Urban Refugees in Nairobi: Problems of Protection, Mechanisms of Survival, and Possibilities for Integration. Journal of Refugee Studies, 19(3), 396–413. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fel011 Carpi, E. (2019). Towards a Neo-cosmetic Humanitarianism: Refugee Self-reliance as a Social-cohesion Regime in Lebanon’s Halba. Journal of Refugee Studies, 33(1), 224–244. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fez083 Castles, S., Haas, H. de, & Miller, M. J. (2014). The Age of Migration. International Population Movements in the Modern World (5th ed.). Palgrave MacMillan. Chambers, R., & Conway, G. R. (1991). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper, 296. Christensen, A., & Harild, N. (2009). Forced Displacement: The Development Challenge (Conflict, Crime & Violence Issue Note). The World Bank Group. Chung, E. A. (2017). Citizenship in Non-Western Contexts. In A. Shachar, R. Bauböck, I. Bloemraad, & M. Vink (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Citizenship (pp. 430–452). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198805854.013.19 Connor, P. (2010). Explaining the Refugee Gap: Economic Outcomes of Refugees versus Other Immigrants. Journal of Refugee Studies, 23(3), 377–397. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/feq025 Costello, C., & Cinnéide, C. Ó. (2021). The Right to Work. In C. Costello, M. Foster, & J. McAdam (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Refugee Law (pp. 952–970). Oxford University Press. Crisp, J. (2003, October 22). UNHCR, refugee livelihoods and self-reliance: a brief history. UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/research/eval/3f978a894/unhcr-refugee-livelihoods-selfreliance-brief-history.html Davis, R., Benton, G., Todman, W., & Murphy, E. (2017). Hosting Guests, Creating Citizens: Models of Refugee Administration in Jordan and Egypt. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 36(2), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdx003 DFID. (1999). Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. DFID. https://www.ennonline.net/dfidsustainableliving Doocy, S., Burnham, G., Biermann, E., & Tileva, M. (2011). Household Economy and Livelihoods among Iraqi Refugees in Syria. Journal of Refugee Studies, 25(2), 282–300. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fer049 Easton-Calabria, E., Krause, U., Field, J., Tiwari, A., Mookherjee, Y., Barbelet, C. W., Barbelet, V., Carpi, E., Slaughter, A., & Leeson, K. (2017). Refugee Self-Reliance. Moving Beyond the Marketplace. RSC Research in Brief, 7. https://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/publications/refugeeself-reliance-moving-beyond-the-marketplace 22 Easton-Calabria, E., & Omata, N. (2018). Panacea for the refugee crisis? Rethinking the promotion of ‘self-reliance’ for refugees. Third World Quarterly, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2018.1458301 Essex-Lettieri, D., Howzell, R., Rawson, B., Mirza, A., & Therkelsen, J. (2017). Refugee Work Rights Report. The Syrian Crisis and Refugee Access to Lawful Work in Greece, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. Asylum Access and Refugee Work Rights. https://refugeeworkrights.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/10/Middle-East-Refugee-Work-Rights-Syrian-Crisis.pdf Fielden, A. (2008). Local integration: an under-reported solution to protracted refugee situations. New Issues in Refugee Research, 158. https://www.unhcr.org/486cc99f2.pdf Fischer, A. M. (2011). Reconceiving Social Exclusion. Brookings World Poverty Institute Working Paper, 146. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1805685 Frost, L. C., & Shteiwi, M. M. (2018). Syrian refugees and citizenship. In N. A. Butenschøn & R. Meijer (Eds.), The Middle East in Transition: the Centrality of Citizenship (pp. 292–315). Edwar Elgar Publishing. https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781788111126/9781788111126.00022.xml Gomez, M. P., & Christensen, A. (2010). The Impacts of Refugees on Neighboring Countries: A Development Challenge (World Development Report Background Papers). World Bank. Gorodzeisky, A. (2013). Mechanisms of exclusion: attitudes toward allocation of social rights to out-group population. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(5), 795–813. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2011.631740 Grabska, K. (2005). Living on the Margins: The Analysis of the Livelihood Strategies of Sudanese Refugees with Closed Files in Egypt. FMRS Working Paper. Grabska, K. (2006). Marginalization in Urban Spaces of the Global South: Urban Refugees in Cairo. Journal of Refugee Studies, 19(3), 287–307. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fel014 Haan, L. de, & Zoomers, A. (2005). Exploring the Frontier of Livelihoods Research. Development and Change, 36(1), 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0012-155x.2005.00401.x Hanafi, S. (2014). Forced Migration in the Middle East and North Africa. In E. FiddianQasmiyeh, G. Loescher, K. Long, & and N. Sigona (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies (pp. 585–598). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199652433.013.0029 Hanafi, S., Chaaban, J., & Seyfert, K. (2012). Social Exclusion of Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon: Reflections on the Mechanisms that Cement their Persistent Poverty. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 31(1), 34–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdr018 Hanafi, S., & Tiltnes, Å. A. (2008). The Employability of Palestinian Professionals in Lebanon: Constraints and Transgression. Knowledge, Work and Society, 5(1), 1–15. http://www.databank.com.lb/docs/Employability%20of%20Palestinian%20Professionals