����vlog����

How do host countries shape refugee education policy in a global context where responsibility is shared and long-term integration is uncertain?

This theory-building paper, written by CID PhD Affiliate Shelby Carvalho and CID Faculty Affiliate Sarah Dryden-Peterson explores how the unique politics of refugee education diverge from standard political economy frameworks applied to citizen populations. Using the case of education, the authors propose a conceptual framework to understand the actors, incentives, and assumptions that shape host government decisions regarding social services for refugees.

Key Findings:

• Education Policy for Refugees Defies Standard Political Economy Models
  • Traditional political economy assumes that governments invest in public services like education when long-term national returns (economic, political, civic) are expected.
  • Refugee education, by contrast, operates under uncertainty—host countries often do not expect long-term integration or returns from refugee populations, complicating the understood purposes of education and investment incentives.
• Three Models of Refugee Education
  • Humanitarian: Refugees are excluded from national systems, education is short-term and donor-led. Example: Bangladesh.
  • Developmental: Refugees are fully included in national systems with equal rights and long-term prospects. Example: Canada.
  • Responsibility Sharing: Hybrid model blending humanitarian and development features; roles of national and international actors are blurred and vary across contexts. Examples: Kenya, Lebanon, Colombia, Uganda.
• Four Key Dimensions Define Refugee Education’s Political Economy
  • Purpose: Is education for labor market integration, civic inclusion, repatriation, and/or rights-based development?
  • Actors and Demand: Unlike citizen education, refugee education involves non-traditional actors (UN agencies, NGOs) and traditional domestic interest groups can vary in their interest or oppose refugee inclusion.
  • Incentives: Governments may act based on electoral, foreign policy, aid, or patronage incentives—but these often diverge from incentives for citizen education.
  • Responsibility: Unlike for citizens, there is no consensus that governments are responsible for refugee education—responsibility is shared, negotiated, or avoided.
• Political Economy Varies by Refugee “Futures”
  • Where refugees face legal restrictions (e.g., on work or citizenship), education policy is shaped by short-term logic or international pressure.
  • Where futures are uncertain, responsibility is contested and refugee education is unpredictable.
  • Where futures are possible, governments may see education as an investment—aligning closer with the purposes of education in developmental models.

Policy Impact and Relevance:

This research reframes refugee education as a distinct political economy challenge shaped by uncertainty, contested responsibility, and transnational incentives. At a time when global agendas push for refugee inclusion in national systems, the authors show that such inclusion is not just a technical or financial matter—it hinges on whether host governments expect long-term returns, how responsibility is defined, and whether refugee futures are legally and politically viable. Without this alignment, education policies risk being misaligned, unstable, or inequitable. 

The framework has broader relevance for understanding how marginalized populations access public goods in contexts shaped by global inequality. Refugees test the limits of state obligation: they are inside national borders but outside political membership. By centering “responsibility” as an analytic category, the authors illuminate how domestic actors, donors, and international agencies negotiate power, incentives, and accountability in ways that diverge from models based on citizen populations. 

Finally, the research speaks to a global shift in refugee governance, where high-income countries increasingly outsource protection to low- and middle-income states. Understanding how host states respond to these pressures—and under what conditions they invest in refugee services—offers critical insight into the durability, fairness, and effectiveness of current refugee policy regimes.