The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 58 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations
Open accessAbstract
Abstract The reintegration constituents of displaced populations are understudied, despite increased attention being paid to return and reintegration outcomes. In this paper, we explore how various factors related to the migration cycle, including returnees' displacement experiences and return conditions, are associated with reintegration outcomes. For this aim, we take a multidimensional approach to the measurement of reintegration. In addition to objective reintegration outcomes, measured by food security, we address subjective assessments such as feelings of reintegration. We focus on the unique case of returnees in Burundi and make use of a database consisting of a sample of 189 former internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 194 former refugees, which allows for a comparison of the reintegration of these two groups. The analyses highlight that objective and subjective reintegration do not necessarily align and that displacement experiences and return conditions relate to reintegration outcomes in different ways. Land and livestock ownership upon return are for example positively correlated with feelings of reintegration and subjective wealth, whereas community support is crucial to cope with food security. Moreover, we show considerable variation in reintegration outcomes between refugees and IDPs, with refugees showing more positive outcomes when individual characteristics are controlled for. This result calls for more in‐depth research on the contextual and structural factors that elucidate the variation across groups going beyond individual level explanations. Overall, the findings emphasise the diversity in reintegration outcomes and identify the role of experiences during displacement and return conditions for the reintegration of refugees and IDPs.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
50 Own result · 25 No basis given · 20 Own interpretation · 18 Sources not found · 11 No full text of the sources · 9 Not checked yet · 4 Own method · 2 Partly supported · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This finding is in line with previous studies that stressed the importance of access to income-generating activities during displacement (Betts et al., 2014;Fransen et al., 2017;Wirth et al., 2014).”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.3 | Main analysis: Reintegration constituents
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Betts et al., 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Fransen et al., 2017 source
The Conclusions (p. 19) explicitly highlight the importance of allowing refugees to engage in employment and other economic activities while displaced. The citing sentence presents better subjective wealth as its own finding, not as a result attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not matchedcites Wirth et al., 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“displacement experiences and return conditions relate to reintegration outcomes in different ways”
- Also stated in: § Abstract The reintegration constituents of displaced populations are understudied, despite increased attention being paid to return and reintegration outcomes.In this paper, we explore how various factors related to the migration cycle, including returnees' displacement experiences and return conditions, are associated with reintegration outcomes.For this aim, we take a multidimensional approach to the measurement of reintegration.In addition to objective reintegration outcomes, measured by food security, we address subjective assessments such as feelings of reintegration.We focus on the unique case of returnees in Burundi and make use of a database consisting of a sample of 189 former internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 194 former refugees, which allows for a comparison of the reintegration of these two groups.The analyses highlight that objective and subjective reintegration do not necessarily align and that displacement experiences and return conditions relate to reintegration outcomes in different ways.Land and livestock ownership upon return are for example positively correlated with feelings of reintegration and subjective wealth, whereas community support is crucial to cope with food security.Moreover, we show considerable variation in reintegration outcomes between refugees and IDPs, with refugees showing more positive outcomes when individual characteristics are controlled for.This result calls for more in-depth research on the contextual and structural factors that elucidate the variation across groups going beyond individual level explanations.Overall, the findings emphasise the diversity in reintegration outcomes and identify the role of experiences during displacement and return conditions for the reintegration of refugees and IDPs.KEYWORDS Burundi, internally displaced persons (IDPs), refugees, reintegration, return migration 1 | INTRODUCTION Conflict-affected countries frequently experience large population movements when formerly displaced populations-internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees-return home.Recent years have shown a growing number of such examples.More than 5.7 million Afghans, a quarter of Afghanistan's population, returned to Afghanistan after 2002 (UNHCR, 2014a.Likewise, Bosnia welcomed 1 million returneesafter the 1992-1995 war, and more than 700,000 former refugees returned to Rwanda after the 1994 genocide.The voluntary return of displaced populations is often associated with a positive change towards "normality, peace, and stability" (Chimni, 2002, p. 163).The return of populations residing abroad also legitimises post-conflict states and enhances donor confidence (Black & Gent, 2006;Black & Koser, 1999).Repatriation is consequently understood as a "central pillar of peace processes" in a post-conflict environment (Black & Gent, 2006: 17).At the same time, however, the return of formerly displaced persons to conflict-affected areas is considered a potential threat to peace, especially when return flows are large, and security challenges may arise if returnees do not sufficiently reintegrate (Crisp, 2000).It is therefore pivotal to understand how conflict-affected countries experience return movements and under what conditions both refugees and IDPs reintegrate successfully.Because of the potential challenges associated with return movements in unstable contexts, the reintegration of displaced populations has become a priority for policymakers and receives increased academic interest.Despite this surge of interest, the reintegration of the formerly displaced populations remains an understudied phenomenon, with the exception of some qualitative studies (Arowolo, 2000;Ghanem, 2003; . Moreover, there are particularly few quantitative studies that include both former IDPs and former refugees and none to our knowledge that has looked at both objective and subjective dimensions of reintegration.This cannot be fully explained by the idea that migration research in the Global North overshadows research conducted in the Global South.Practical matters, such as the difficulty of collecting large-scale data in conflictaffected countries, also play a significant role in the persistence of this gap.However, those who have fled from war or political unrest may face additional challenges after returning to their origin country.Their migration experiences, the return conditions in a post-war area, and the challenges of reclaiming belongings may make it more difficult to reintegrate (Ruiz & Vargas-Silva, 2013).The reintegration of IDPs and refugees therefore needs particular attention. Despite data collection challenges, some studies have explored the reintegration of displaced populations using quantitative data.For example, Fransen, Vargas-Silva, and Ruiz (2017) studied the economic integration of returned refugees in Burundi and found that return households reported lower levels of livestock and lower subjective economic well-being.Similarly, Kondylis (2010) researched the labour market outcomes of displaced individuals (refugees and IDPs) in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Other studies focused specifically on IDPs.O'Reilly (2015), for example, studied the consumption patterns of returned IDPs in Uganda, and Verwimp and Munoz-Mora (2017) looked at food security and nutritional status of IDPs in Burundi.Overall, most studies compare returnees to non-returnees and find that returnees (either former IDPs or former refugees) are worse off than those who did not move during the conflict, although outcomes seem to improve over time. Comparisons between returnees and non-returnees have however been criticised as a comprehensive measure of reintegration (see, e.g., Black & Gent, 2006) and do not reveal why some returnees reintegrate while others do not.The constituents that underlie the reintegration process have received less attention, and it is particularly unclear what factors account for a "successful" reintegration.Moreover, as suggested earlier, studies often focus on singular and objective reintegration indicators, such as consumption and asset ownership, thereby disregarding the complexity of the reintegration process and its various components. · plain
“various factors regarding the migration cycle are related to reintegration outcomes”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > Abstract The reintegration constituents of displaced populations are understudied, despite increased attention being paid to return and reintegration outcomes.In this paper, we explore how various factors related to the migration cycle, including returnees' displacement experiences and return conditions, are associated with reintegration outcomes.For this aim, we take a multidimensional approach to the measurement of reintegration.In addition to objective reintegration outcomes, measured by food security, we address subjective assessments such as feelings of reintegration.We focus on the unique case of returnees in Burundi and make use of a database consisting of a sample of 189 former internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 194 former refugees, which allows for a comparison of the reintegration of these two groups.The analyses highlight that objective and subjective reintegration do not necessarily align and that displacement experiences and return conditions relate to reintegration outcomes in different ways.Land and livestock ownership upon return are for example positively correlated with feelings of reintegration and subjective wealth, whereas community support is crucial to cope with food security.Moreover, we show considerable variation in reintegration outcomes between refugees and IDPs, with refugees showing more positive outcomes when individual characteristics are controlled for.This result calls for more in-depth research on the contextual and structural factors that elucidate the variation across groups going beyond individual level explanations.Overall, the findings emphasise the diversity in reintegration outcomes and identify the role of experiences during displacement and return conditions for the reintegration of refugees and IDPs.KEYWORDS Burundi, internally displaced persons (IDPs), refugees, reintegration, return migration 1 | INTRODUCTION Conflict-affected countries frequently experience large population movements when formerly displaced populations-internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees-return home.Recent years have shown a growing number of such examples.More than 5.7 million Afghans, a quarter of Afghanistan's population, returned to Afghanistan after 2002 (UNHCR, 2014a.Likewise, Bosnia welcomed 1 million returneesafter the 1992-1995 war, and more than 700,000 former refugees returned to Rwanda after the 1994 genocide.The voluntary return of displaced populations is often associated with a positive change towards "normality, peace, and stability" (Chimni, 2002, p. 163).The return of populations residing abroad also legitimises post-conflict states and enhances donor confidence (Black & Gent, 2006;Black & Koser, 1999).Repatriation is consequently understood as a "central pillar of peace processes" in a post-conflict environment (Black & Gent, 2006: 17).At the same time, however, the return of formerly displaced persons to conflict-affected areas is considered a potential threat to peace, especially when return flows are large, and security challenges may arise if returnees do not sufficiently reintegrate (Crisp, 2000).It is therefore pivotal to understand how conflict-affected countries experience return movements and under what conditions both refugees and IDPs reintegrate successfully.Because of the potential challenges associated with return movements in unstable contexts, the reintegration of displaced populations has become a priority for policymakers and receives increased academic interest.Despite this surge of interest, the reintegration of the formerly displaced populations remains an understudied phenomenon, with the exception of some qualitative studies (Arowolo, 2000;Ghanem, 2003; . Moreover, there are particularly few quantitative studies that include both former IDPs and former refugees and none to our knowledge that has looked at both objective and subjective dimensions of reintegration.This cannot be fully explained by the idea that migration research in the Global North overshadows research conducted in the Global South.Practical matters, such as the difficulty of collecting large-scale data in conflictaffected countries, also play a significant role in the persistence of this gap.However, those who have fled from war or political unrest may face additional challenges after returning to their origin country.Their migration experiences, the return conditions in a post-war area, and the challenges of reclaiming belongings may make it more difficult to reintegrate (Ruiz & Vargas-Silva, 2013).The reintegration of IDPs and refugees therefore needs particular attention. Despite data collection challenges, some studies have explored the reintegration of displaced populations using quantitative data.For example, Fransen, Vargas-Silva, and Ruiz (2017) studied the economic integration of returned refugees in Burundi and found that return households reported lower levels of livestock and lower subjective economic well-being.Similarly, Kondylis (2010) researched the labour market outcomes of displaced individuals (refugees and IDPs) in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Other studies focused specifically on IDPs.O'Reilly (2015), for example, studied the consumption patterns of returned IDPs in Uganda, and Verwimp and Munoz-Mora (2017) looked at food security and nutritional status of IDPs in Burundi.Overall, most studies compare returnees to non-returnees and find that returnees (either former IDPs or former refugees) are worse off than those who did not move during the conflict, although outcomes seem to improve over time. Comparisons between returnees and non-returnees have however been criticised as a comprehensive measure of reintegration (see, e.g., Black & Gent, 2006) and do not reveal why some returnees reintegrate while others do not.The constituents that underlie the reintegration process have received less attention, and it is particularly unclear what factors account for a "successful" reintegration.Moreover, as suggested earlier, studies often focus on singular and objective reintegration indicators, such as consumption and asset ownership, thereby disregarding the complexity of the reintegration process and its various components.
plaincorrelationaln = 189- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract The reintegration constituents of displaced populations are understudied, despite increased attention being paid to return and reintegration outcomes.In this paper, we explore how various factors related to the migration cycle, including returnees' displacement experiences and return conditions, are associated with reintegration outcomes.For this aim, we take a multidimensional approach to the measurement of reintegration.In addition to objective reintegration outcomes, measured by food security, we address subjective assessments such as feelings of reintegration.We focus on the unique case of returnees in Burundi and make use of a database consisting of a sample of 189 former internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 194 former refugees, which allows for a comparison of the reintegration of these two groups.The analyses highlight that objective and subjective reintegration do not necessarily align and that displacement experiences and return conditions relate to reintegration outcomes in different ways.Land and livestock ownership upon return are for example positively correlated with feelings of reintegration and subjective wealth, whereas community support is crucial to cope with food security.Moreover, we show considerable variation in reintegration outcomes between refugees and IDPs, with refugees showing more positive outcomes when individual characteristics are controlled for.This result calls for more in-depth research on the contextual and structural factors that elucidate the variation across groups going beyond individual level explanations.Overall, the findings emphasise the diversity in reintegration outcomes and identify the role of experiences during displacement and return conditions for the reintegration of refugees and IDPs.KEYWORDS Burundi, internally displaced persons (IDPs), refugees, reintegration, return migration 1 | INTRODUCTION Conflict-affected countries frequently experience large population movements when formerly displaced populations-internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees-return home.Recent years have shown a growing number of such examples.More than 5.7 million Afghans, a quarter of Afghanistan's population, returned to Afghanistan after 2002 (UNHCR, 2014a.Likewise, Bosnia welcomed 1 million returneesafter the 1992-1995 war, and more than 700,000 former refugees returned to Rwanda after the 1994 genocide.The voluntary return of displaced populations is often associated with a positive change towards "normality, peace, and stability" (Chimni, 2002, p. 163).The return of populations residing abroad also legitimises post-conflict states and enhances donor confidence (Black & Gent, 2006;Black & Koser, 1999).Repatriation is consequently understood as a "central pillar of peace processes" in a post-conflict environment (Black & Gent, 2006: 17).At the same time, however, the return of formerly displaced persons to conflict-affected areas is considered a potential threat to peace, especially when return flows are large, and security challenges may arise if returnees do not sufficiently reintegrate (Crisp, 2000).It is therefore pivotal to understand how conflict-affected countries experience return movements and under what conditions both refugees and IDPs reintegrate successfully.Because of the potential challenges associated with return movements in unstable contexts, the reintegration of displaced populations has become a priority for policymakers and receives increased academic interest.Despite this surge of interest, the reintegration of the formerly displaced populations remains an understudied phenomenon, with the exception of some qualitative studies (Arowolo, 2000;Ghanem, 2003; . Moreover, there are particularly few quantitative studies that include both former IDPs and former refugees and none to our knowledge that has looked at both objective and subjective dimensions of reintegration.This cannot be fully explained by the idea that migration research in the Global North overshadows research conducted in the Global South.Practical matters, such as the difficulty of collecting large-scale data in conflictaffected countries, also play a significant role in the persistence of this gap.However, those who have fled from war or political unrest may face additional challenges after returning to their origin country.Their migration experiences, the return conditions in a post-war area, and the challenges of reclaiming belongings may make it more difficult to reintegrate (Ruiz & Vargas-Silva, 2013).The reintegration of IDPs and refugees therefore needs particular attention. Despite data collection challenges, some studies have explored the reintegration of displaced populations using quantitative data.For example, Fransen, Vargas-Silva, and Ruiz (2017) studied the economic integration of returned refugees in Burundi and found that return households reported lower levels of livestock and lower subjective economic well-being.Similarly, Kondylis (2010) researched the labour market outcomes of displaced individuals (refugees and IDPs) in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Other studies focused specifically on IDPs.O'Reilly (2015), for example, studied the consumption patterns of returned IDPs in Uganda, and Verwimp and Munoz-Mora (2017) looked at food security and nutritional status of IDPs in Burundi.Overall, most studies compare returnees to non-returnees and find that returnees (either former IDPs or former refugees) are worse off than those who did not move during the conflict, although outcomes seem to improve over time. Comparisons between returnees and non-returnees have however been criticised as a comprehensive measure of reintegration (see, e.g., Black & Gent, 2006) and do not reveal why some returnees reintegrate while others do not.The constituents that underlie the reintegration process have received less attention, and it is particularly unclear what factors account for a "successful" reintegration.Moreover, as suggested earlier, studies often focus on singular and objective reintegration indicators, such as consumption and asset ownership, thereby disregarding the complexity of the reintegration process and its various components. · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Land and livestock ownership upon return are for example positively correlated with feelings of reintegration and subjective wealth”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > Abstract The reintegration constituents of displaced populations are understudied, despite increased attention being paid to return and reintegration outcomes.In this paper, we explore how various factors related to the migration cycle, including returnees' displacement experiences and return conditions, are associated with reintegration outcomes.For this aim, we take a multidimensional approach to the measurement of reintegration.In addition to objective reintegration outcomes, measured by food security, we address subjective assessments such as feelings of reintegration.We focus on the unique case of returnees in Burundi and make use of a database consisting of a sample of 189 former internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 194 former refugees, which allows for a comparison of the reintegration of these two groups.The analyses highlight that objective and subjective reintegration do not necessarily align and that displacement experiences and return conditions relate to reintegration outcomes in different ways.Land and livestock ownership upon return are for example positively correlated with feelings of reintegration and subjective wealth, whereas community support is crucial to cope with food security.Moreover, we show considerable variation in reintegration outcomes between refugees and IDPs, with refugees showing more positive outcomes when individual characteristics are controlled for.This result calls for more in-depth research on the contextual and structural factors that elucidate the variation across groups going beyond individual level explanations.Overall, the findings emphasise the diversity in reintegration outcomes and identify the role of experiences during displacement and return conditions for the reintegration of refugees and IDPs.KEYWORDS Burundi, internally displaced persons (IDPs), refugees, reintegration, return migration 1 | INTRODUCTION Conflict-affected countries frequently experience large population movements when formerly displaced populations-internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees-return home.Recent years have shown a growing number of such examples.More than 5.7 million Afghans, a quarter of Afghanistan's population, returned to Afghanistan after 2002 (UNHCR, 2014a.Likewise, Bosnia welcomed 1 million returneesafter the 1992-1995 war, and more than 700,000 former refugees returned to Rwanda after the 1994 genocide.The voluntary return of displaced populations is often associated with a positive change towards "normality, peace, and stability" (Chimni, 2002, p. 163).The return of populations residing abroad also legitimises post-conflict states and enhances donor confidence (Black & Gent, 2006;Black & Koser, 1999).Repatriation is consequently understood as a "central pillar of peace processes" in a post-conflict environment (Black & Gent, 2006: 17).At the same time, however, the return of formerly displaced persons to conflict-affected areas is considered a potential threat to peace, especially when return flows are large, and security challenges may arise if returnees do not sufficiently reintegrate (Crisp, 2000).It is therefore pivotal to understand how conflict-affected countries experience return movements and under what conditions both refugees and IDPs reintegrate successfully.Because of the potential challenges associated with return movements in unstable contexts, the reintegration of displaced populations has become a priority for policymakers and receives increased academic interest.Despite this surge of interest, the reintegration of the formerly displaced populations remains an understudied phenomenon, with the exception of some qualitative studies (Arowolo, 2000;Ghanem, 2003; . Moreover, there are particularly few quantitative studies that include both former IDPs and former refugees and none to our knowledge that has looked at both objective and subjective dimensions of reintegration.This cannot be fully explained by the idea that migration research in the Global North overshadows research conducted in the Global South.Practical matters, such as the difficulty of collecting large-scale data in conflictaffected countries, also play a significant role in the persistence of this gap.However, those who have fled from war or political unrest may face additional challenges after returning to their origin country.Their migration experiences, the return conditions in a post-war area, and the challenges of reclaiming belongings may make it more difficult to reintegrate (Ruiz & Vargas-Silva, 2013).The reintegration of IDPs and refugees therefore needs particular attention. Despite data collection challenges, some studies have explored the reintegration of displaced populations using quantitative data.For example, Fransen, Vargas-Silva, and Ruiz (2017) studied the economic integration of returned refugees in Burundi and found that return households reported lower levels of livestock and lower subjective economic well-being.Similarly, Kondylis (2010) researched the labour market outcomes of displaced individuals (refugees and IDPs) in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Other studies focused specifically on IDPs.O'Reilly (2015), for example, studied the consumption patterns of returned IDPs in Uganda, and Verwimp and Munoz-Mora (2017) looked at food security and nutritional status of IDPs in Burundi.Overall, most studies compare returnees to non-returnees and find that returnees (either former IDPs or former refugees) are worse off than those who did not move during the conflict, although outcomes seem to improve over time. Comparisons between returnees and non-returnees have however been criticised as a comprehensive measure of reintegration (see, e.g., Black & Gent, 2006) and do not reveal why some returnees reintegrate while others do not.The constituents that underlie the reintegration process have received less attention, and it is particularly unclear what factors account for a "successful" reintegration.Moreover, as suggested earlier, studies often focus on singular and objective reintegration indicators, such as consumption and asset ownership, thereby disregarding the complexity of the reintegration process and its various components.
plaincorrelationaln = 189- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The analyses highlight that objective and subjective reintegration do not necessarily align”
- Also stated in: § 2 | CONSTITUENTS OF REINTEGRATION · hedged
“these may not necessarily align with objective outcomes”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > Abstract The reintegration constituents of displaced populations are understudied, despite increased attention being paid to return and reintegration outcomes.In this paper, we explore how various factors related to the migration cycle, including returnees' displacement experiences and return conditions, are associated with reintegration outcomes.For this aim, we take a multidimensional approach to the measurement of reintegration.In addition to objective reintegration outcomes, measured by food security, we address subjective assessments such as feelings of reintegration.We focus on the unique case of returnees in Burundi and make use of a database consisting of a sample of 189 former internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 194 former refugees, which allows for a comparison of the reintegration of these two groups.The analyses highlight that objective and subjective reintegration do not necessarily align and that displacement experiences and return conditions relate to reintegration outcomes in different ways.Land and livestock ownership upon return are for example positively correlated with feelings of reintegration and subjective wealth, whereas community support is crucial to cope with food security.Moreover, we show considerable variation in reintegration outcomes between refugees and IDPs, with refugees showing more positive outcomes when individual characteristics are controlled for.This result calls for more in-depth research on the contextual and structural factors that elucidate the variation across groups going beyond individual level explanations.Overall, the findings emphasise the diversity in reintegration outcomes and identify the role of experiences during displacement and return conditions for the reintegration of refugees and IDPs.KEYWORDS Burundi, internally displaced persons (IDPs), refugees, reintegration, return migration 1 | INTRODUCTION Conflict-affected countries frequently experience large population movements when formerly displaced populations-internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees-return home.Recent years have shown a growing number of such examples.More than 5.7 million Afghans, a quarter of Afghanistan's population, returned to Afghanistan after 2002 (UNHCR, 2014a.Likewise, Bosnia welcomed 1 million returneesafter the 1992-1995 war, and more than 700,000 former refugees returned to Rwanda after the 1994 genocide.The voluntary return of displaced populations is often associated with a positive change towards "normality, peace, and stability" (Chimni, 2002, p. 163).The return of populations residing abroad also legitimises post-conflict states and enhances donor confidence (Black & Gent, 2006;Black & Koser, 1999).Repatriation is consequently understood as a "central pillar of peace processes" in a post-conflict environment (Black & Gent, 2006: 17).At the same time, however, the return of formerly displaced persons to conflict-affected areas is considered a potential threat to peace, especially when return flows are large, and security challenges may arise if returnees do not sufficiently reintegrate (Crisp, 2000).It is therefore pivotal to understand how conflict-affected countries experience return movements and under what conditions both refugees and IDPs reintegrate successfully.Because of the potential challenges associated with return movements in unstable contexts, the reintegration of displaced populations has become a priority for policymakers and receives increased academic interest.Despite this surge of interest, the reintegration of the formerly displaced populations remains an understudied phenomenon, with the exception of some qualitative studies (Arowolo, 2000;Ghanem, 2003; . Moreover, there are particularly few quantitative studies that include both former IDPs and former refugees and none to our knowledge that has looked at both objective and subjective dimensions of reintegration.This cannot be fully explained by the idea that migration research in the Global North overshadows research conducted in the Global South.Practical matters, such as the difficulty of collecting large-scale data in conflictaffected countries, also play a significant role in the persistence of this gap.However, those who have fled from war or political unrest may face additional challenges after returning to their origin country.Their migration experiences, the return conditions in a post-war area, and the challenges of reclaiming belongings may make it more difficult to reintegrate (Ruiz & Vargas-Silva, 2013).The reintegration of IDPs and refugees therefore needs particular attention. Despite data collection challenges, some studies have explored the reintegration of displaced populations using quantitative data.For example, Fransen, Vargas-Silva, and Ruiz (2017) studied the economic integration of returned refugees in Burundi and found that return households reported lower levels of livestock and lower subjective economic well-being.Similarly, Kondylis (2010) researched the labour market outcomes of displaced individuals (refugees and IDPs) in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Other studies focused specifically on IDPs.O'Reilly (2015), for example, studied the consumption patterns of returned IDPs in Uganda, and Verwimp and Munoz-Mora (2017) looked at food security and nutritional status of IDPs in Burundi.Overall, most studies compare returnees to non-returnees and find that returnees (either former IDPs or former refugees) are worse off than those who did not move during the conflict, although outcomes seem to improve over time. Comparisons between returnees and non-returnees have however been criticised as a comprehensive measure of reintegration (see, e.g., Black & Gent, 2006) and do not reveal why some returnees reintegrate while others do not.The constituents that underlie the reintegration process have received less attention, and it is particularly unclear what factors account for a "successful" reintegration.Moreover, as suggested earlier, studies often focus on singular and objective reintegration indicators, such as consumption and asset ownership, thereby disregarding the complexity of the reintegration process and its various components.
plainn = 189- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 2 | CONSTITUENTS OF REINTEGRATION · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“whereas community support is crucial to cope with food security”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > Abstract The reintegration constituents of displaced populations are understudied, despite increased attention being paid to return and reintegration outcomes.In this paper, we explore how various factors related to the migration cycle, including returnees' displacement experiences and return conditions, are associated with reintegration outcomes.For this aim, we take a multidimensional approach to the measurement of reintegration.In addition to objective reintegration outcomes, measured by food security, we address subjective assessments such as feelings of reintegration.We focus on the unique case of returnees in Burundi and make use of a database consisting of a sample of 189 former internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 194 former refugees, which allows for a comparison of the reintegration of these two groups.The analyses highlight that objective and subjective reintegration do not necessarily align and that displacement experiences and return conditions relate to reintegration outcomes in different ways.Land and livestock ownership upon return are for example positively correlated with feelings of reintegration and subjective wealth, whereas community support is crucial to cope with food security.Moreover, we show considerable variation in reintegration outcomes between refugees and IDPs, with refugees showing more positive outcomes when individual characteristics are controlled for.This result calls for more in-depth research on the contextual and structural factors that elucidate the variation across groups going beyond individual level explanations.Overall, the findings emphasise the diversity in reintegration outcomes and identify the role of experiences during displacement and return conditions for the reintegration of refugees and IDPs.KEYWORDS Burundi, internally displaced persons (IDPs), refugees, reintegration, return migration 1 | INTRODUCTION Conflict-affected countries frequently experience large population movements when formerly displaced populations-internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees-return home.Recent years have shown a growing number of such examples.More than 5.7 million Afghans, a quarter of Afghanistan's population, returned to Afghanistan after 2002 (UNHCR, 2014a.Likewise, Bosnia welcomed 1 million returneesafter the 1992-1995 war, and more than 700,000 former refugees returned to Rwanda after the 1994 genocide.The voluntary return of displaced populations is often associated with a positive change towards "normality, peace, and stability" (Chimni, 2002, p. 163).The return of populations residing abroad also legitimises post-conflict states and enhances donor confidence (Black & Gent, 2006;Black & Koser, 1999).Repatriation is consequently understood as a "central pillar of peace processes" in a post-conflict environment (Black & Gent, 2006: 17).At the same time, however, the return of formerly displaced persons to conflict-affected areas is considered a potential threat to peace, especially when return flows are large, and security challenges may arise if returnees do not sufficiently reintegrate (Crisp, 2000).It is therefore pivotal to understand how conflict-affected countries experience return movements and under what conditions both refugees and IDPs reintegrate successfully.Because of the potential challenges associated with return movements in unstable contexts, the reintegration of displaced populations has become a priority for policymakers and receives increased academic interest.Despite this surge of interest, the reintegration of the formerly displaced populations remains an understudied phenomenon, with the exception of some qualitative studies (Arowolo, 2000;Ghanem, 2003; . Moreover, there are particularly few quantitative studies that include both former IDPs and former refugees and none to our knowledge that has looked at both objective and subjective dimensions of reintegration.This cannot be fully explained by the idea that migration research in the Global North overshadows research conducted in the Global South.Practical matters, such as the difficulty of collecting large-scale data in conflictaffected countries, also play a significant role in the persistence of this gap.However, those who have fled from war or political unrest may face additional challenges after returning to their origin country.Their migration experiences, the return conditions in a post-war area, and the challenges of reclaiming belongings may make it more difficult to reintegrate (Ruiz & Vargas-Silva, 2013).The reintegration of IDPs and refugees therefore needs particular attention. Despite data collection challenges, some studies have explored the reintegration of displaced populations using quantitative data.For example, Fransen, Vargas-Silva, and Ruiz (2017) studied the economic integration of returned refugees in Burundi and found that return households reported lower levels of livestock and lower subjective economic well-being.Similarly, Kondylis (2010) researched the labour market outcomes of displaced individuals (refugees and IDPs) in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Other studies focused specifically on IDPs.O'Reilly (2015), for example, studied the consumption patterns of returned IDPs in Uganda, and Verwimp and Munoz-Mora (2017) looked at food security and nutritional status of IDPs in Burundi.Overall, most studies compare returnees to non-returnees and find that returnees (either former IDPs or former refugees) are worse off than those who did not move during the conflict, although outcomes seem to improve over time. Comparisons between returnees and non-returnees have however been criticised as a comprehensive measure of reintegration (see, e.g., Black & Gent, 2006) and do not reveal why some returnees reintegrate while others do not.The constituents that underlie the reintegration process have received less attention, and it is particularly unclear what factors account for a "successful" reintegration.Moreover, as suggested earlier, studies often focus on singular and objective reintegration indicators, such as consumption and asset ownership, thereby disregarding the complexity of the reintegration process and its various components.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Seventeen percent of former refugees was in paid employment or owned a business, compared to 14% among former IDPs.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.1 | Descriptive analysis: Reintegration outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Almost all former refugee respondents (96%) reported to have returned to Burundi voluntarily”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 4 | DATA AND METHODS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the final model, we also observe that former refugees are significantly more likely to be food secure compared to former IDPs.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.3 | Main analysis: Reintegration constituents
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Years of education obtained before migration is a valid proxy for predisplacement variations in economic well-being.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The vast majority of former IDPs and former refugees in our sample returned to their origin communities”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 4 | DATA AND METHODS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The statistics show that 44% of the formerly displaced were food secure.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.1 | Descriptive analysis: Reintegration outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 28
- It may state two separate claims as one. 50
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Fransen et al. (2017) illustrated that former refugees owned less livestock and attributed this finding to refugees' high level of inactivity while in displacement”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 3.1 | Reintegration in Burundi
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Fransen et al. (2017) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusions (p. 18) report significantly lower livestock levels among returnee households and describe inactivity during displacement as one possible reason for the gap. Section 6 (p. 14) says the authors could not test whether past labor-market experiences affected current livestock levels. The citing sentence presents that tentative explanation as an established attribution. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“This result is also confirmed by previous studies conducted in Burundi (Fransen et al., 2017;Verwimp & Munoz-Mora, 2017).”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.3 | Main analysis: Reintegration constituents
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Fransen et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Data section (p. 10) reports respondents’ subjective assessments of their economic situation, but compares returnee and stayee households across both survey rounds rather than reporting improvement over time. The same section says there has not been much growth in livestock levels, which is a different measure. Searches for subjective wealth and changes between 2011 and 2015 found no passage establishing the claimed trend. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Not matchedcites Verwimp & Munoz-Mora, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Could not verify
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The analyses demonstrate that various factors regarding the migration cycle are related to reintegration outcomes and that there are significant differences in the reintegration experiences of the formerly displaced in Burundi”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > Abstract The reintegration constituents of displaced populations are understudied, despite increased attention being paid to return and reintegration outcomes.In this paper, we explore how various factors related to the migration cycle, including returnees' displacement experiences and return conditions, are associated with reintegration outcomes.For this aim, we take a multidimensional approach to the measurement of reintegration.In addition to objective reintegration outcomes, measured by food security, we address subjective assessments such as feelings of reintegration.We focus on the unique case of returnees in Burundi and make use of a database consisting of a sample of 189 former internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 194 former refugees, which allows for a comparison of the reintegration of these two groups.The analyses highlight that objective and subjective reintegration do not necessarily align and that displacement experiences and return conditions relate to reintegration outcomes in different ways.Land and livestock ownership upon return are for example positively correlated with feelings of reintegration and subjective wealth, whereas community support is crucial to cope with food security.Moreover, we show considerable variation in reintegration outcomes between refugees and IDPs, with refugees showing more positive outcomes when individual characteristics are controlled for.This result calls for more in-depth research on the contextual and structural factors that elucidate the variation across groups going beyond individual level explanations.Overall, the findings emphasise the diversity in reintegration outcomes and identify the role of experiences during displacement and return conditions for the reintegration of refugees and IDPs.KEYWORDS Burundi, internally displaced persons (IDPs), refugees, reintegration, return migration 1 | INTRODUCTION Conflict-affected countries frequently experience large population movements when formerly displaced populations-internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees-return home.Recent years have shown a growing number of such examples.More than 5.7 million Afghans, a quarter of Afghanistan's population, returned to Afghanistan after 2002 (UNHCR, 2014a.Likewise, Bosnia welcomed 1 million returneesafter the 1992-1995 war, and more than 700,000 former refugees returned to Rwanda after the 1994 genocide.The voluntary return of displaced populations is often associated with a positive change towards "normality, peace, and stability" (Chimni, 2002, p. 163).The return of populations residing abroad also legitimises post-conflict states and enhances donor confidence (Black & Gent, 2006;Black & Koser, 1999).Repatriation is consequently understood as a "central pillar of peace processes" in a post-conflict environment (Black & Gent, 2006: 17).At the same time, however, the return of formerly displaced persons to conflict-affected areas is considered a potential threat to peace, especially when return flows are large, and security challenges may arise if returnees do not sufficiently reintegrate (Crisp, 2000).It is therefore pivotal to understand how conflict-affected countries experience return movements and under what conditions both refugees and IDPs reintegrate successfully.Because of the potential challenges associated with return movements in unstable contexts, the reintegration of displaced populations has become a priority for policymakers and receives increased academic interest.Despite this surge of interest, the reintegration of the formerly displaced populations remains an understudied phenomenon, with the exception of some qualitative studies (Arowolo, 2000;Ghanem, 2003; . Moreover, there are particularly few quantitative studies that include both former IDPs and former refugees and none to our knowledge that has looked at both objective and subjective dimensions of reintegration.This cannot be fully explained by the idea that migration research in the Global North overshadows research conducted in the Global South.Practical matters, such as the difficulty of collecting large-scale data in conflictaffected countries, also play a significant role in the persistence of this gap.However, those who have fled from war or political unrest may face additional challenges after returning to their origin country.Their migration experiences, the return conditions in a post-war area, and the challenges of reclaiming belongings may make it more difficult to reintegrate (Ruiz & Vargas-Silva, 2013).The reintegration of IDPs and refugees therefore needs particular attention. Despite data collection challenges, some studies have explored the reintegration of displaced populations using quantitative data.For example, Fransen, Vargas-Silva, and Ruiz (2017) studied the economic integration of returned refugees in Burundi and found that return households reported lower levels of livestock and lower subjective economic well-being.Similarly, Kondylis (2010) researched the labour market outcomes of displaced individuals (refugees and IDPs) in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Other studies focused specifically on IDPs.O'Reilly (2015), for example, studied the consumption patterns of returned IDPs in Uganda, and Verwimp and Munoz-Mora (2017) looked at food security and nutritional status of IDPs in Burundi.Overall, most studies compare returnees to non-returnees and find that returnees (either former IDPs or former refugees) are worse off than those who did not move during the conflict, although outcomes seem to improve over time. Comparisons between returnees and non-returnees have however been criticised as a comprehensive measure of reintegration (see, e.g., Black & Gent, 2006) and do not reveal why some returnees reintegrate while others do not.The constituents that underlie the reintegration process have received less attention, and it is particularly unclear what factors account for a "successful" reintegration.Moreover, as suggested earlier, studies often focus on singular and objective reintegration indicators, such as consumption and asset ownership, thereby disregarding the complexity of the reintegration process and its various components.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we show considerable variation in reintegration outcomes between refugees and IDPs, with refugees showing more positive outcomes when individual characteristics are controlled for”
- Also stated in: § Abstract The reintegration constituents of displaced populations are understudied, despite increased attention being paid to return and reintegration outcomes.In this paper, we explore how various factors related to the migration cycle, including returnees' displacement experiences and return conditions, are associated with reintegration outcomes.For this aim, we take a multidimensional approach to the measurement of reintegration.In addition to objective reintegration outcomes, measured by food security, we address subjective assessments such as feelings of reintegration.We focus on the unique case of returnees in Burundi and make use of a database consisting of a sample of 189 former internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 194 former refugees, which allows for a comparison of the reintegration of these two groups.The analyses highlight that objective and subjective reintegration do not necessarily align and that displacement experiences and return conditions relate to reintegration outcomes in different ways.Land and livestock ownership upon return are for example positively correlated with feelings of reintegration and subjective wealth, whereas community support is crucial to cope with food security.Moreover, we show considerable variation in reintegration outcomes between refugees and IDPs, with refugees showing more positive outcomes when individual characteristics are controlled for.This result calls for more in-depth research on the contextual and structural factors that elucidate the variation across groups going beyond individual level explanations.Overall, the findings emphasise the diversity in reintegration outcomes and identify the role of experiences during displacement and return conditions for the reintegration of refugees and IDPs.KEYWORDS Burundi, internally displaced persons (IDPs), refugees, reintegration, return migration 1 | INTRODUCTION Conflict-affected countries frequently experience large population movements when formerly displaced populations-internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees-return home.Recent years have shown a growing number of such examples.More than 5.7 million Afghans, a quarter of Afghanistan's population, returned to Afghanistan after 2002 (UNHCR, 2014a.Likewise, Bosnia welcomed 1 million returneesafter the 1992-1995 war, and more than 700,000 former refugees returned to Rwanda after the 1994 genocide.The voluntary return of displaced populations is often associated with a positive change towards "normality, peace, and stability" (Chimni, 2002, p. 163).The return of populations residing abroad also legitimises post-conflict states and enhances donor confidence (Black & Gent, 2006;Black & Koser, 1999).Repatriation is consequently understood as a "central pillar of peace processes" in a post-conflict environment (Black & Gent, 2006: 17).At the same time, however, the return of formerly displaced persons to conflict-affected areas is considered a potential threat to peace, especially when return flows are large, and security challenges may arise if returnees do not sufficiently reintegrate (Crisp, 2000).It is therefore pivotal to understand how conflict-affected countries experience return movements and under what conditions both refugees and IDPs reintegrate successfully.Because of the potential challenges associated with return movements in unstable contexts, the reintegration of displaced populations has become a priority for policymakers and receives increased academic interest.Despite this surge of interest, the reintegration of the formerly displaced populations remains an understudied phenomenon, with the exception of some qualitative studies (Arowolo, 2000;Ghanem, 2003; . Moreover, there are particularly few quantitative studies that include both former IDPs and former refugees and none to our knowledge that has looked at both objective and subjective dimensions of reintegration.This cannot be fully explained by the idea that migration research in the Global North overshadows research conducted in the Global South.Practical matters, such as the difficulty of collecting large-scale data in conflictaffected countries, also play a significant role in the persistence of this gap.However, those who have fled from war or political unrest may face additional challenges after returning to their origin country.Their migration experiences, the return conditions in a post-war area, and the challenges of reclaiming belongings may make it more difficult to reintegrate (Ruiz & Vargas-Silva, 2013).The reintegration of IDPs and refugees therefore needs particular attention. Despite data collection challenges, some studies have explored the reintegration of displaced populations using quantitative data.For example, Fransen, Vargas-Silva, and Ruiz (2017) studied the economic integration of returned refugees in Burundi and found that return households reported lower levels of livestock and lower subjective economic well-being.Similarly, Kondylis (2010) researched the labour market outcomes of displaced individuals (refugees and IDPs) in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Other studies focused specifically on IDPs.O'Reilly (2015), for example, studied the consumption patterns of returned IDPs in Uganda, and Verwimp and Munoz-Mora (2017) looked at food security and nutritional status of IDPs in Burundi.Overall, most studies compare returnees to non-returnees and find that returnees (either former IDPs or former refugees) are worse off than those who did not move during the conflict, although outcomes seem to improve over time. Comparisons between returnees and non-returnees have however been criticised as a comprehensive measure of reintegration (see, e.g., Black & Gent, 2006) and do not reveal why some returnees reintegrate while others do not.The constituents that underlie the reintegration process have received less attention, and it is particularly unclear what factors account for a "successful" reintegration.Moreover, as suggested earlier, studies often focus on singular and objective reintegration indicators, such as consumption and asset ownership, thereby disregarding the complexity of the reintegration process and its various components. · hedged
“Differences between refugees and IDPs were apparent as well and became even more pronounced when individual characteristics were controlled for”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > Abstract The reintegration constituents of displaced populations are understudied, despite increased attention being paid to return and reintegration outcomes.In this paper, we explore how various factors related to the migration cycle, including returnees' displacement experiences and return conditions, are associated with reintegration outcomes.For this aim, we take a multidimensional approach to the measurement of reintegration.In addition to objective reintegration outcomes, measured by food security, we address subjective assessments such as feelings of reintegration.We focus on the unique case of returnees in Burundi and make use of a database consisting of a sample of 189 former internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 194 former refugees, which allows for a comparison of the reintegration of these two groups.The analyses highlight that objective and subjective reintegration do not necessarily align and that displacement experiences and return conditions relate to reintegration outcomes in different ways.Land and livestock ownership upon return are for example positively correlated with feelings of reintegration and subjective wealth, whereas community support is crucial to cope with food security.Moreover, we show considerable variation in reintegration outcomes between refugees and IDPs, with refugees showing more positive outcomes when individual characteristics are controlled for.This result calls for more in-depth research on the contextual and structural factors that elucidate the variation across groups going beyond individual level explanations.Overall, the findings emphasise the diversity in reintegration outcomes and identify the role of experiences during displacement and return conditions for the reintegration of refugees and IDPs.KEYWORDS Burundi, internally displaced persons (IDPs), refugees, reintegration, return migration 1 | INTRODUCTION Conflict-affected countries frequently experience large population movements when formerly displaced populations-internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees-return home.Recent years have shown a growing number of such examples.More than 5.7 million Afghans, a quarter of Afghanistan's population, returned to Afghanistan after 2002 (UNHCR, 2014a.Likewise, Bosnia welcomed 1 million returneesafter the 1992-1995 war, and more than 700,000 former refugees returned to Rwanda after the 1994 genocide.The voluntary return of displaced populations is often associated with a positive change towards "normality, peace, and stability" (Chimni, 2002, p. 163).The return of populations residing abroad also legitimises post-conflict states and enhances donor confidence (Black & Gent, 2006;Black & Koser, 1999).Repatriation is consequently understood as a "central pillar of peace processes" in a post-conflict environment (Black & Gent, 2006: 17).At the same time, however, the return of formerly displaced persons to conflict-affected areas is considered a potential threat to peace, especially when return flows are large, and security challenges may arise if returnees do not sufficiently reintegrate (Crisp, 2000).It is therefore pivotal to understand how conflict-affected countries experience return movements and under what conditions both refugees and IDPs reintegrate successfully.Because of the potential challenges associated with return movements in unstable contexts, the reintegration of displaced populations has become a priority for policymakers and receives increased academic interest.Despite this surge of interest, the reintegration of the formerly displaced populations remains an understudied phenomenon, with the exception of some qualitative studies (Arowolo, 2000;Ghanem, 2003; . Moreover, there are particularly few quantitative studies that include both former IDPs and former refugees and none to our knowledge that has looked at both objective and subjective dimensions of reintegration.This cannot be fully explained by the idea that migration research in the Global North overshadows research conducted in the Global South.Practical matters, such as the difficulty of collecting large-scale data in conflictaffected countries, also play a significant role in the persistence of this gap.However, those who have fled from war or political unrest may face additional challenges after returning to their origin country.Their migration experiences, the return conditions in a post-war area, and the challenges of reclaiming belongings may make it more difficult to reintegrate (Ruiz & Vargas-Silva, 2013).The reintegration of IDPs and refugees therefore needs particular attention. Despite data collection challenges, some studies have explored the reintegration of displaced populations using quantitative data.For example, Fransen, Vargas-Silva, and Ruiz (2017) studied the economic integration of returned refugees in Burundi and found that return households reported lower levels of livestock and lower subjective economic well-being.Similarly, Kondylis (2010) researched the labour market outcomes of displaced individuals (refugees and IDPs) in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Other studies focused specifically on IDPs.O'Reilly (2015), for example, studied the consumption patterns of returned IDPs in Uganda, and Verwimp and Munoz-Mora (2017) looked at food security and nutritional status of IDPs in Burundi.Overall, most studies compare returnees to non-returnees and find that returnees (either former IDPs or former refugees) are worse off than those who did not move during the conflict, although outcomes seem to improve over time. Comparisons between returnees and non-returnees have however been criticised as a comprehensive measure of reintegration (see, e.g., Black & Gent, 2006) and do not reveal why some returnees reintegrate while others do not.The constituents that underlie the reintegration process have received less attention, and it is particularly unclear what factors account for a "successful" reintegration.Moreover, as suggested earlier, studies often focus on singular and objective reintegration indicators, such as consumption and asset ownership, thereby disregarding the complexity of the reintegration process and its various components.
plaincorrelationaln = 189- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Abstract The reintegration constituents of displaced populations are understudied, despite increased attention being paid to return and reintegration outcomes.In this paper, we explore how various factors related to the migration cycle, including returnees' displacement experiences and return conditions, are associated with reintegration outcomes.For this aim, we take a multidimensional approach to the measurement of reintegration.In addition to objective reintegration outcomes, measured by food security, we address subjective assessments such as feelings of reintegration.We focus on the unique case of returnees in Burundi and make use of a database consisting of a sample of 189 former internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 194 former refugees, which allows for a comparison of the reintegration of these two groups.The analyses highlight that objective and subjective reintegration do not necessarily align and that displacement experiences and return conditions relate to reintegration outcomes in different ways.Land and livestock ownership upon return are for example positively correlated with feelings of reintegration and subjective wealth, whereas community support is crucial to cope with food security.Moreover, we show considerable variation in reintegration outcomes between refugees and IDPs, with refugees showing more positive outcomes when individual characteristics are controlled for.This result calls for more in-depth research on the contextual and structural factors that elucidate the variation across groups going beyond individual level explanations.Overall, the findings emphasise the diversity in reintegration outcomes and identify the role of experiences during displacement and return conditions for the reintegration of refugees and IDPs.KEYWORDS Burundi, internally displaced persons (IDPs), refugees, reintegration, return migration 1 | INTRODUCTION Conflict-affected countries frequently experience large population movements when formerly displaced populations-internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees-return home.Recent years have shown a growing number of such examples.More than 5.7 million Afghans, a quarter of Afghanistan's population, returned to Afghanistan after 2002 (UNHCR, 2014a.Likewise, Bosnia welcomed 1 million returneesafter the 1992-1995 war, and more than 700,000 former refugees returned to Rwanda after the 1994 genocide.The voluntary return of displaced populations is often associated with a positive change towards "normality, peace, and stability" (Chimni, 2002, p. 163).The return of populations residing abroad also legitimises post-conflict states and enhances donor confidence (Black & Gent, 2006;Black & Koser, 1999).Repatriation is consequently understood as a "central pillar of peace processes" in a post-conflict environment (Black & Gent, 2006: 17).At the same time, however, the return of formerly displaced persons to conflict-affected areas is considered a potential threat to peace, especially when return flows are large, and security challenges may arise if returnees do not sufficiently reintegrate (Crisp, 2000).It is therefore pivotal to understand how conflict-affected countries experience return movements and under what conditions both refugees and IDPs reintegrate successfully.Because of the potential challenges associated with return movements in unstable contexts, the reintegration of displaced populations has become a priority for policymakers and receives increased academic interest.Despite this surge of interest, the reintegration of the formerly displaced populations remains an understudied phenomenon, with the exception of some qualitative studies (Arowolo, 2000;Ghanem, 2003; . Moreover, there are particularly few quantitative studies that include both former IDPs and former refugees and none to our knowledge that has looked at both objective and subjective dimensions of reintegration.This cannot be fully explained by the idea that migration research in the Global North overshadows research conducted in the Global South.Practical matters, such as the difficulty of collecting large-scale data in conflictaffected countries, also play a significant role in the persistence of this gap.However, those who have fled from war or political unrest may face additional challenges after returning to their origin country.Their migration experiences, the return conditions in a post-war area, and the challenges of reclaiming belongings may make it more difficult to reintegrate (Ruiz & Vargas-Silva, 2013).The reintegration of IDPs and refugees therefore needs particular attention. Despite data collection challenges, some studies have explored the reintegration of displaced populations using quantitative data.For example, Fransen, Vargas-Silva, and Ruiz (2017) studied the economic integration of returned refugees in Burundi and found that return households reported lower levels of livestock and lower subjective economic well-being.Similarly, Kondylis (2010) researched the labour market outcomes of displaced individuals (refugees and IDPs) in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Other studies focused specifically on IDPs.O'Reilly (2015), for example, studied the consumption patterns of returned IDPs in Uganda, and Verwimp and Munoz-Mora (2017) looked at food security and nutritional status of IDPs in Burundi.Overall, most studies compare returnees to non-returnees and find that returnees (either former IDPs or former refugees) are worse off than those who did not move during the conflict, although outcomes seem to improve over time. Comparisons between returnees and non-returnees have however been criticised as a comprehensive measure of reintegration (see, e.g., Black & Gent, 2006) and do not reveal why some returnees reintegrate while others do not.The constituents that underlie the reintegration process have received less attention, and it is particularly unclear what factors account for a "successful" reintegration.Moreover, as suggested earlier, studies often focus on singular and objective reintegration indicators, such as consumption and asset ownership, thereby disregarding the complexity of the reintegration process and its various components. · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, return conditions also differ significantly across groups.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.2 | Descriptive analysis: Constituents of reintegration
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Seventy-eight and 73% of former IDPs and former refugees were engaged in agriculture, respectively.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.1 | Descriptive analysis: Reintegration outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eighty percent of the former refugees in our sample returned to their origin community, and of those who returned to a different community, 57% returned to a community in a neighbouring village or another village in the same province”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 4 | DATA AND METHODS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Most returnees returned to their origin communities, which corroborates findings from previous studies conducted in Burundi (see, e.g., Fransen, 2017).”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.2 | Descriptive analysis: Constituents of reintegration
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fransen, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regarding feelings of reintegration, Model 7 suggests that return conditions are particularly important, but the effect of many variables diminish when control variables are included in the final model.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.3 | Main analysis: Reintegration constituents
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Years of education obtained before migration is a valid proxy for predisplacement variations in economic well-being.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Displacement experiences differ significantly across groups.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.2 | Descriptive analysis: Constituents of reintegration
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Land ownership was common for all respondents but slightly more common for IDPs.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.2 | Descriptive analysis: Constituents of reintegration
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Former IDPs experienced significantly shorter displacement periods were more likely to reside in a camp and were less likely to work during displacement.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.2 | Descriptive analysis: Constituents of reintegration
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, return to the origin community was more common for IDPs than for refugees.Ninety-three percent of IDPs returned to their origin communities, whereas 86% of refugees did so.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.2 | Descriptive analysis: Constituents of reintegration
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the formerly displaced spent an average of 4 years abroad.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.2 | Descriptive analysis: Constituents of reintegration
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the descriptive statistics show that feelings of reintegration, measured on a scale from one to three, are high and do not differ between former IDPs and former refugees.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.1 | Descriptive analysis: Reintegration outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority did not reside in a camp during displacement”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.2 | Descriptive analysis: Constituents of reintegration
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Particularly, livestock ownership, organisational support, and the years since return are all positively related to food security.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.3 | Main analysis: Reintegration constituents
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Years of education obtained before migration is a valid proxy for predisplacement variations in economic well-being.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we observe that return conditions are more strongly associated with food security than displacement experiences, which lose their significance in the final model.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.3 | Main analysis: Reintegration constituents
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Years of education obtained before migration is a valid proxy for predisplacement variations in economic well-being.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The individuals returned on average 17 years ago, but IDPs returned slightly earlier.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.2 | Descriptive analysis: Constituents of reintegration
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority of respondents in our sample was employed in agriculture when the data were collected.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.1 | Descriptive analysis: Reintegration outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Former IDPs were less likely to be food secure than refugees, although the difference is not statistically significant.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.1 | Descriptive analysis: Reintegration outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ownership of livestock was common for approximately half of the sample and slightly more common for former IDPs.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.2 | Descriptive analysis: Constituents of reintegration
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, livestock ownership after return was particularly important for food security, whereas land ownership was strongly related to feelings of reintegration.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 6 | CONCLUSION
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, former refugees and married returnees seem to have a more positive subjective wealth.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.3 | Main analysis: Reintegration constituents
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Years of education obtained before migration is a valid proxy for predisplacement variations in economic well-being.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Likewise, half of the sample was positive about their economic situation, whereas the other half was not.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 6 | CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When controlling for all other factors, including individual characteristics and experiences during and after displacement, former refugees were more likely to be food secure, felt more reintegrated, and reported higher subjective wealth than former IDPs.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 6 | CONCLUSION
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Years of education obtained before migration is a valid proxy for predisplacement variations in economic well-being.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whereas the majority of respondents felt very much part of their community, they nevertheless experienced severe challenges such as food insecurity.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 6 | CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, 55% of respondents experienced problems feeding their households whereas 45% of respondents reported to be relatively food secure.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 6 | CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Returnees may have similar outcomes at a first glance, but we find large between-group differences when individual characteristics are controlled for.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 6 | CONCLUSION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Years of education obtained before migration is a valid proxy for predisplacement variations in economic well-being.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is also important to note that former refugees and males experience higher feelings of reintegration.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.3 | Main analysis: Reintegration constituents
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Years of education obtained before migration is a valid proxy for predisplacement variations in economic well-being.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Differences between refugees and IDPs were apparent as well and became even more pronounced when individual characteristics were controlled for, suggesting that unobserved structural and contextual differences exist between both groups”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > Abstract The reintegration constituents of displaced populations are understudied, despite increased attention being paid to return and reintegration outcomes.In this paper, we explore how various factors related to the migration cycle, including returnees' displacement experiences and return conditions, are associated with reintegration outcomes.For this aim, we take a multidimensional approach to the measurement of reintegration.In addition to objective reintegration outcomes, measured by food security, we address subjective assessments such as feelings of reintegration.We focus on the unique case of returnees in Burundi and make use of a database consisting of a sample of 189 former internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 194 former refugees, which allows for a comparison of the reintegration of these two groups.The analyses highlight that objective and subjective reintegration do not necessarily align and that displacement experiences and return conditions relate to reintegration outcomes in different ways.Land and livestock ownership upon return are for example positively correlated with feelings of reintegration and subjective wealth, whereas community support is crucial to cope with food security.Moreover, we show considerable variation in reintegration outcomes between refugees and IDPs, with refugees showing more positive outcomes when individual characteristics are controlled for.This result calls for more in-depth research on the contextual and structural factors that elucidate the variation across groups going beyond individual level explanations.Overall, the findings emphasise the diversity in reintegration outcomes and identify the role of experiences during displacement and return conditions for the reintegration of refugees and IDPs.KEYWORDS Burundi, internally displaced persons (IDPs), refugees, reintegration, return migration 1 | INTRODUCTION Conflict-affected countries frequently experience large population movements when formerly displaced populations-internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees-return home.Recent years have shown a growing number of such examples.More than 5.7 million Afghans, a quarter of Afghanistan's population, returned to Afghanistan after 2002 (UNHCR, 2014a.Likewise, Bosnia welcomed 1 million returneesafter the 1992-1995 war, and more than 700,000 former refugees returned to Rwanda after the 1994 genocide.The voluntary return of displaced populations is often associated with a positive change towards "normality, peace, and stability" (Chimni, 2002, p. 163).The return of populations residing abroad also legitimises post-conflict states and enhances donor confidence (Black & Gent, 2006;Black & Koser, 1999).Repatriation is consequently understood as a "central pillar of peace processes" in a post-conflict environment (Black & Gent, 2006: 17).At the same time, however, the return of formerly displaced persons to conflict-affected areas is considered a potential threat to peace, especially when return flows are large, and security challenges may arise if returnees do not sufficiently reintegrate (Crisp, 2000).It is therefore pivotal to understand how conflict-affected countries experience return movements and under what conditions both refugees and IDPs reintegrate successfully.Because of the potential challenges associated with return movements in unstable contexts, the reintegration of displaced populations has become a priority for policymakers and receives increased academic interest.Despite this surge of interest, the reintegration of the formerly displaced populations remains an understudied phenomenon, with the exception of some qualitative studies (Arowolo, 2000;Ghanem, 2003; . Moreover, there are particularly few quantitative studies that include both former IDPs and former refugees and none to our knowledge that has looked at both objective and subjective dimensions of reintegration.This cannot be fully explained by the idea that migration research in the Global North overshadows research conducted in the Global South.Practical matters, such as the difficulty of collecting large-scale data in conflictaffected countries, also play a significant role in the persistence of this gap.However, those who have fled from war or political unrest may face additional challenges after returning to their origin country.Their migration experiences, the return conditions in a post-war area, and the challenges of reclaiming belongings may make it more difficult to reintegrate (Ruiz & Vargas-Silva, 2013).The reintegration of IDPs and refugees therefore needs particular attention. Despite data collection challenges, some studies have explored the reintegration of displaced populations using quantitative data.For example, Fransen, Vargas-Silva, and Ruiz (2017) studied the economic integration of returned refugees in Burundi and found that return households reported lower levels of livestock and lower subjective economic well-being.Similarly, Kondylis (2010) researched the labour market outcomes of displaced individuals (refugees and IDPs) in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Other studies focused specifically on IDPs.O'Reilly (2015), for example, studied the consumption patterns of returned IDPs in Uganda, and Verwimp and Munoz-Mora (2017) looked at food security and nutritional status of IDPs in Burundi.Overall, most studies compare returnees to non-returnees and find that returnees (either former IDPs or former refugees) are worse off than those who did not move during the conflict, although outcomes seem to improve over time. Comparisons between returnees and non-returnees have however been criticised as a comprehensive measure of reintegration (see, e.g., Black & Gent, 2006) and do not reveal why some returnees reintegrate while others do not.The constituents that underlie the reintegration process have received less attention, and it is particularly unclear what factors account for a "successful" reintegration.Moreover, as suggested earlier, studies often focus on singular and objective reintegration indicators, such as consumption and asset ownership, thereby disregarding the complexity of the reintegration process and its various components.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Most studies in migration research focus on either internal or international migration, which leads to a fragmented understanding of the drivers and consequences of internal versus international migration and the linkages between both forms of migration”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > Abstract The reintegration constituents of displaced populations are understudied, despite increased attention being paid to return and reintegration outcomes.In this paper, we explore how various factors related to the migration cycle, including returnees' displacement experiences and return conditions, are associated with reintegration outcomes.For this aim, we take a multidimensional approach to the measurement of reintegration.In addition to objective reintegration outcomes, measured by food security, we address subjective assessments such as feelings of reintegration.We focus on the unique case of returnees in Burundi and make use of a database consisting of a sample of 189 former internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 194 former refugees, which allows for a comparison of the reintegration of these two groups.The analyses highlight that objective and subjective reintegration do not necessarily align and that displacement experiences and return conditions relate to reintegration outcomes in different ways.Land and livestock ownership upon return are for example positively correlated with feelings of reintegration and subjective wealth, whereas community support is crucial to cope with food security.Moreover, we show considerable variation in reintegration outcomes between refugees and IDPs, with refugees showing more positive outcomes when individual characteristics are controlled for.This result calls for more in-depth research on the contextual and structural factors that elucidate the variation across groups going beyond individual level explanations.Overall, the findings emphasise the diversity in reintegration outcomes and identify the role of experiences during displacement and return conditions for the reintegration of refugees and IDPs.KEYWORDS Burundi, internally displaced persons (IDPs), refugees, reintegration, return migration 1 | INTRODUCTION Conflict-affected countries frequently experience large population movements when formerly displaced populations-internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees-return home.Recent years have shown a growing number of such examples.More than 5.7 million Afghans, a quarter of Afghanistan's population, returned to Afghanistan after 2002 (UNHCR, 2014a.Likewise, Bosnia welcomed 1 million returneesafter the 1992-1995 war, and more than 700,000 former refugees returned to Rwanda after the 1994 genocide.The voluntary return of displaced populations is often associated with a positive change towards "normality, peace, and stability" (Chimni, 2002, p. 163).The return of populations residing abroad also legitimises post-conflict states and enhances donor confidence (Black & Gent, 2006;Black & Koser, 1999).Repatriation is consequently understood as a "central pillar of peace processes" in a post-conflict environment (Black & Gent, 2006: 17).At the same time, however, the return of formerly displaced persons to conflict-affected areas is considered a potential threat to peace, especially when return flows are large, and security challenges may arise if returnees do not sufficiently reintegrate (Crisp, 2000).It is therefore pivotal to understand how conflict-affected countries experience return movements and under what conditions both refugees and IDPs reintegrate successfully.Because of the potential challenges associated with return movements in unstable contexts, the reintegration of displaced populations has become a priority for policymakers and receives increased academic interest.Despite this surge of interest, the reintegration of the formerly displaced populations remains an understudied phenomenon, with the exception of some qualitative studies (Arowolo, 2000;Ghanem, 2003; . Moreover, there are particularly few quantitative studies that include both former IDPs and former refugees and none to our knowledge that has looked at both objective and subjective dimensions of reintegration.This cannot be fully explained by the idea that migration research in the Global North overshadows research conducted in the Global South.Practical matters, such as the difficulty of collecting large-scale data in conflictaffected countries, also play a significant role in the persistence of this gap.However, those who have fled from war or political unrest may face additional challenges after returning to their origin country.Their migration experiences, the return conditions in a post-war area, and the challenges of reclaiming belongings may make it more difficult to reintegrate (Ruiz & Vargas-Silva, 2013).The reintegration of IDPs and refugees therefore needs particular attention. Despite data collection challenges, some studies have explored the reintegration of displaced populations using quantitative data.For example, Fransen, Vargas-Silva, and Ruiz (2017) studied the economic integration of returned refugees in Burundi and found that return households reported lower levels of livestock and lower subjective economic well-being.Similarly, Kondylis (2010) researched the labour market outcomes of displaced individuals (refugees and IDPs) in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Other studies focused specifically on IDPs.O'Reilly (2015), for example, studied the consumption patterns of returned IDPs in Uganda, and Verwimp and Munoz-Mora (2017) looked at food security and nutritional status of IDPs in Burundi.Overall, most studies compare returnees to non-returnees and find that returnees (either former IDPs or former refugees) are worse off than those who did not move during the conflict, although outcomes seem to improve over time. Comparisons between returnees and non-returnees have however been criticised as a comprehensive measure of reintegration (see, e.g., Black & Gent, 2006) and do not reveal why some returnees reintegrate while others do not.The constituents that underlie the reintegration process have received less attention, and it is particularly unclear what factors account for a "successful" reintegration.Moreover, as suggested earlier, studies often focus on singular and objective reintegration indicators, such as consumption and asset ownership, thereby disregarding the complexity of the reintegration process and its various components.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites King & Skeldon, 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A focus on comparing the reintegration outcomes of returnees and non-returnees obscures the view on the reintegration process itself and particularly the factors that contribute to it”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 2 | CONSTITUENTS OF REINTEGRATION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the integration of refugees or IDPs into their areas of settlement during displacement may not only affect the decision of whether to return or not but has been found to play an important role for reintegration as well”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 2.1 | Conditions during displacement
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The findings also confirm the need to study the constituents of the reintegration process in a multidimensional way as we found that subjective and objective reintegration outcomes differed”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > Abstract The reintegration constituents of displaced populations are understudied, despite increased attention being paid to return and reintegration outcomes.In this paper, we explore how various factors related to the migration cycle, including returnees' displacement experiences and return conditions, are associated with reintegration outcomes.For this aim, we take a multidimensional approach to the measurement of reintegration.In addition to objective reintegration outcomes, measured by food security, we address subjective assessments such as feelings of reintegration.We focus on the unique case of returnees in Burundi and make use of a database consisting of a sample of 189 former internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 194 former refugees, which allows for a comparison of the reintegration of these two groups.The analyses highlight that objective and subjective reintegration do not necessarily align and that displacement experiences and return conditions relate to reintegration outcomes in different ways.Land and livestock ownership upon return are for example positively correlated with feelings of reintegration and subjective wealth, whereas community support is crucial to cope with food security.Moreover, we show considerable variation in reintegration outcomes between refugees and IDPs, with refugees showing more positive outcomes when individual characteristics are controlled for.This result calls for more in-depth research on the contextual and structural factors that elucidate the variation across groups going beyond individual level explanations.Overall, the findings emphasise the diversity in reintegration outcomes and identify the role of experiences during displacement and return conditions for the reintegration of refugees and IDPs.KEYWORDS Burundi, internally displaced persons (IDPs), refugees, reintegration, return migration 1 | INTRODUCTION Conflict-affected countries frequently experience large population movements when formerly displaced populations-internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees-return home.Recent years have shown a growing number of such examples.More than 5.7 million Afghans, a quarter of Afghanistan's population, returned to Afghanistan after 2002 (UNHCR, 2014a.Likewise, Bosnia welcomed 1 million returneesafter the 1992-1995 war, and more than 700,000 former refugees returned to Rwanda after the 1994 genocide.The voluntary return of displaced populations is often associated with a positive change towards "normality, peace, and stability" (Chimni, 2002, p. 163).The return of populations residing abroad also legitimises post-conflict states and enhances donor confidence (Black & Gent, 2006;Black & Koser, 1999).Repatriation is consequently understood as a "central pillar of peace processes" in a post-conflict environment (Black & Gent, 2006: 17).At the same time, however, the return of formerly displaced persons to conflict-affected areas is considered a potential threat to peace, especially when return flows are large, and security challenges may arise if returnees do not sufficiently reintegrate (Crisp, 2000).It is therefore pivotal to understand how conflict-affected countries experience return movements and under what conditions both refugees and IDPs reintegrate successfully.Because of the potential challenges associated with return movements in unstable contexts, the reintegration of displaced populations has become a priority for policymakers and receives increased academic interest.Despite this surge of interest, the reintegration of the formerly displaced populations remains an understudied phenomenon, with the exception of some qualitative studies (Arowolo, 2000;Ghanem, 2003; . Moreover, there are particularly few quantitative studies that include both former IDPs and former refugees and none to our knowledge that has looked at both objective and subjective dimensions of reintegration.This cannot be fully explained by the idea that migration research in the Global North overshadows research conducted in the Global South.Practical matters, such as the difficulty of collecting large-scale data in conflictaffected countries, also play a significant role in the persistence of this gap.However, those who have fled from war or political unrest may face additional challenges after returning to their origin country.Their migration experiences, the return conditions in a post-war area, and the challenges of reclaiming belongings may make it more difficult to reintegrate (Ruiz & Vargas-Silva, 2013).The reintegration of IDPs and refugees therefore needs particular attention. Despite data collection challenges, some studies have explored the reintegration of displaced populations using quantitative data.For example, Fransen, Vargas-Silva, and Ruiz (2017) studied the economic integration of returned refugees in Burundi and found that return households reported lower levels of livestock and lower subjective economic well-being.Similarly, Kondylis (2010) researched the labour market outcomes of displaced individuals (refugees and IDPs) in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Other studies focused specifically on IDPs.O'Reilly (2015), for example, studied the consumption patterns of returned IDPs in Uganda, and Verwimp and Munoz-Mora (2017) looked at food security and nutritional status of IDPs in Burundi.Overall, most studies compare returnees to non-returnees and find that returnees (either former IDPs or former refugees) are worse off than those who did not move during the conflict, although outcomes seem to improve over time. Comparisons between returnees and non-returnees have however been criticised as a comprehensive measure of reintegration (see, e.g., Black & Gent, 2006) and do not reveal why some returnees reintegrate while others do not.The constituents that underlie the reintegration process have received less attention, and it is particularly unclear what factors account for a "successful" reintegration.Moreover, as suggested earlier, studies often focus on singular and objective reintegration indicators, such as consumption and asset ownership, thereby disregarding the complexity of the reintegration process and its various components.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Comparing the situation of returnees with that of other society members also highlights the relative vulnerabilities of returnees and the areas in which they need support”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 2 | CONSTITUENTS OF REINTEGRATION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The UNHCR definition of reintegration is most often used for research purposes, because it is relatively easy to operationalize and measure”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 2 | CONSTITUENTS OF REINTEGRATION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fransen, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there are particularly few quantitative studies that include both former IDPs and former refugees and none to our knowledge that has looked at both objective and subjective dimensions of reintegration”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > Abstract The reintegration constituents of displaced populations are understudied, despite increased attention being paid to return and reintegration outcomes.In this paper, we explore how various factors related to the migration cycle, including returnees' displacement experiences and return conditions, are associated with reintegration outcomes.For this aim, we take a multidimensional approach to the measurement of reintegration.In addition to objective reintegration outcomes, measured by food security, we address subjective assessments such as feelings of reintegration.We focus on the unique case of returnees in Burundi and make use of a database consisting of a sample of 189 former internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 194 former refugees, which allows for a comparison of the reintegration of these two groups.The analyses highlight that objective and subjective reintegration do not necessarily align and that displacement experiences and return conditions relate to reintegration outcomes in different ways.Land and livestock ownership upon return are for example positively correlated with feelings of reintegration and subjective wealth, whereas community support is crucial to cope with food security.Moreover, we show considerable variation in reintegration outcomes between refugees and IDPs, with refugees showing more positive outcomes when individual characteristics are controlled for.This result calls for more in-depth research on the contextual and structural factors that elucidate the variation across groups going beyond individual level explanations.Overall, the findings emphasise the diversity in reintegration outcomes and identify the role of experiences during displacement and return conditions for the reintegration of refugees and IDPs.KEYWORDS Burundi, internally displaced persons (IDPs), refugees, reintegration, return migration 1 | INTRODUCTION Conflict-affected countries frequently experience large population movements when formerly displaced populations-internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees-return home.Recent years have shown a growing number of such examples.More than 5.7 million Afghans, a quarter of Afghanistan's population, returned to Afghanistan after 2002 (UNHCR, 2014a.Likewise, Bosnia welcomed 1 million returneesafter the 1992-1995 war, and more than 700,000 former refugees returned to Rwanda after the 1994 genocide.The voluntary return of displaced populations is often associated with a positive change towards "normality, peace, and stability" (Chimni, 2002, p. 163).The return of populations residing abroad also legitimises post-conflict states and enhances donor confidence (Black & Gent, 2006;Black & Koser, 1999).Repatriation is consequently understood as a "central pillar of peace processes" in a post-conflict environment (Black & Gent, 2006: 17).At the same time, however, the return of formerly displaced persons to conflict-affected areas is considered a potential threat to peace, especially when return flows are large, and security challenges may arise if returnees do not sufficiently reintegrate (Crisp, 2000).It is therefore pivotal to understand how conflict-affected countries experience return movements and under what conditions both refugees and IDPs reintegrate successfully.Because of the potential challenges associated with return movements in unstable contexts, the reintegration of displaced populations has become a priority for policymakers and receives increased academic interest.Despite this surge of interest, the reintegration of the formerly displaced populations remains an understudied phenomenon, with the exception of some qualitative studies (Arowolo, 2000;Ghanem, 2003; . Moreover, there are particularly few quantitative studies that include both former IDPs and former refugees and none to our knowledge that has looked at both objective and subjective dimensions of reintegration.This cannot be fully explained by the idea that migration research in the Global North overshadows research conducted in the Global South.Practical matters, such as the difficulty of collecting large-scale data in conflictaffected countries, also play a significant role in the persistence of this gap.However, those who have fled from war or political unrest may face additional challenges after returning to their origin country.Their migration experiences, the return conditions in a post-war area, and the challenges of reclaiming belongings may make it more difficult to reintegrate (Ruiz & Vargas-Silva, 2013).The reintegration of IDPs and refugees therefore needs particular attention. Despite data collection challenges, some studies have explored the reintegration of displaced populations using quantitative data.For example, Fransen, Vargas-Silva, and Ruiz (2017) studied the economic integration of returned refugees in Burundi and found that return households reported lower levels of livestock and lower subjective economic well-being.Similarly, Kondylis (2010) researched the labour market outcomes of displaced individuals (refugees and IDPs) in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Other studies focused specifically on IDPs.O'Reilly (2015), for example, studied the consumption patterns of returned IDPs in Uganda, and Verwimp and Munoz-Mora (2017) looked at food security and nutritional status of IDPs in Burundi.Overall, most studies compare returnees to non-returnees and find that returnees (either former IDPs or former refugees) are worse off than those who did not move during the conflict, although outcomes seem to improve over time. Comparisons between returnees and non-returnees have however been criticised as a comprehensive measure of reintegration (see, e.g., Black & Gent, 2006) and do not reveal why some returnees reintegrate while others do not.The constituents that underlie the reintegration process have received less attention, and it is particularly unclear what factors account for a "successful" reintegration.Moreover, as suggested earlier, studies often focus on singular and objective reintegration indicators, such as consumption and asset ownership, thereby disregarding the complexity of the reintegration process and its various components.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is little consensus among policymakers and academics on how reintegration is defined or operationalized”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 2 | CONSTITUENTS OF REINTEGRATION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“countries recovering from conflict are frequently politically unstable and impoverished, offering few opportunities for returnees to reestablish their livelihoods”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 2.2 | Return conditions
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Several studies have highlighted the reintegration challenges that returnees face, particularly in terms of restitution of land and other property such as housing”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > Abstract The reintegration constituents of displaced populations are understudied, despite increased attention being paid to return and reintegration outcomes.In this paper, we explore how various factors related to the migration cycle, including returnees' displacement experiences and return conditions, are associated with reintegration outcomes.For this aim, we take a multidimensional approach to the measurement of reintegration.In addition to objective reintegration outcomes, measured by food security, we address subjective assessments such as feelings of reintegration.We focus on the unique case of returnees in Burundi and make use of a database consisting of a sample of 189 former internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 194 former refugees, which allows for a comparison of the reintegration of these two groups.The analyses highlight that objective and subjective reintegration do not necessarily align and that displacement experiences and return conditions relate to reintegration outcomes in different ways.Land and livestock ownership upon return are for example positively correlated with feelings of reintegration and subjective wealth, whereas community support is crucial to cope with food security.Moreover, we show considerable variation in reintegration outcomes between refugees and IDPs, with refugees showing more positive outcomes when individual characteristics are controlled for.This result calls for more in-depth research on the contextual and structural factors that elucidate the variation across groups going beyond individual level explanations.Overall, the findings emphasise the diversity in reintegration outcomes and identify the role of experiences during displacement and return conditions for the reintegration of refugees and IDPs.KEYWORDS Burundi, internally displaced persons (IDPs), refugees, reintegration, return migration 1 | INTRODUCTION Conflict-affected countries frequently experience large population movements when formerly displaced populations-internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees-return home.Recent years have shown a growing number of such examples.More than 5.7 million Afghans, a quarter of Afghanistan's population, returned to Afghanistan after 2002 (UNHCR, 2014a.Likewise, Bosnia welcomed 1 million returneesafter the 1992-1995 war, and more than 700,000 former refugees returned to Rwanda after the 1994 genocide.The voluntary return of displaced populations is often associated with a positive change towards "normality, peace, and stability" (Chimni, 2002, p. 163).The return of populations residing abroad also legitimises post-conflict states and enhances donor confidence (Black & Gent, 2006;Black & Koser, 1999).Repatriation is consequently understood as a "central pillar of peace processes" in a post-conflict environment (Black & Gent, 2006: 17).At the same time, however, the return of formerly displaced persons to conflict-affected areas is considered a potential threat to peace, especially when return flows are large, and security challenges may arise if returnees do not sufficiently reintegrate (Crisp, 2000).It is therefore pivotal to understand how conflict-affected countries experience return movements and under what conditions both refugees and IDPs reintegrate successfully.Because of the potential challenges associated with return movements in unstable contexts, the reintegration of displaced populations has become a priority for policymakers and receives increased academic interest.Despite this surge of interest, the reintegration of the formerly displaced populations remains an understudied phenomenon, with the exception of some qualitative studies (Arowolo, 2000;Ghanem, 2003; . Moreover, there are particularly few quantitative studies that include both former IDPs and former refugees and none to our knowledge that has looked at both objective and subjective dimensions of reintegration.This cannot be fully explained by the idea that migration research in the Global North overshadows research conducted in the Global South.Practical matters, such as the difficulty of collecting large-scale data in conflictaffected countries, also play a significant role in the persistence of this gap.However, those who have fled from war or political unrest may face additional challenges after returning to their origin country.Their migration experiences, the return conditions in a post-war area, and the challenges of reclaiming belongings may make it more difficult to reintegrate (Ruiz & Vargas-Silva, 2013).The reintegration of IDPs and refugees therefore needs particular attention. Despite data collection challenges, some studies have explored the reintegration of displaced populations using quantitative data.For example, Fransen, Vargas-Silva, and Ruiz (2017) studied the economic integration of returned refugees in Burundi and found that return households reported lower levels of livestock and lower subjective economic well-being.Similarly, Kondylis (2010) researched the labour market outcomes of displaced individuals (refugees and IDPs) in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Other studies focused specifically on IDPs.O'Reilly (2015), for example, studied the consumption patterns of returned IDPs in Uganda, and Verwimp and Munoz-Mora (2017) looked at food security and nutritional status of IDPs in Burundi.Overall, most studies compare returnees to non-returnees and find that returnees (either former IDPs or former refugees) are worse off than those who did not move during the conflict, although outcomes seem to improve over time. Comparisons between returnees and non-returnees have however been criticised as a comprehensive measure of reintegration (see, e.g., Black & Gent, 2006) and do not reveal why some returnees reintegrate while others do not.The constituents that underlie the reintegration process have received less attention, and it is particularly unclear what factors account for a "successful" reintegration.Moreover, as suggested earlier, studies often focus on singular and objective reintegration indicators, such as consumption and asset ownership, thereby disregarding the complexity of the reintegration process and its various components.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fransen, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Fransen & Kuschminder, 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ability of former refugees or IDPs to acquire assets, to obtain financial resources, to find employment, and to being able to rely on social support are all factors that determine a successful reintegration”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 2.2 | Return conditions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Comparisons between returnees and non-returnees have however been criticised as a comprehensive measure of reintegration (see, e.g., Black & Gent, 2006) and do not reveal why some returnees reintegrate while others do not”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > Abstract The reintegration constituents of displaced populations are understudied, despite increased attention being paid to return and reintegration outcomes.In this paper, we explore how various factors related to the migration cycle, including returnees' displacement experiences and return conditions, are associated with reintegration outcomes.For this aim, we take a multidimensional approach to the measurement of reintegration.In addition to objective reintegration outcomes, measured by food security, we address subjective assessments such as feelings of reintegration.We focus on the unique case of returnees in Burundi and make use of a database consisting of a sample of 189 former internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 194 former refugees, which allows for a comparison of the reintegration of these two groups.The analyses highlight that objective and subjective reintegration do not necessarily align and that displacement experiences and return conditions relate to reintegration outcomes in different ways.Land and livestock ownership upon return are for example positively correlated with feelings of reintegration and subjective wealth, whereas community support is crucial to cope with food security.Moreover, we show considerable variation in reintegration outcomes between refugees and IDPs, with refugees showing more positive outcomes when individual characteristics are controlled for.This result calls for more in-depth research on the contextual and structural factors that elucidate the variation across groups going beyond individual level explanations.Overall, the findings emphasise the diversity in reintegration outcomes and identify the role of experiences during displacement and return conditions for the reintegration of refugees and IDPs.KEYWORDS Burundi, internally displaced persons (IDPs), refugees, reintegration, return migration 1 | INTRODUCTION Conflict-affected countries frequently experience large population movements when formerly displaced populations-internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees-return home.Recent years have shown a growing number of such examples.More than 5.7 million Afghans, a quarter of Afghanistan's population, returned to Afghanistan after 2002 (UNHCR, 2014a.Likewise, Bosnia welcomed 1 million returneesafter the 1992-1995 war, and more than 700,000 former refugees returned to Rwanda after the 1994 genocide.The voluntary return of displaced populations is often associated with a positive change towards "normality, peace, and stability" (Chimni, 2002, p. 163).The return of populations residing abroad also legitimises post-conflict states and enhances donor confidence (Black & Gent, 2006;Black & Koser, 1999).Repatriation is consequently understood as a "central pillar of peace processes" in a post-conflict environment (Black & Gent, 2006: 17).At the same time, however, the return of formerly displaced persons to conflict-affected areas is considered a potential threat to peace, especially when return flows are large, and security challenges may arise if returnees do not sufficiently reintegrate (Crisp, 2000).It is therefore pivotal to understand how conflict-affected countries experience return movements and under what conditions both refugees and IDPs reintegrate successfully.Because of the potential challenges associated with return movements in unstable contexts, the reintegration of displaced populations has become a priority for policymakers and receives increased academic interest.Despite this surge of interest, the reintegration of the formerly displaced populations remains an understudied phenomenon, with the exception of some qualitative studies (Arowolo, 2000;Ghanem, 2003; . Moreover, there are particularly few quantitative studies that include both former IDPs and former refugees and none to our knowledge that has looked at both objective and subjective dimensions of reintegration.This cannot be fully explained by the idea that migration research in the Global North overshadows research conducted in the Global South.Practical matters, such as the difficulty of collecting large-scale data in conflictaffected countries, also play a significant role in the persistence of this gap.However, those who have fled from war or political unrest may face additional challenges after returning to their origin country.Their migration experiences, the return conditions in a post-war area, and the challenges of reclaiming belongings may make it more difficult to reintegrate (Ruiz & Vargas-Silva, 2013).The reintegration of IDPs and refugees therefore needs particular attention. Despite data collection challenges, some studies have explored the reintegration of displaced populations using quantitative data.For example, Fransen, Vargas-Silva, and Ruiz (2017) studied the economic integration of returned refugees in Burundi and found that return households reported lower levels of livestock and lower subjective economic well-being.Similarly, Kondylis (2010) researched the labour market outcomes of displaced individuals (refugees and IDPs) in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Other studies focused specifically on IDPs.O'Reilly (2015), for example, studied the consumption patterns of returned IDPs in Uganda, and Verwimp and Munoz-Mora (2017) looked at food security and nutritional status of IDPs in Burundi.Overall, most studies compare returnees to non-returnees and find that returnees (either former IDPs or former refugees) are worse off than those who did not move during the conflict, although outcomes seem to improve over time. Comparisons between returnees and non-returnees have however been criticised as a comprehensive measure of reintegration (see, e.g., Black & Gent, 2006) and do not reveal why some returnees reintegrate while others do not.The constituents that underlie the reintegration process have received less attention, and it is particularly unclear what factors account for a "successful" reintegration.Moreover, as suggested earlier, studies often focus on singular and objective reintegration indicators, such as consumption and asset ownership, thereby disregarding the complexity of the reintegration process and its various components.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Black & Gent, 2006 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For those who were displaced during the war, reintegration into Burundian society is challenged by low access to resources that are pivotal to build sustainable livelihoods”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 3.1 | Reintegration in Burundi
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“IDPs, on the other hand, were displaced relatively close to their origin communities and therefore often maintained ownership of their land”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 3.1 | Reintegration in Burundi
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zeender & McCallin, 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is most likely due to the distance associated with migration-IDPs were generally closer to home than refugees-and the fact that refugees needed to cross an international border to return.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.2 | Descriptive analysis: Constituents of reintegration
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Those formerly displaced felt part of their community but scored worse on subjective wealth, and despite feeling reintegrated, the majority of the sample suffered from food insecurity.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.1 | Descriptive analysis: Reintegration outcomes
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The conflict had also affected social ties, reportedly leading to low levels of interpersonal trust, solidarity, and reciprocity”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 3.1 | Reintegration in Burundi
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Fransen (2017) found that former refugee households were less likely to own agricultural land and that households with second-generation returnees-the children of former refugees who were born abroad-faced worse living conditions”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 3.1 | Reintegration in Burundi
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fransen (2017)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“According to these authors, most individuals returned to their origin communities because of their attachment to and reliance on agricultural family land”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 4 | DATA AND METHODS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fransen, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Fransen & Kuschminder, 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Hovil, 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perception of support among community members may therefore be imperative for reintegration to succeed, particularly in conflict settings such as Burundi, where resources are scarce and decades of conflict have led to weakened social ties”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 2.2 | Return conditions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The importance of social support from the community and organisations in areas of return has been highlighted by authors as well”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 2.2 | Return conditions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fransen & Kuschminder, 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hammond, 2004 source
- Not matchedcites Rogge, 1994
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Women in particular faced problems regaining access to land, as land is inherited from father to son in Burundi”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 3.1 | Reintegration in Burundi
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rema Ministries, 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The authors also found that the duration of displacement negatively affected food security but that it improved over time after return”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 3.1 | Reintegration in Burundi
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Verwimp and Munoz-Mora (2017)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, former IDPs and refugees did not have different reintegration outcomes suggesting they can be further treated as a single group of returnees.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.1 | Descriptive analysis: Reintegration outcomes
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“urban returnees often reside in poor urban areas and struggle to achieve sustainable livelihoods”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 2.2 | Return conditions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Harild et al. (2015) source
plaincorrelationaln = 8- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most of the research however has focused on some of these dimensions rather than looking at them simultaneously, making it difficult to conclude which of these factors are the most relevant ones for particular displaced populations”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 2.2 | Return conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Almost half a million refugees were repatriated from Tanzania, another 15,000 came from DRC, and nearly 8,000 returned from Rwanda.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 6 | CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites UNHCR, 2014b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“An estimated 157,000 people were internally displaced in Burundi in 2010, and there were approximately79,200 IDPs in 2015 (IDMC, 2015).”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 6 | CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites IDMC, 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In these analyses, we control for individual variables such as age, gender, marital status, and literacy of the former IDP or refugee.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 4.2 | Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Allowing the displaced to work and providing freedom of movement are thus important reintegration determinants after return.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 6 | CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The land inheritance system in Burundi is based on fatherson lineages, which makes it particularly difficult for female returnees to retrieve family land (Rema Ministries, 2012).”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 6 | CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rema Ministries, 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings are important, particularly from a policy perspective, but do not give insights into the factors that contribute to reintegration.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 6 | CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the regression analyses, we cluster standard errors at the community level, and we control for province dummies.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 4.2 | Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“although employment is a commonly used indicator to assess objective reintegration (Alquezar Sabadie, Avato, Bardak, Panzica, & Popova, 2010;Kırdar, 2009;Kilic, Carletto, Davis, & Zezza, 2009)”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.1 | Descriptive analysis: Reintegration outcomes
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Alquezar Sabadie, Avato, Bardak, Panzica, & Popova, 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Kırdar, 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kilic, Carletto, Davis, & Zezza, 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Our analysis highlights particularly that more attention needs to be paid to the reintegration process of IDPs who may receive significantly less support than refugees (Harild & Christensen, 2010).”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 6 | CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Harild & Christensen, 2010 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is an interesting finding that most likely reflects the positive attitude of the formerly displaced who spent a long time away from their origin communities.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.3 | Main analysis: Reintegration constituents
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Security concerns and limited access of international relief agencies during the war restricted data collection on IDPs (U.S. Committee for Refugees [USCR], 1998).”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 6 | CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites U.S. Committee for Refugees [USCR], 1998
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The extent to which displaced populations reintegrate is affected by the assistance they receive upon return, but responses to large-scale return of displaced populations vary across regions and countries (Harild & Christensen, 2010).”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 6 | CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Harild & Christensen, 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unfortunately, the limitations of our data do not allow us to disentangle the relationship between NGO support and subjective reintegration in more detail.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.3 | Main analysis: Reintegration constituents
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Zeender and McCallin (2013) estimated that around 90% of 800,000 IDPs returned to their communities between 1999 and 2005.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 6 | CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zeender and McCallin (2013) source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Earlier studies conducted in Burundi highlighted that both types of returnees fare worse than populations that did not move during conflict (Fransen, 2017;Fransen , 2017 ;Verwimp & Munoz-Mora, 2017).”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 6 | CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fransen, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Verwimp & Munoz-Mora, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This finding highlights the importance of studying internal and international migration experiences simultaneously (cf.King & Skeldon, 2010), in order to highlight potential differences and similarities in the experiences of different migrant groups.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 6 | CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites King & Skeldon, 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our study highlights the heterogeneity of formerly displaced populations and demonstrates that the full migration cycle should be considered when assessing reintegration.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 6 | CONCLUSION
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Reintegration experiences of formerly displaced populations in conflict-affected areas remain poorly understood, and the factors that constitute a successful return are understudied.
“Despite the scale of return and the importance of the reintegration of formerly displaced populations in conflict-affected areas, reintegration experiences remain poorly understood.The factors that constitute a successful return are particularly understudied, and it is therefore unclear who reintegrates and why.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Years of education obtained before migration is a valid proxy for predisplacement variations in economic well-being.
“The years of education obtained before migration is used as a proxy for predisplacement variations in economic well-being.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 4 | DATA AND METHODS
“Eighty percent of the former refugees in our sample returned to their origin community”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.2 | Descriptive analysis: Constituents of reintegration
“Ninety-three percent of IDPs returned to their origin communities, whereas 86% of refugees did so.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > Abstract
“As part of this survey, one return migrant was randomly selected from each household and interviewed in-depth about his or her situation before migration, during migration and upon return.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 4 | DATA AND METHODS
“Per household, one former IDP and one former refugee-if there were any in the household-were randomly selected for the interview.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 4 | DATA AND METHODS
“In the former IDP sample, 90% had returned to their origin communities.”
§ Who reintegrates? The constituents of reintegration of displaced populations > 5.2 | Descriptive analysis: Constituents of reintegration
“Ninety-three percent of IDPs returned to their origin communities, whereas 86% of refugees did so.”
Citations
Cites
United Nations Development Programme (2011) · doi:10.18356/fdcff8d6-en · Cited by 620
‘Mind the Gap!’ Integrating Approaches to Internal and International Migration
King, R., & Skeldon, R. (2010) · Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies · doi:10.1080/1369183x.2010.489380 · Cited by 619
Gmelch, G. (1980) · Annual Review of Anthropology · doi:10.1146/annurev.an.09.100180.001031 · Cited by 521
Theorising Return Migration: A Conceptual Approach to Returnees Revisited
Cassarino, J.-P. (2004) · Cadmus - EUI Research Repository (European University Institute) · Cited by 513
(2004) · HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · Cited by 511
Burundi: Ethnic Conflict and Genocide
Lemarchand, R. (1996) · Cited by 423
Dangerous sanctuaries: refugee camps, civil war, and the dilemmas of humanitarian aid
(2005) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.43-1214 · Cited by 286
The Economics of Forced Migration
Ruiz, I., & Vargas‐Silva, C. (2013) · The Journal of Development Studies · doi:10.1080/00220388.2013.777707 · Cited by 230
Conflict displacement and labor market outcomes in post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina
Kondylis, F. (2009) · Journal of Development Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2009.10.004 · Cited by 204
This Place Will Become Home: Refugee Repatriation to Ethiopia
Hammond, L. C. (2004) · doi:10.7591/9781501727252 · Cited by 167
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- Boyd M., 2003, Women and migration: Incorporating gender into international migration theory
- Brachet J., 2005, Social development papers, conflict prevention and reconstruction no. 27
- Bunte T., 2011, Mediating land conflict in Burundi
- IDMC, 2015, Burundi IDP figures analysis
- IRIN, 2002, Burundi‐DRC‐Tanzania: Focus on positive aspects of refugee crises
- Mac Donald I., 2011, Landlessness and insecurity: Obstacles to reintegration in Afghanistan
- Ministries R., 2012, Rethinking reintegration in Burundi
- Musahara H., 2005, From the ground up: Land rights, conflict and peace in sub‐Saharan Africa, 269
- Rogge J. R., 1994, When refugees go home
- UNHCR, 2008, UNHCR's role in support of the return and reintegration of displaced populations: Policy framework and implementation strategy
- UNHCR, 2014, UNHCR country operations profile – Afghanistan
- UNHCR, 2014, Statistiques demographiques du rapatriement
- UNOCHA, 1999, Affected population in the Great Lakes region (displaced‐refugees)
- Vorrath J., 2008, From refugee crisis to reintegration crisis? The consequences of repatriation to (post) transition Burundi
- Wirth A., 2014, Global refugee work rights report: Taking the movement from theory to practice. Asylum access and the refugee work rights coalition
- World Bank, 2009, Country brief: Burundi
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Legacies of Armed Conflict: Insights From Stayees and Returning Forced Migrants
Ruiz, I., & Vargas‐Silva, C. (2024) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/00220027241253529 · Cited by 11
“The country experienced a major in fl ow of returnees after the con fl ict (Fransen and Bilgili 2018).”
Kuschminder, K., Ogahara, Z., & Rajabzadeh, I. (2020) · International Migration · doi:10.1111/imig.12742 · Cited by 10
Majidi, N., Oeppen, C., Kasavan, C., & Barratt, S. (2022) · Journal of International Migration and Integration · doi:10.1007/s12134-022-00963-0 · Cited by 10
“These changes have occurred alongside a wider academic discussion on reintegration, which has highlighted the importance of feelings of belonging, social-network membership and individual aspirations in reintegration outcomes (Fransen & Bilgili, 2018; Kuschminder, 2017; Majidi, 2020).”
BackgroundIntegration of internally displaced persons of Ukraine: realities, problems, perspectives
Niemets, L. M., Husieva, N., Pohrebskyi, T., et al. (2019) · Visnyk of V N Karazin Kharkiv National University series Geology Geography Ecology · doi:10.26565/2410-7360-2019-51-10 · Cited by 8
Tassang, A. E., Guoqing, S., Akintunde, T. Y., Muhideen, S., Isangha, S. O., Adedeji, A., & Musa, T. H. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20361 · Cited by 7
“In addition, resentment and alienation cause displaced persons to have difficulty integrating [23].”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Fransen, S., & Bilgili, Ö.
- Affiliations
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Utrecht University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Fransen, Sonja
- Venue
- Population, Space and Place
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-02-27
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 6
- ISSN
- 1544-8444 (ISSN-L)
- 1544-8452
- OpenAlex
- W2791446691
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 1.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Population Space and Place (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Department for International Development (DFID) and Institute for the Study of Labour (IZA) (Growth and Labour Markets in Low Income Countries Programme)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Migration, Refugees, and Integration
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Migration and Labor Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Migration and Exile Studies
- Keywords
- reintegration, displaced persons, return migration, internally displaced persons, refugees, food security, community support, subjective well-being, Burundi
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
