‘Managing’ the paradox: refugee self-reliance and solving the problem of refugee policy discontinuity

Abstract The refugee self-reliance agenda is marked by tensions and contradictions, echoing wider incoherence in the international refugee regime. We explore these through the philosophical concept of paradoxes. Paradoxes allow for multiple interests and narratives to be simultaneously ‘true’, leading to refugee policy outcomes that are often incoherent by omission instead of commission. To illustrate this, we draw on recent empirical studies to examine how increased access to digital technology can paradoxically lead to less access and agency in relation to health and financial services for refugees and less integration into host community life. We call these the paradox of information overload and the paradox of regulatory systems. We close with discussion of how paradoxes can a conceptual tool for policy makers and researchers to identify root causes of refugee policy incoherence, and how spaces of action can be created to ‘manage the paradox’.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Refugee Studies
Published
2025-03-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/feaf012
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Migration, Refugees, and Integration
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.20
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

‘Managing’ the paradox: refugee self-reliance and solving the problem of refugee policy discontinuity

Evan Easton‐Calabria, Judith Kohlenberger, Charles Martin-Shields
1 citations
Journal of Refugee Studies
Migration, Refugees, and Integration
4.20
article

‘Managing’ the paradox: refugee self-reliance and solving the problem of refugee policy discontinuity

Evan Easton‐Calabria, Judith Kohlenberger, Charles Martin-Shields
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract The refugee self-reliance agenda is marked by tensions and contradictions, echoing wider incoherence in the international refugee regime. We explore these through the philosophical concept of paradoxes. Paradoxes allow for multiple interests and narratives to be simultaneously ‘true’, leading to refugee policy outcomes that are often incoherent by omission instead of commission. To illustrate this, we draw on recent empirical studies to examine how increased access to digital technology can paradoxically lead to less access and agency in relation to health and financial services for refugees and less integration into host community life. We call these the paradox of information overload and the paradox of regulatory systems. We close with discussion of how paradoxes can a conceptual tool for policy makers and researchers to identify root causes of refugee policy incoherence, and how spaces of action can be created to ‘manage the paradox’.

Journal of Refugee StudiesVol. 38(3)
Vienna University of Economics and Business (AT), Tufts University (US), German Institute of Development and Sustainability (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Migration, Refugees, and Integration
4.20
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.