such seemingly straightforward assertions are a myriad of theoretical assumptions, all of which must be tested for the case to stand. Consequently, a number of studies have shown that the impact on differing sectors of the host population and spheres of government, as well as differing elements of this impact for example, on security, the environment or infrastructure precludes any generalisation regarding the or of refugee-hosting on local ‘burden’ ‘benefit’ communities and host states. In fact, in some spheres, refugee influx can create opportunities and broader social, political and economic development in the area. Contrary to popular readings of refugee situations, the potential for refugees to present a is often due to host government restrictions on livelihood opportunities. ‘burden’ Scholars argued that the binary polarisation between and can and ‘burden’ ‘benefit’ should be broken down to better understand the obstacles and opportunities of refugee-presence for developing host countries, yet this sharp distinction is actually perpetuated through the RAD literature. It is assumed that the RAD approach itself will transform this, refugees to act as a rather than a ‘empowering’ ‘benefit’ ‘burden’, despite a lack of engagement or analysis of the conditions that determine refugees’ presence as a burden. Moreover, these scholars argued that the SRS is built on vague notions of transforming the presence of refugees from a to a ‘burden’ ‘benefit’, without examination of conditions under which such a shift could be achieved. 3.3.4The Relief-Development Gap The RAD approach is also presented as an effort to link the relief and development paradigms. This is due to the fact that in protracted refugee situations, refugees’ needs are no longer strictly relief-related, and yet are often not addressed through a developmental outlook, funding or institutional support. The RAD approach proposes bridging the by addressing refugee issues through a development paradigm. ‘gap’
such seemingly straightforward assertions are a myriad of theoretical assumptions, all of which must be tested for the case to stand. Consequently, a number of studies have shown that the impact on differing sectors of the host population and spheres of government, as well as differing elements of this impact for example, on security, the environment or infrastructure precludes any generalisation regarding the ‘burden’ or ‘benefit’ of refugee-hosting on local communities and host states. In fact, in some spheres, refugee influx can create opportunities and broader social, political and economic development in the area. Contrary to popular readings of refugee situations, the potential for refugees to present a ‘burden’ is often due to host government restrictions on livelihood opportunities. Scholars argued that the binary polarisation between ‘burden’ and ‘benefit’ can and should be broken down to better understand the obstacles and opportunities of refugee-presence for developing host countries, yet this sharp distinction is actually perpetuated through the RAD literature. It is assumed that the RAD approach itself will transform this, ‘empowering’ refugees to act as a ‘benefit’ rather than a ‘burden’, despite a lack of engagement or analysis of the conditions that determine refugees’ presence as a burden. Moreover, these scholars argued that the SRS is built on vague notions of transforming the presence of refugees from a ‘burden’ to a ‘benefit’, without examination of conditions under which such a shift could be achieved. 3.3.4The Relief-Development Gap The RAD approach is also presented as an effort to link the relief and development paradigms. This is due to the fact that in protracted refugee situations, refugees’ needs are no longer strictly relief-related, and yet are often not addressed through a developmental outlook, funding or institutional support. The RAD approach proposes bridging the ‘gap’ by addressing refugee issues through a development paradigm.