This paper investigates the long-term impacts of displacement on the welfare, risk attitudes, social cohesion, and trust in state institutions among internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Colombia. The study seeks to address a gap in the existing literature by concentrating on the distinct challenges encountered by IDPs, as opposed to other forms of wartime victimization. Colombia, with approximately 5 million IDPs in a population of 50 million, has one of the largest internally displaced populations globally.
The analysis is based on data from an original survey of 1,500 rural households across fifty municipalities in Colombia, conducted between March and June 2017. The sample is largely homogeneous in terms of poverty, rurality, and conflict exposure but varies significantly in displacement incidence. The survey includes modules on post-displacement experiences, such as the duration of displacement, reasons for return, and progress in seeking reparations. Additionally, the authors conducted qualitative interviews with key stakeholders, including NGOs and government agencies involved in land restitution in Colombia, as well as victims of displacement. These interviews aimed to explore two critical post-displacement questions: (1) who returns home after being displaced, and why? (2) why do some victims pursue reparations for lost property from the state while others do not?
Descriptive insights reveal that more than half of the IDPs eventually return to their place of origin, primarily for economic and social reasons, with minimal state assistance. The median return time is five years, although many take much longer. Among those who never return, security concerns and the inability to recover property—either due to destruction or legal issues—are the predominant obstacles. Only a quarter of IDPs in the sample formally seek restitution of property from the state. The restitution process is also lengthy: among those who achieve restitution, the average respondent spent 2.25 years in the process, while others at different stages of restitution spend much longer. The process itself is opaque, costly, and difficult for victims to navigate.
Main empirical findings:
- Displaced individuals are significantly worse off economically compared to their non-displaced counterparts. They report lower income levels, higher food insecurity, greater risk of eviction, and anticipate more difficulties in transferring property to inheritors or family members. These economic hardships persist even many years after displacement.
- Displacement does not significantly alter risk-seeking behavior, contrary to a large body of literature linking poverty to increased risk tolerance.
- Despite facing economic challenges, displaced individuals exhibit higher levels of social cohesion and mobilization. They are more likely to participate in solving local problems, support collective action, be willing to pay taxes if used to help the needy, and attend various local meetings.
- Displacement does not seem to generate changes in trust levels, which are generally low across the board, or land tenure security.
- Sex and ethnicity are significant predictors of the likelihood of return. Male IDPs are more likely to return than female IDPs, while non-white IDPs are more likely to return than white IDPs.
- The likelihood of seeking restitution is influenced by sex, participation in local meetings, and the characteristics of the origin municipality. Male IDPs are more likely than female IDPs to formally seek restitution of lost property. IDPs who have attended local meetings for victims of the conflict are more likely to seek restitution. The probability of seeking restitution decreases with increased rural character of the origin municipality. Despite the legalistic nature of restitution processes, income and education levels have little predictive power in determining who seeks restitution.
The study concludes that displacement has long-lasting negative economic effects but can also foster social cohesion and community mobilization. Additionally, continuing insecurity and difficulties in recovering property are major impediments to return. In terms of policy, this suggests the need for interventions that address the disproportionate economic burden faced by IDPs and leverage their higher capacity for collective action in ‘bottom-up’ peacebuilding efforts. Moreover, addressing ongoing security concerns and enhancing state capacity for post-conflict reparations are crucial for facilitating the return of IDPs to their homes. Policymakers should also focus on improving the restitution process for victims seeking restitution and explore how differential uptake of restitution may exacerbate inequities in post-conflict societies. Interventions to streamline the restitution process and formalize land ownership can help reduce local conflicts between IDPs and secondary occupants, ensuring the rights of all parties involved.