economic indicators. The second is concerned with the factors that cause different settlement patterns. Few texts have systematically compared the effects of camp and settlement situations on refugeewelfare, host economies, and politicalstructures, or general levels ofsecurity and conflict. This is partially due to both a lack of available researchand its relatively slow consolidation. Another reason is the general tendency within refugee studies to shun potentially problematic comparisons in favour of case studies. While this has much to do with refugee studies' disciplinary origins in anthropology, there are other methodological issues that make structured comparison between camp and settlement situations difficult. These include, among others: differences in population-it is repeatedly the case that the most vulnerable and weakest stay within the camps and the more able refugees avoid them; third variables- the success or failure of planned or self-settlement may becontingent on a variety of variables, such as familiarity with the host country and its population, the degree of hospitality encountered, and the economic resources and land generally available. Increasingly, scholars that focus on refugee impact on local communities emphasize the importance of local context for success and failure of the pursuit of an ever-wider range of (refugee) policy aims; interdependence of cases- in many cases, refugees may live in different settlement patterns co-existing in the same host country, and linkages may exist between them. In such instances, refugees might be doubly based, using both the camp and the outside to ensure their personal or family livelihoods and/or survival. There is indeed consistent evidence of this phenomenon even though its significance is understandably difficult to gauge. Despite these limitations, the debate has continued.
economic indicators. The second is concerned with the factors that cause different settlement patterns. Few texts have systematically compared the effects of camp and settlement situations on refugeewelfare, host economies, and politicalstructures, or general levels ofsecurity and conflict. This is partially due to both a lack of available researchand its relatively slow consolidation. Another reason is the general tendency within refugee studies to shun potentially problematic comparisons in favour of case studies. While this has much to do with refugee studies' disciplinary origins in anthropology, there are other methodological issues that make structured comparison between camp and settlement situations difficult. These include, among others: differences in population-it is repeatedly the case that the most vulnerable and weakest stay within the camps and the more able refugees avoid them; third variables- the success or failure of planned or self-settlement may becontingent on a variety of variables, such as familiarity with the host country and its population, the degree of hospitality encountered, and the economic resources and land generally available. Increasingly, scholars that focus on refugee impact on local communities emphasize the importance of local context for success and failure of the pursuit of an ever-wider range of (refugee) policy aims; interdependence of cases- in many cases, refugees may live in different settlement patterns co-existing in the same host country, and linkages may exist between them. In such instances, refugees might be doubly based, using both the camp and the outside to ensure their personal or family livelihoods and/or survival. There is indeed consistent evidence of this phenomenon even though its significance is understandably difficult to gauge. Despite these limitations, the debate has continued.
Yvonne's%20project-%20finall.docx