This article investigates why some low- and middle-income countries give refugees the right to work, while others do not. The authors disaggregate the right to work for refugees into the de jure right (rights in law) and the de facto right (rights in practice). They argue that the central government determines the de jure right to work, while local governments determine the de facto right to work.
The mixed-methods research includes an empirical analysis of the correlates of de jure and de facto refugee rights to work, based on an original dataset covering more than 100 countries hosting more than 1,000 refugees in 2017, including 73 low- and middle-income countries. They consider several explanatory variables including: (1) adoption of the 1951 Refugee Convention or the 1967 Protocol; (2) GDP per capita; (3) a stable employment rate; (4) the size of the refugee population; (5) amount of official development assistance (ODA) per capita; (6) ethnicity of the refugee population; (7) a decentralization index; and (8) ethnic fractionalization within countries.
The authors also conducted a comparative study of three refugee-hosting countries in East Africa—Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda—that exhibit variation in de jure and de facto rights to work. Uganda has the de jure and de facto right to work, Ethiopia has the de jure right to work but not the de facto right to work, while Kenya has the de facto right to work in part of the country but not the de jure right to work.
Main findings:
- The comparative analysis suggests that pay-offs from the international level matter. When financial incentives are provided by the international community to the central government, there is a commitment to the de jure right to work. When financial incentives accrue directly (or via the central government) at the local level, then the de facto right to work can be found.
- The most important variable predicting de jure right to work is whether a country has adopted the 1951 Refugee Convention or 1967 Protocol. Countries that have adopted the 1951 Refugee Convention or 1967 Protocol are 43 percentage points more likely to have legislation that includes an explicit right to work for refugees under similar conditions to nationals. Countries with British legal origins are 32 percentage points less likely to offer a de jure right to work to refugees. Overall, about half of the explained variation in refugee rights to work is explained by norm-based factors. There is weak evidence that ODA is associated with de jure rights to work, but the importance of this factor is low. Decentralization is positively associated with refugee de jure right to work, explaining 8 percent of the variation in the outcome.
- Decentralization is the most important factor explaining refugees’ de facto right to work. Decentralization explains 10.5 percent of the variation in the dependent variable. Having adopted the 1951 Refugee Convention or 1967 Protocol is also an important predictor of refugee de facto right to work; countries that have adopted the international obligations are 69 percentage points more likely to allow refugees to work in practice.
- Adoption of the 1951 Refugee Convention or 1967 Protocol and decentralization also explain refugees’ right to freedom of movement. Countries that have adopted the 1951 Refugee Convention or 1967 Protocol are about 35 percentage points more likely to grant de jure and de facto freedom to choose place of residency for refugees. Decentralized countries are more likely to let refugees chose their place of residency, especially in practice. Countries with British legal origins are less likely to grant freedom of residency rights to refugees in their law, but legal origins do not seem to matter in practice.
Overall, countries that have adopted the 1951 Refugee Convention or 1967 Protocol are much more likely to grant rights to refugees, both in law and in practice. This result highlights the power of international commitments and the need to pursue international efforts to support the institutionalization of international norms. Additionally, decentralization is an important predictor of refugee rights, especially de facto rights. The authors conclude that in many refugee-hosting countries, the de jure right to work is predominantly shaped at the national and international levels, while the de facto right to work relies more upon political buy-in at the local level.