Suchergebnisse

AbstractDevelopment projects and war regularly lead to the internal displacement and involuntary resettlement of tens of millions of people each year. Though most "internally displaced people" settle spontaneously, a significant proportion is involuntarily resettled into planned "camps" and "settlements". This article is primarily concerned with a relatively understudied category of forced migration studies: resettlement. It contends that until very recently, the theory, policy, and practice of resettlement for people internally displaced by development and war have been treated as intellectually and practically exclusive. Decision makers and scholars working on the subject are frequently beholden to narrow disciplinary and bureaucratic interests and are unable or unwilling to look across institutional boundaries. As a result, policies and programmes intended to resettle populations have been clustered into two discrete (and disparate) narratives. Each of these draw from distinct normative moorings, government and non‐governmental interpretations of "success" and "failure" and a division of labour closely tailored to the disciplines and expertise of those in the development and humanitarian communities. Though arising from separate traditions and conceived exclusively by donors, policy makers, and scholars, this article contends that they actually share many common features.Drawing on a vast and rapidly growing literature, this article seeks to frame the key debates on development and war‐induced internal displacement and resettlement. It begins with an overview of definitional issues — including "internal displacement" and "resettlement"— two concepts that are regularly contested and misunderstood. The article observes that the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement have, to some extent, clarified the rights of development and conflict‐induced internally displaced people, as well as the responsibilities of states. It notes that in practice, however, resettlement of both types of populations is treated separately. The article then turns to a number of seminal theoretical contributions to the study of development and conflict‐induced internal displacement and involuntary resettlement (DIDR and CIDR, respectively). The article highlights their separate evolution in theory and practice over time. It closes with a brief treatment of some of the common features of DIDR and CIDR, including their political economy, their institutional and bureaucratic logic, and similar patterns of impoverishment risks.

In this article, conflict-induced displacement (CID) & "involuntary resettlement" are explored through the prism of Cernea's (1997) "impoverishment risk & livelihood reconstruction" model (IRLR), a framework originally conceived to assess development-induced displacement (DID) & resettlement. The paper tests the viability & utility of Cernea's IRLR model in the context of CID in Colombia. Seeking to demonstrate key theoretical distinctions between CID & DID, the author calls for a flexible, coordinated, & protection-oriented approach to resettlement in situations of conflict. Drawn from surveys of over thirty state & nongovernmental entities addressing resettlement of internally displaced people (IDPs) & a programmatic review of the "resettlement" experiences in two resettled communities, the article seeks to refine Cernea's IRLR methodology for CID situations. From the research process it emerges that the IRLR model serves two purposes in the analysis of CID: as a planning tool to document the capacities of social actors; & as a framework for the analysis of key impoverishment risks facing victims of war. 4 Tables, 1 Appendix, 55 References. Adapted from the source document.