Home :: News & Events :: News :: Refugees: Why They Are Not An Economic Burden
20 June 2018
Refugees: Why They Are Not An Economic Burden
June 19, 2018
By Prof. Hartwig de Haen and Richard Seifman (Board Member of UNA-NCA)
Globally, there are over 22 million refugees. This number is growing, with the majority of refugees concentrated in the Global South. Whether the result of natural or man made catastrophic events, refugees are usually cast as economic burdens for host countries – yet the facts provide conclusive evidence that they are not.

It is time to recast the economic discussion on refugees based on sound science.

Often national or local media and politicians fix on incomplete data or an incident that reflects badly on the “outsiders,” skewing the common perception and government response to refugees. Anti-refugee sentiments expressed recently in Germany, Sweden, Italy, Slovenia, and the United States are examples of this.

Our search for studies that assess whether refugees generate costs or benefits for host countries indicates that this research is largely limited to developed country cases. Few examinations take both short- and long-term views to determine the costs and benefits of integrating refugees into society.

Typically, public expenditure is used to determine costs, e.g., processing, accommodations, and provision of basic needs, including health, education, and social welfare, for refugees during the first years after entry into a country. A long-term view would include the costs to and benefits received directly or indirectly from refugees by the state.


In the light of Austria’s recent turn to populist solutions to the immigration problem, it is interesting to take a closer look at what really happened with the refugees that succeeded in entering the labour market.

A comprehensive study in Austria concluded that refugees can generate a positive net benefit for the economy of the host country. In such a case, taxes and social security payments by the refugees exceed transfer payments to them.

Initial refugees’ net benefits to the economy were relatively small, but the authors underline that these benefits could rise significantly if the host country provides sufficient support for investments in refugees’ general and professional education to facilitate their successful entry into the labour market.  In the absence of such investments, the benefits begin to stagnate or even decline after some years.

As a result, the authors see an urgent need for host countries to make much greater efforts to improve refugees’ integration through early and sustainable professional qualification.

So far, only 50% of all male refugees in Austria find a job, and this rate is much lower for women. The situation is quite similar in other developed countries, although it varies depending on the refugees’ level of professional education and on the respective labour markets. Hence, in situations of labour shortages in developed countries, both refugees and host countries’ economies may benefit from admission of the refugees.  

However, it should be noted that the study only applied to refugees who had been granted asylum. Therefore, the often rather high costs and long duration of asylum application processing did not enter this comparison of costs and benefits. Of course, whether or not a host country realizes a net benefit not just from recognized refugees, but from all asylum seekers, is also determined by the costs and duration of application processing.


Immigrants, of which refugees are a subset, provide additional perspective.

A Harvard Business Review article “Why Are Immigrants More Entrepreneurial?” (October 2016), citing data from the 2012 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, showed that “the vast majority of the 69 countries surveyed reported higher entrepreneurial activity among immigrants than among natives, especially in growth-oriented ventures.”

This is the case of the tech industry, most famously Silicon Valley, where the founders and CEOs of tech enterprises, whether established global corporations like Microsoft or rising “unicorns” are often recent immigrants.


What about refugees in low and middle income countries: are there benefits to host communities, regions, and nations? What we do know, based on limited analyses in various circumstances is the following:

In low income countries, refugees bring new clients to local businesses as they attract substantial foreign assistance for goods and basic services in nearly every sector, and they are themselves consumers.

This is the case in the agriculture sector, and with respect to food security. Before leaving their home countries, many of the refugees were earning their livings in agriculture or related activities in rural areas. These people are typically highly interested and motivated to use their skills in the new environment, be it to improve their own families’ direct access to food or to contribute indirectly to local food security.

Given access to land, basic tools, inputs, and infrastructure, refugees can provide new impetus for economic activity and growth, when local producer and consumer concerns are considered.

Often, and equally importantly, refugees open small businesses to serve their populations and bring skills not found locally, especially in remote settings.

In Kenya, the 185,000-person Kakuma Refugee camp brought a substantial level of private commercial investments. Uganda offers another example of the strengths (as well as weaknesses) of a more open refugee policy.


In both low and middle income countries, investment in the health sector represents a major public sector expenditure and a potential constraint to worker productivity.

External assistance can be significant and is among the primary responses to refugees, along with food assistance and provision of shelter. It involves addressing basic health needs and establishing health facilities, most often in remote areas where government support to its population is inadequate.

Servicing of the refugee community can directly or indirectly spill over to an underserved surrounding community. For example, a World Bank project, the regional Africa Great Lakes Initiative for HIV/AIDS (GLIA), which began in 2005, required that HIV support for refugees be accompanied by financing for surrounding communities.  

Disease prevention, surveillance, detection, and response in a subregion is often expanded with the presence of such a refugee community, benefiting both refugees and hosts alike.


There are many examples of how refugees can enrich their new country, bringing skill sets in limited supply and opening attention and access to underserved areas.

Innovative approaches to match refugees with host city needs are currently in development. This discussion touches only the tip of the unexplored potential for conducting in-depth research into the costs and benefits of a significant refugee presence in different settings, taking into account the economic, social, and security context of the host country.  Objective analyses that build a methodology and evidence base and generate sound data on the benefit side of the equation will lead to more valuable conversations in political classes and recipient host country populations.

Along with humanitarian support, external funders, in conjunction with national governments, need to provide funds for studies that fairly assess the direct and indirect economic impacts of refugee communities.


In the near future, migration, the number of refugees moving between and within countries in response to conflict, economic need, and climate change is likely to increase. Much of what follows applies to immigrants as well, though they do not have access to the protection provided by international law (the Geneva Conventions).

Conducting well-designed studies to understand the impact and potentially capitalize on this movement for the benefit of both refugees and receiving communities should be a near-term priority. Specifically:

(1) temporary assistance and assimilation of refugees into host communities will benefit from increased economic and social research on the impacts of refugees on receiving communities in various sectors (e.g., agriculture, commerce, and health);

(2) Cities in the U.S. and elsewhere that are leading in the integration of migrants should serve as laboratories for study (e.g., Dallas, TX, USA, and Kilis, Turkey; Confronting the Global Forced Migration Crisis, CSIS, 2018), and documenting the impact of these municipal programs, including assessing societal benefits of refugee resettlement, will be essential;

(3) The 2016 UN New York Declaration provided a basis for the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration.

Adoption of this Compact will be an important step forward. It, and policies that follow, must be informed by sound science to ensure the mutually beneficial integration of refugees into host communities.

Article from Impakter.com, click here.