Abstract
This study examines the drivers, effects, and implementation challenges of the resilience agenda in the Turkey Syrian refugee response, analysing these aspects at three intersecting levels: international (EU), national (government) and local (municipalities and NGOs). The study draws on academic and grey literature along with 18 interviews with aid practitioners involved in the Syrian refugee crisis regionally and in Turkey.With the growing worldwide number of refugees surviving in host countries with very limited access to durable solutions provided by states and aid actors, resilience as a concept and as a programming framework in the aid sector has been praised as the new paradigm to respond to such crises. The 2015 EU refugee crisis triggered strong international reactions resulting in new policy development (e.g. 2018 Global Compact on Refugees, 2016 EU Foreign Policy) and was a key driver for the emergence and ascendance of the resilience agenda in the aid sector. This thesis, which draws heavily on the perspective of aid practitioners, finds that resilience emerged as a concept with no common definition or objectives and quickly became heavily politicised with the 2016 EU/Turkey deal, which served the EU political agenda for migration control while allowing the Turkish government to avoid developing long-term solutions to Syrian refugees.
Resilience programming has the potential to connect the humanitarian and development sectors as exemplified in the Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan (3RP) for Syria and its neighbouring states. This sector connection represents an important paradigm shift in the aid system, moving beyond short-term humanitarian support to gradually integrate protracted refugee responses into inclusive development schemes. Resilience programming and funding have also offered support to Turkish national institutions and municipalities though, as this study shows, due to inherent capacity and political issues these programmes failed to adequately address the needs of Syrian refugees, leaving them vulnerable to private sector exploitation. This study also shows that resilience programming and funding have not achieved the goal of shifting power relations between international and local stakeholders or increasing funding for Turkish and Syrian NGOs.
Overall, the study argues that while resilience policy involves rhetorical commitment to reform the aid system, these intentions are mostly undermined by political dynamics, which has meant that resilience programming came to serve the agenda of the EU and Turkey government according to interviewees, mostly at the expense of durable solutions for Syrian refugees. Since I relied mostly on the views of aid practitioners, I could not delve in details into how the resilience agenda has been adapted or abused by national and local government officials. The study calls for policymakers and aid practitioners to reflect critically on the interests and agendas that underpin the resilience agenda and to examine whether it improves refugees’ abilities to cope with crisis. From a policy perspective, whether resilience as a current paradigm in the aid sector should be viewed as a breakthrough or a buzzword depends on the extent to which states commit politically to the agenda and use it appropriately, rather than misuse it to support their vested interests.
| Date of Award | 26 Jun 2024 |
|---|---|
| Original language | English |
| Awarding Institution |
|
| Supervisor | Oliver Walton (Supervisor) & Katharina Lenner (Supervisor) |