Content

Jana Kuhnt, Ramona Rischke, Anda David, Tobias Lechtenfeld, Social Cohesion in Times of Forced Displacement. The Perspective of Youth in Jordan in:

Z'Flucht. Zeitschrift für Flucht- und Flüchtlingsforschung, page 320 - 342

Z’Flucht, Volume 3 (2019), Issue 2, ISSN: 2509-9485, ISSN online: 2509-9485, https://doi.org/10.5771/2509-9485-2019-2-320

Browse Volumes and Issues: Z'Flucht. Zeitschrift für Flucht- und Flüchtlingsforschung

Bibliographic information
PDF download Citation download Share
Jana Kuhnt, Ramona Rischke, Anda David und Tobias Lechtenfeld Social Cohesion in Times of Forced Displacement. The Perspective of Youth in Jordan Abstract This article explores perceptions of social cohesion among youth living in Jordan (age 18–35) as well as changing perceptions in times where the country hosted large and growing numbers of Syrian refugees. Using novel data from an online survey, the article presents evidence of a modest decrease in overall social cohe‐ sion in Jordan. Young people want to be actors of change and have a clear desire for more civic participation. The results point to opportunities for strengthening social cohesion between host and refugee youth and barriers that youth face to participate in society more actively. Keywords: social cohesion, Jordan, youth, refugees, host community Sozialer Zusammenhalt in Zeiten von Fluchtmigration. Ergebnisse aus Jordanien Zusammenfassung Dieser Artikel untersucht die Wahrnehmung des sozialen Zusammenhalts von in Jordanien lebenden jungen Erwachsenen (18–35 Jahre), sowie Veränderungen dieser Wahrnehmungen in Zeiten, in denen hohe und wachsende Zahlen syrischer Geflüchteter im Libanon leben. Ergebnisse einer Online-Umfrage weisen auf einen leichten Rückgang des sozialen Zusammenhalts in Jordanien hin. Junge Menschen wollen Akteur*innen des Wandels sein und haben ein klares Verlangen nach mehr sozialer Teilhabe. Unsere Ergebnisse weisen auf Möglichkeiten zur Stärkung des sozialen Zusammenhalts zwischen jungen Angehörigen der Mehrheitsgesellschaft und Geflüchteten sowie auf Hindernisse für die aktivere Teilnahme von jungen Menschen an der Gesellschaft hin. Schlagworte: sozialer Zusammenhalt, Jordanien, junge Erwachsene, Geflüchtete, Mehrheitsge‐ sellschaft 320 Zeitschrift für Flucht- und Flüchtlingsforschung 3. Jg. (2019), Heft 2, S. 320 – 342, DOI: 10.5771/2509-9485-2019-2-320 Introduction Social cohesion has widely been accepted as an asset for inclusive growth, and a means for fostering economic development and multidimensional welfare gains (Delhey/Dragolov 2016). At the same time, the term «social cohesion» has no clear-cut definition but it can be understood as «the glue» that holds societies together. Notably, the factors contributing to holding societies together are context specific both across space and time. Given that cohesive societies tend to be more resilient against tensions and conflict (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2011), it has been argued that promoting social cohe‐ sion is one means to counter societal challenges associated with hosting large numbers of refugees (World Bank 2016). The aim of this paper is to shed light on the perception of social cohesion among youth (age 18–35) living in Jordan, and to explore changes over a time period where Jordan hosted large and growing numbers of refugees within the country. The majority of refugees living in Jordan falls within this age category and the lack of economic and educational opportunities has been particularly challenging for the youth (refugee and Jordanian) leading to frustration and ten‐ sions (e.g. Mercy Corps, 2013). We further analyze respondents’ identification with different groups in society, and identify the extent of their civic commitment vis-à-vis barriers of civic participation. We rely on an online survey conducted between January and March 2017 that yielded 444 observations. The paper is structured as followed: Section 2 will discuss social cohesion and forced migration in general, before shifting the attention to the case of Jordan in section 3. Section 4 will detail the strengths and limitations of our data and meth‐ ods. Section 5 will present our main findings and section 6 concludes. Social cohesion and forced migration How does the arrival of forcibly displaced people affect social cohesion in receiv‐ ing communities, particularly in low- and middle- income contexts? There is limi‐ ted empirical evidence on this question given that existing studies focus on «regu‐ lar» migration movements and high-income countries. However, drawing on empirical studies investigating the effects of poverty, inequality, and diversity on different aspects of social cohesion, provides some insights to build on for future research. First and foremost, the arrival of forced migrants is expected to influence the socio-economic structure of host communities. Economic vulnerability and hard‐ 1. 2. Kuhnt/Rischke/David/Lechtenfeld | Social Cohesion in Times of Forced Displacement Z'Flucht 3. Jg., 2/2019 321 ship have been shown to adversely affect social cohesion (Vergolini 2011), which echoes Sen’s capability approach (1992): Poverty can limit a person’s capabilities to actively take part in society and result in their social exclusion. A rise in the number of economically vulnerable individuals in a community may increase lev‐ els of income disparity. Several studies have found that income inequality nega‐ tively affects measures of trust as well as civic participation – both commonly used proxies to measure social cohesion (Barone/Mocetti 2016; Delhey/Newton 2005). Experiences of traumatic situations and exposure to violence have shown to decrease trust in others (Vergolini 2011; Beccheti et al. 2014). In addition, groups that have experienced discrimination or have formed minorities show significantly lower levels of ‹generalized trust› (Rothstein/Stolle 2008). The latter finding is relevant since minorities and people traditionally discriminated against may be at a greater risk of being displaced in civil conflicts compared to majority groups. Migration often increases diversity in receiving societies. On the one hand, diversity is often associated with conflicting preferences over resources, which in the extreme can lead to or fuel political and civil unrest. On the other hand, diver‐ sity offers varying sets of abilities and experiences that can spur innovation and increase productivity (e.g. Alesina/La Ferrara 2005; van Staveren/Pervaiz 2017; Kanbur et al. 2011). The theoretical impact channels, and the empirical evidence connecting diversity and social cohesion are inconclusive (van Staveren/Pervaiz 2017; van der Meer/Tolsma 2014).1 Overall, the literature touched upon in this article suggests that expected dynamics are highly context specific and influenced by a range of factors, includ‐ ing the socio-economic situation of receiving communities but also their cultural distance to the refugee population. Forced migration and social cohesion in Jordan «Those who lost everything are hosted by those who already have little […]» (United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 2014: 8). Since the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011, Jordan has been hosting more than 670,000 Syrians (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 2019). Most Syrian refugees have limited possibilities to obtain even informal employment in Jordan and a majority is assessed to be vulnerable (UNHCR 2018; 3. 1 For a more detailed review, refer to Kuhnt et al. (2017). Forumsbeiträge 322 Z'Flucht 3. Jg., 2/2019 Tiltnes et al. 2019). Their access to basic state services is restrained as the Jorda‐ nian government has difficulties meeting the increased demand giving rise to social tensions (Salemi et al. 2018; Verme et al. 2016). In terms of diversity dynamics, most Syrian refugees are Muslims and of ethnic Arab descent (Verme et al. 2016; Alshoubaki/Harris 2018), thus sharing their language, and ethnicity with Jordanian citizens. However, the arrival of Syrian refugees has been associ‐ ated with an increasing variety of local habits and customs and with more socioeconomic diversity and changing demographic structures (Alshoubaki/Harris 2018; Mercy Corps 2013). In addition, the majority of Syrian refugees are living outside of formal camps in Jordan’s most vulnerable communities, exacerbating existing structural problems (Salemi et al. 2018). There is no doubt that the arrival of Syrian refugees aggravated the situation on the already tense local housing market2, particularly in Northern governorates (Tiltnes et al. 2019). Also, food prices have been rising due to increasing demand and difficulties in supply (Lozi 2013). Prevailing water shortages pose hygiene and health risks for the population (Mercy Corps 2013; REACH 2015; Alshoub‐ haki/Harris 2018). In addition, municipalities struggle to manage increased amounts of waste and sewerage aggravating health risk (UNDP 2014; REACH 2015). Educational facilities have a role to play in fostering social cohesion by bringing together children and adolescents from various backgrounds. For the case of Lebanon, Khattab (2018) finds that physical interaction in schools posi‐ tively influences levels of social cohesion. In contrast to this, schools in Jordan are reported to be among the places where social tensions erupt as Jordanians fear an overburdening of facilities (UNDP 2014; REACH 2014). However, there is no evidence of adverse educational outcomes of Jordanians due to the increased number of Syrian refugee children attending schools (Assaad et al. 2018). A strong and persisting narrative relates to decreasing economic opportunities: Jordanian workers blaming refugees for losing their jobs and refugees blaming their employers for exploiting them (Mercy Corps 2013). This is in contrast to recent empirical evidence: There do not seem to have been any negative effects on local wages, employment rates, or labor force participation rates (Fallah et al. 2018). Another source of friction is the aid allocation by international and national organizations. Both host and refugee groups often perceive the allocation as 2 In 2015, there was an estimated shortage of around 120,000 housing units for Syrian refugees alone and housing prices rose by 100% to 200% compared to pre-2011 levels (Mercy Corps 2013). Kuhnt/Rischke/David/Lechtenfeld | Social Cohesion in Times of Forced Displacement Z'Flucht 3. Jg., 2/2019 323 unfair and accuse aid agencies of corruption (Mercy Corps 2013). In surveys con‐ ducted by REACH (2015), more than 80% of the respondents stated that the per‐ ceived increase in job competition and perceptions about an unfair aid allocation respectively have resulted in increased tensions within their communities. It is important to note, however, that various sources of tensions already existed before the increase in refugee numbers after 2011: Jordan was already facing elevated levels of youth unemployment, low levels of labor productivity, inadequate access to basic public services in many parts of the country, and high levels of poverty (De Bel-Air 2016). The initial hospitality of Jordanian host communities has been reported to decrease. Incidences of harassment, discrimination and open violence between host and refugee groups have increasingly been reported, and been linked to a weakening of social cohesion (Mercy Corps 2013; World Bank 2016). As a con‐ sequence, promoting social cohesion has become part of Jordan’s refugee policies (Government of Jordan (GoJ) 2015). Data and methods There is no generally agreed upon definition of social cohesion, and thus of its measurement. For the purpose of this study, we chose a broad definition of social cohesion referring to the solidarity and social harmony exhibited among members of a community defined in geographical terms. A sense of belonging to the respective community, trust, and a system that ensures the inclusion and wellbeing of all its members, are crucial ingredients for cohesive societies (e.g. Dragolov et al. 2013; OECD 2011). We have based the operationalization of social cohesion in this study on the Relational Capability Index (RCI developed by Giraud et al. 2013) and the Social Cohesion Index (SCI developed by Langer et al. 2016). Targeting vulnerable populations In general and including the present study, research with and about vulnerable populations, including refugees, raises several methodological and ethical con‐ cerns (Block et al. 2012; Krause 2017). Displaced populations are oftentimes affected by arbitrary state action, have suffered serious physical and emotional hardship, and have very restricted possibilities to enforce their legal rights (MacKenzie et al. 2007). The necessity felt to keep a low profile leads to chal‐ 4. 4.1 Forumsbeiträge 324 Z'Flucht 3. Jg., 2/2019 lenges for researchers to access relevant population groups and to difficulties in establishing trust to share information. Respondents may mistrust, for instance, the motives and independence of researchers, the anonymity of their responses, and the responsible use of the information they share (MacKenzie et al. 2007). Therefore, researchers often heavily rely on local ‹gatekeepers› that help access‐ ing their target population (Obijiofor et al. 2018). Mistrust towards the survey was also a problem faced in this study. The anonymous targeting of survey partici‐ pants using online advertisement (see section 4.2) did not allow building trust between researchers and study participants, which is an important downside of this targeting strategy. Given that the precise size and distribution of refugee populations is usually unknown, particularly outside camp structures, and there may be safety concerns preventing researchers from accessing some regions, samples are seldomly repre‐ sentative. Furthermore, existing heterogeneities within refugee populations are far from being widely acknowledged and some groups can be described as being rare or hidden systematically (Jacobsen/Landau 2003). Resulting from all above, dif‐ ferent selection biases are a prominent feature of studies targeting displaced popu‐ lations, and it is thus important to shed light on what population the sample can be expected to be representative for, which we will next detail for the present study. Social media survey in Jordan The target group of our study are individuals between 18 and 35 years of age that were residing in Jordan at the time of the survey (i.e. Jordanians and other nation‐ alities). We chose to use a novel method of data collection: We advertised our online survey through a social media (Facebook and Instagram) and email cam‐ paign (shared with students via their scholars in Jordan), respectively. Social media can be a powerful and relatively low-cost platform to reach people, espe‐ cially youth and including population groups who are traditionally difficult to access. Given that youth was our target audience, the selection bias associated with reaching only active social media users was not of concern to us. As there is no ‹gatekeeper› involved in the Facebook campaign, however, we believe that in our case, mistrust towards the instrument and research objectives was high and potentially exacerbated by a relative inexperience with online sur‐ veys. We further argue that mistrust towards the survey systematically differed across population groups: We noted particular difficulties, for instance, in reach‐ 4.2 Kuhnt/Rischke/David/Lechtenfeld | Social Cohesion in Times of Forced Displacement Z'Flucht 3. Jg., 2/2019 325 ing Syrian refugees, and generally high rates of unwillingness to share informa‐ tion among respondents (i.e. high usage of the «don’t know» or «refuse» cat‐ egories), even for information we considered not sensitive, such as district of resi‐ dence or gender. We believe it insightful to discuss these non-responses as part of interpreting our results in order to pay attention to potential selection effects and potential biases resulting from the sensitivity of questions. Findings Demographic characteristics of respondents differ across the email and Facebook campaigns. 44% of respondents from the Facebook campaign compared to 34% of the respondents from the email campaign self-assess to belong to the «majority group in their local community». This may reflect a higher share of foreign nationals among the sample of university students (25% compared to 20%, respectively). While we do not know the legal status of the foreign born in our sample, the vast majority lives outside of refugee camps. The majority of respon‐ dents perceive themselves to be slightly better off than other members of their communities. Around one third of the respondents is unemployed, thus the major‐ ity currently attends school or university, or has a job. Based on these indicators, respondents do not seem to be excluded from society in broader socio-economic terms. Levels and changes of sense of belonging to local community 65% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that they «feel a sense of belonging to their local community» (see Figure 1.a). On an indi‐ vidual level, this is a direct proxy for social inclusion, whereas on an aggregate level, this indicator proxies social cohesion – the larger the share of individuals who feel a sense of belonging to their local communities, the more cohesive is a given community. 5. 5.1 Forumsbeiträge 326 Z'Flucht 3. Jg., 2/2019 Feeling of belongingFigure 1.a: Feeling of belonging by cam‐ paign type Figure 1.b: Note: Normal distribution superimposed over options other than «don’t know». Source: Own illustration based on own data collected. Source: Own illustration based on own data collected. Feeling of belonging by national‐ ity Figure 1.c: Feeling of belonging by majority group Figure 1.d: Source: Own illustration based on own data collected. Source: Own illustration based on own data collected. Kuhnt/Rischke/David/Lechtenfeld | Social Cohesion in Times of Forced Displacement Z'Flucht 3. Jg., 2/2019 327 Feeling of belonging by feeling like active member Figure 1.e: Source: Own illustration based on own data collected. Disaggregating this indicator by different groups suggests that Jordanians tend to be more socially integrated compared to other nationalities (refer to Figure 1.c). Still, 55% of non-Jordanians indicate a sense of belonging to their local commu‐ nities.3 The strongest sense of belonging to the local community is found among the group targeted via the social media survey (see Figure 1.b), which might relate to social media being an important vehicle of social integration, connecting to others and coordinating local events (see also Wie/Gao 2017). Respondents who stated that they belong to the majority group (see Figure 1.d) as well as those who feel like they are active members of the society (see Figure 1.e) have signifi‐ cantly stronger feelings of belonging to their local community. A REACH (2014) survey conducted between December 2013 and March 2014 found higher levels of social cohesion compared to our sample.4 While selection effects may play a role, part of this difference may hint at an increasing sense of detachment felt among Jordanians over time. Almost two thirds of respondents feel the same or a stronger sense of belonging to their local community at the time of the survey as compared to two years ago (see Figure 2.a). On average, responses are similar both across campaign types and across Jordanians vs. foreign-born individuals (see Appendix). Cautiously interpreting this indicator as revealing changes in social cohesion, these findings suggest that changes in community level social cohesion over the past two years 3 Note that these indicators do not allow identifying effects of social segregation – it is possible that different groups, e.g. Jordanians and non-Jordanians, systematically differ in their definition of local communities, especially if they are physically separated in urban areas. 4 Note that the question and response categories were not exactly the same. Forumsbeiträge 328 Z'Flucht 3. Jg., 2/2019 have been limited and hence less pronounced than anticipated. Notably, respon‐ dents that did not consider themselves as active members of their local commu‐ nity are significantly more likely to indicate feeling a weaker sense of belonging to their local community as compared to two years ago (see Figure 2.b). Put dif‐ ferently, social outsiders may perceive being further excluded over time. Changes in feeling of belongingFigure 2.a: Changes in feeling of belonging by feeling like active member Figure 2.b: Note: Normal distribution superimposed over options other than «don’t know». Source: Own illustration based on own data collected. Source: Own illustration based on own data collected. Levels and changes of trust Trust is an important dimension of social cohesion and regularly used as a direct proxy in the empirical literature (e.g. OECD 2011; Dragolov et al. 2013). Going beyond common measures of generalized trust in ‹people unknown› to an individ‐ ual, respondents were asked whether they trust different groups of people, includ‐ ing people of different nationalities. As expected, the highest level of trust is found towards groups that are wellknown to the respondent: close relatives (70%) and friends (85%) (see Figure 3.a). Least trust is shown towards people that the respondents do not know (12%), while around 37% of respondents trust their neighbors (see Figure 3.b), which presumably comprise both individuals known to respondents as well as strangers. Trust towards Syrians (40%) and Jordanians (38%) is both comparable to trust in neighbors (see Figure 3.c), yet a higher share of respondents refused to answer 5.2 Kuhnt/Rischke/David/Lechtenfeld | Social Cohesion in Times of Forced Displacement Z'Flucht 3. Jg., 2/2019 329 this question (see Appendix) or chose the «don’t know» option, which may indi‐ cate some degree of socially desirable answering behavior. Trust: Relatives and friendsFigure 3.a: Trust: Neighbors and people unknown Figure 3.b: Note: Normal distribution superimposed over options other than «don’t know». Source: Own illustration based on own data collected. Note: Normal distribution superimposed over options other than «don’t know». Source: Own illustration based on own data collected. Trust: Towards nationalitiesFigure 3.c: Note: Normal distribution superimposed over options other than «don’t know». Source: Own illustration based on own data collected. While we do not find much differences across nationalities, respondents of the Facebook campaign are significantly more trusting towards their neighbors, Jor‐ danians and Syrians (on average between 16 and 25 %-points in magnitude), yet they are also twice as likely to refuse answering this set of questions (on average Forumsbeiträge 330 Z'Flucht 3. Jg., 2/2019 50% compared to 25% respondents refused).5 Notably, the majority of the respon‐ dents have friend(s) of a different nationality whom they would rely on for help (see Appendix). To assess changes in trust over time, only individuals (born within and outside Jordan) who have been living in their community for at least two years are con‐ sidered. We directly asked them to assess their trust now compared to two years before. Overall, the data reveals a tendency of having less trust: Changes in trust have been most favorable towards people known to respondents. However, 31% of respondents indicate that they have less trust in their personal networks. Levels of generalized trust (i.e. trust in people unknown) have not changed for 46% of respondents, while almost one third of respondents indicated that they are less trusting (see Figure 4.a). Changes in trust: People known and unknown Figure 4.a: Changes in trust: Towards nationalities Figure 4.b: Note: Normal distribution superimposed over options other than «don’t know». Source: Own illustration based on own data collected. Note: Normal distribution superimposed over options other than «don’t know». Source: Own illustration based on own data collected. 5 Note that the level of trust both groups exercise towards family and friends is not significantly different (see Appendix). Kuhnt/Rischke/David/Lechtenfeld | Social Cohesion in Times of Forced Displacement Z'Flucht 3. Jg., 2/2019 331 Changes in trust: By campaign type Figure 4.c: Source: Own illustration based on own data collected. Changes in trust towards different nationalities over time have been most favor‐ able (i.e. remained the same or improved) towards Jordanians with 53% of respondents (who are mostly Jordanians) saying that the level of trust remained the same or it improved for 10% (see Figure 4.b). With respect to Syrians – who currently enjoy similar levels of trust as Jordanians do – compared to two years ago, changes in trust have been less favorable: 36% of respondents indicate that their trust in Syrians has remained the same or increased (4%), while another third indicates that they trust Syrians less. This is particularly prevalent in the Face‐ book sample (see Figure 4.c). These findings may hint towards growing tensions in some communities. However, it is important to note that refusal to reply to these questions or to indicate «don’t know» are largest in number (48% and 10% respectively) when asking about specific nationalities, which may indicate that respondent consider sharing their views about specific nationalities as too sensi‐ tive. Sense of belonging to different groups An important aspect to consider when fostering social cohesion are the lines along which in- and out-groups are defined. The literature on diversity focuses on ethno-linguistic and religious identities (e.g. Putnam 2007; van Staveren/Pervaiz 2017), often implicitly assuming that these characteristics define group identities. Building on the notion that this is not sufficient, we asked respondents to indicate the groups towards which they feel the strongest sense of belonging. Second only 5.3 Forumsbeiträge 332 Z'Flucht 3. Jg., 2/2019 to the family, the strongest sense of belonging respondents feel towards individu‐ als within the same age group and to people with similar interests (see Figure 5.a– c). While it is possible that similar interests are also driven by one’s ethnicity and religious beliefs, it is worth noting that respondents could have opted for these characteristics directly but provided a more nuanced picture of group identities instead. Sense of belonging: 1st choiceFigure 5.a: Sense of belonging: 2nd choiceFigure 5.b: Source: Own illustration based on own data collected. Source: Own illustration based on own data collected. Sense of belonging: 3rd choiceFigure 5.c: Source: Own illustration based on own data collected. Strengthening social cohesion Given the central role of individual community members in strengthening social cohesion, open-ended questions were used to identify how respondents define socially cohesive environments to begin with, and how they would personally like 5.4 Kuhnt/Rischke/David/Lechtenfeld | Social Cohesion in Times of Forced Displacement Z'Flucht 3. Jg., 2/2019 333 to contribute.6 Exemplary statements representing the general tone of responses are presented below. How does a local environment look like that supports a sense of togetherness? «A community in which everyone works for the benefit of all, and things like religion and ethnicity do not matter as much as contributing and belonging to the community». «In my opinion, I believe that it all depends on the people who are willing to understand and trust each other. It also depends on the environment, if it provides enough support and encourages members of the community by developing activities or programs». «A sense of togetherness means that people within the society support each other and cele‐ brate with each other in times of happiness and grief in times of sadness. This boosts trust among the community and society as a whole [...] ». «People who are financially stable, people who are actually living a life and not only worry about what and how to feed their family and provide shelter to them. In other words, if peo‐ ple are not living a decent living, supporting local community will be the least of their wor‐ ries». The selected quotes illustrate that existing definitions of cohesive societies and associated benefits as reported by respondents substantially overlap with frame‐ works and concepts proposed in the literature (see chapter 2) and used here. In particular, they speak to the importance of belonging and of active participation to contributing to the society. The concepts of trust and solidarity are often men‐ tioned when referring to relationships across different groups in society. The same applies to the benefits of cohesive societies. At the same time, it is pointed out that a minimum level of social protection and wellbeing is required for individu‐ als to be in a position of actively contributing to it. How would you like to support a sense of togetherness? «By raising awareness on benefiting from our differences. Our diversity should make us stronger. […] I support the idea of educating people how diversities makes organizations stronger». «Well, doing more activities to help people get to know each other more. Talking sessions where each person talks about his background and preferably people from different reli‐ gions, origins and so on». 6 Rather than using the term social cohesion, it was enquired about a sense of togetherness and the underlying open-ended questions were introduced by explaining that: «Some scholars say that a sense of togetherness helps keeping a society united and peaceful». Forumsbeiträge 334 Z'Flucht 3. Jg., 2/2019 «Random acts of kindness». The quotes reflect the willingness of respondents to further support cohesion within their society that they also expressed in the quantitative survey part. The means of choice they refer to include joint activities and stressing the positive benefits of diversity. However, a «lack of public spaces» and «not knowing about possibilities» to actively engage in the community were identified as barriers to do so by around two thirds of respondents. «Activities being too far away» – to the extent that people know them – is a barrier for half of the respondents. Conclusions Understanding how Jordanians and non-Jordanians perceive changes in social cohesion can contribute to developing integrated solutions to existing societal challenges. Our study provides insights into how respondents (age 18–35) per‐ ceive social cohesion in their local communities. In the context of the contempo‐ rary hosting of refugees in Jordan we hypothesized that the arrival of large num‐ bers of economically vulnerable outsiders to a setting with existing resource scarcities and tensions may lead to a critical reduction of social cohesion in the host communities. While we do see that our respondents report a deterioration of social cohesion indicators, the change was notably less strong than we had antici‐ pated. Due to various sample selection effects, our results are not representative for youth in Jordan and we could attract only very few Syrians in our sample. Still, we argue that the analysis highlights several unexpected results that are worth noting and merit future investigation: First, we do not find a general mistrust towards foreigners or certain nationalities but rather towards people generally unknown. Second, most respondents expressed a feeling of belonging to their local community. While the sense of belonging is higher among Jordanian youth, more than half of the foreign-born respondents also report a sense of belonging, which seems most pronounced for young people who actively engage and partici‐ pate in society. Importantly, the results indicate that social outsiders might become further excluded over time. With regard to how social cohesion could be strengthened, it can be insightful to consider how identities of young people are shaped. Key drivers are age and similar interests – rather than nationality, ethnicity or religion. These results indi‐ cate that an avenue for fostering social cohesion can support youths of similar age groups to participate in activities of shared interests. In fact, respondents show an 6. Kuhnt/Rischke/David/Lechtenfeld | Social Cohesion in Times of Forced Displacement Z'Flucht 3. Jg., 2/2019 335 elevated level of social commitment and a large share want to be more active members of the society. Overall, these results confirm a strong willingness of young people to be actors of change. However, too few public spaces exist to interact, and knowledge about possibilities to actively engage at the community level remains limited – according to the interviewed youth, the main factors hin‐ dering more active social participation. Bibliography Alesina, Alberto/La Ferrara, Eliana (2005), Ethnic Diversity and Economic Per‐ formance, Journal of Economic Literature, 43 (3), 762–800. Alshoubaki, Wa’ed/Harris, Michael (2018), The Impact of Syrian Refugees on Jordan: A Framework for Analysis Journal of International Studies, 11 (2), 154–179. Assaad, Ragui/Ginn, Thomas/Saleh, Mohamed (2018), Impact of Syrian Refugees in Jordan on Education Outcomes for Jordanian Youth, Economic Research Forum Working Paper, No. 1214. Barone, Guglielmo/Mocetti, Sauro (2016), Inequality and Trust: New Evidence from Panel Data, Economic Inquiry, 54 (2), 794–809. Becchetti, Leonardo/Conzo, Pierluigi/Romeo, Alessandro (2014), Violence, trust, and Trustworthiness: Evidence from a Nairobi Slum, Oxford Economic Papers, 66 (1), 283–305. Block, Karen, et al. (2012), Addressing Ethical and Methodological Challenges in Research with Refugee-background Young People: Reflections from the Field, Journal of Refugee Studies, 26 (1), 69–87. De Bel-Air, Françoise (2016), Migration Profile: Jordan, Migration Policy Centre (MPC) Policy Brief, No. 2016/06. Delhey, Jan/Dragolov, Georgi (2016), Happier Together: Social Cohesion and Subjective Well-being in Europe, International Journal of Psychology, 51 (3), 163–176. Delhey, Jan/Newton, Kenneth (2005), Predicting Cross-National Levels of Social Trust: Global Pattern or Nordic Exceptionalism?, European Sociological Review, 21 (4), 311–327. Dragolov, Georgi, et al. (2013), Social Cohesion Radar Measuring Common Ground: An international Comparison of Social Cohesion Methods Report, Gütersloh. Forumsbeiträge 336 Z'Flucht 3. Jg., 2/2019 Fallah, Belal/ Krafft, Caroline/Wahba, Jackline (2018), The Impact of Refugees on Employment and Wages in Jordan, Economic Research Forum Working Paper, No. 1189. Giraud, Giraud C., et al. (2013), Relational Capability: A Multidimensional Approach. Research Center ESSEC Working Paper, No. 1306. GoJ (2015), Jordan Response Plan for the Syria Crisis 2016–2018, Amman. Jacobsen, Karen/Landau, Loren B. (2003), The Dual Imperative in Refugee Research: Some Methodological and Ethical Considerations in Social Science Research on Forced Migration, Disasters, 27 (3), 185–206. Kanbur, Ravi/Rajaram, Prem K./Varshney, Ashutosh (2011), Ethnic Diversity and Ethnic Strife, An Interdisciplinary Perspective, World Development, 39 (2), 147–158. Khattab, Farah (2018), Developing a Service Quality Model for Private Higher Education Institutions in Lebanon. J. Mgt. Mkt. Review, 3 (1), 24–33. Krause, Ulrike (2017), Researching Forced Migration: Critical Reflections on Research Ethics during Fieldwork, Oxford Refugee Study Centre Working Paper Series, No. 123. Langer, Arnim, et al. (2016), Conceptualising and Measuring Social Cohesion in Africa: Towards a Perceptions-Based Index, Social Indicators Research, 131 (1), 1–23. Lozi, Basem M. (2013), The Effect of Refugees on Host Country Economy, Evi‐ dence from Jordan, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 5 (3), 114–126. Mackenzie, Catriona/McDowell, Christopher/Pittaway, Eileen (2007), Beyond ‹Do No Harm›: The Challenge of Constructing Ethical Relationships in Refugee Research, Journal of Refugee Studies, 20 (2), 299–319. Mercy Corps (2013), Mapping of Host Community-Refugee Tensions in Mafraq and Ramtha, Jordan, Amman. Obijiofor, Levi/Colic-Peisker, Val/Hebbani, Aparna (2018), Methodological and Ethical Challenges in Partnering for Refugee Research: Evidence From Two Australian Studies, Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 16 (3), 217–234. OECD (2011), Perspectives on Global Development 2012: Social Cohesion in a Shifting World, Paris. Putnam, Robert D. (2007), E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture, Scandinavian Political Studies, 30 (2), 137–174. REACH (2014), Understanding Social Cohesion and Resilience in Jordanian Host Communities, Assessment Report June 2014, British Embassy Amman. Kuhnt/Rischke/David/Lechtenfeld | Social Cohesion in Times of Forced Displacement Z'Flucht 3. Jg., 2/2019 337 REACH (2015), Social Cohesion in Host Communities in Northern Jordan, Assessment Report May 2015, British Embassy Amman. Rothstein, Bo/Stolle, Dietlind (2008), The State and Social Capital: An Institu‐ tional Theory of Generalized Trust, Comparative Politics, 40 (4), 441–459. Salemi, Colette/Bowman, Jay A./Compton, Jennifer (2018), Services for Syrian Refugee Children and Youth in Jordan: Forced Displacement, Foreign Aid, and Vulnerability, Economic Research Forum Working Paper Series, No. 1188. Sen, Amartya (1992), Inequality Re-examined, Oxford. Tiltnes, Åge A./Zhang, Huafeng/Pedersen, Jon (2019), The Living Conditions of Syrian Refugees in Jordan, Results from the 2017–2018 Survey of Syrian Refugees inside and outside Camps, Fafo-report, No. 2019:04. UNDP (2014), Municipal Needs Assessment Report: Mitigating the Impact of the Syrian Refugee Crisis on Jordanian Vulnerable Host Communities, New York City. UNHCR (2018), Jordan Vulnerability Assessment Framework: 2017 Population Survey Report, Sector Vulnerability Review, Geneva. UNHCR (2019), Operational Portal Refugee Situations, https:// data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/syria/location/36, 13.3.2019. van Der Meer, Tom/Tolsma, Jochem (2014), Ethnic Diversity and Its Effects on Social Cohesion, Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 459–478. van Staveren, Irene/Pervaiz, Zahid (2017), Is it Ethnic Fractionalization or Social Exclusion, Which Affects Social Cohesion?, Social Indicators Research, 130 (2), 711–731. Vergolini, Loris (2011), Does Economic Vulnerability Affect Social Cohesion? Evidence from a Comparative Analysis, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 36 (1), 1–23. Verme, Paolo, et al. (2016), The Welfare of Syrian Refugees: Evidence from Jor‐ dan and Lebanon, Washington D.C. Wei, Lu/Gao, Fangfang (2017), Social Media, Social Integration and Subjective Well-being among New Urban Migrants in China, Telematics and Informatics, 34 (3), 786–796. World Bank (2016), Economic and Social Inclusion to Prevent Violent Extremism, MENA Economic Monitor, World Bank Middle East and North Africa Region, Washington D.C. Forumsbeiträge 338 Z'Flucht 3. Jg., 2/2019 Appendix: Socioeconomic characteristics for different samples Full sample Email campaign Facebook campaign Diff. FB vs. email Foreign born Diff foreign vs. Jod. mean/(sd) obs. mean/(sd) mean/(sd) diff/(sd) mean/(sd) diff/(sd) =1 for Arabic language 0.72 444 0.30 0.95 0.65*** 0.62 -0.13** (0.45) (0.46) (0.22) (0.03) (0.49) (0.05) How old are you? 24.73 444 21.75 26.34 4.59*** 25.36 0.85 (5.12) (3.86) (4.99) (0.46) (5.42) (0.56) =1 for males 0.42 251 0.46 0.39 -0.06 0.40 -0.03 (0.49) (0.50) (0.49) (0.06) (0.49) (0.08) Do you currently have a job or attend school/ university? 0.66 349 0.76 0.59 -0.17*** 0.68 0.03 (0.47) (0.43) (0.49) (0.05) (0.47) (0.06) Do you have a work permit? 0.39 71 0.19 0.55 0.36** 0.39 0.00 (0.49) (0.40) (0.50) (0.11) (0.49) (0.00) =1 for agreeing to ‹there are enough job opportunities in local community› 0.23 348 0.15 0.28 0.13** 0.21 -0.03 (0.42) (0.36) (0.45) (0.05) (0.41) (0.06) =1 for perceiving own situation as better com‐ pared to others 0.42 336 0.62 0.28 -0.35*** 0.50 0.10 (0.49) (0.49) (0.45) (0.05) (0.50) (0.07) =1 for perceiving own situation as same com‐ pared to others 0.36 336 0.32 0.39 0.07 0.31 -0.07 (0.48) (0.47) (0.49) (0.05) (0.46) (0.07) =1 for perceiving own situation as worse com‐ pared to others 0.18 336 0.05 0.28 0.23*** 0.15 -0.05 (0.39) (0.22) (0.45) (0.04) (0.36) (0.05) =1 if phone is used on a daily basis 0.86 304 0.89 0.84 -0.05 0.80 -0.08 (0.35) (0.32) (0.37) (0.04) (0.41) (0.05) =1 if internet is used on a daily basis 0.81 303 0.84 0.78 -0.06 0.78 -0.03 (0.40) (0.37) (0.42) (0.05) (0.42) (0.06) =1 for feeling a sense of belonging to local community 0.66 308 0.55 0.73 0.19*** 0.55 -0.13 (0.48) (0.50) (0.44) (0.05) (0.50) (0.07) =1 if stronger or same sense of belonging (compared to 2 yrs ago) 0.65 254 0.64 0.65 0.02 0.64 -0.01 (0.48) (0.48) (0.48) (0.06) (0.49) (0.08) Kuhnt/Rischke/David/Lechtenfeld | Social Cohesion in Times of Forced Displacement Z'Flucht 3. Jg., 2/2019 339 Full sample Email campaign Facebook campaign Diff. FB vs. email Foreign born Diff foreign vs. Jod. mean/(sd) obs. mean/(sd) mean/(sd) diff/(sd) mean/(sd) diff/(sd) =1 if stronger or same sense of belonging (compared to 1st arrival in local commu‐ nity) 0.80 55 0.80 0.80 -0.00 0.82 0.03 (0.40) (0.41) (0.41) (0.11) (0.39) (0.11) =1 for belonging to majority group 0.39 266 0.34 0.44 0.11 0.29 -0.12 (0.49) (0.47) (0.50) (0.06) (0.46) (0.08) =1 for trusting: my close relatives 0.70 254 0.71 0.69 -0.02 0.77 0.08 (0.46) (0.46) (0.47) (0.06) (0.43) (0.07) =1 for trusting: my friends 0.84 251 0.88 0.80 -0.07 0.82 -0.02 (0.37) (0.33) (0.40) (0.05) (0.39) (0.06) =1 for trusting: my neighbors 0.37 243 0.26 0.47 0.20*** 0.42 0.07 (0.48) (0.44) (0.50) (0.06) (0.50) (0.08) =1 for trusting: people I don't know 0.12 246 0.09 0.15 0.06 0.11 -0.01 (0.32) (0.29) (0.35) (0.04) (0.31) (0.05) =1 for trusting: Jorda‐ nians 0.38 226 0.30 0.46 0.16* 0.45 0.09 (0.49) (0.46) (0.50) (0.06) (0.50) (0.08) =1 for trusting: Syrians 0.40 235 0.27 0.52 0.25*** 0.48 0.10 (0.49) (0.45) (0.50) (0.06) (0.51) (0.08) =1 for trusting: other Non-Jordanians 0.26 237 0.26 0.27 0.01 0.42 0.20** (0.44) (0.44) (0.44) (0.06) (0.50) (0.07) =1 if stronger or same trust (compared to 2 yrs ago): people you know 0.67 230 0.62 0.72 0.11 0.69 0.01 (0.47) (0.49) (0.45) (0.06) (0.47) (0.09) =1 if stronger or same trust (compared to 2 yrs ago): people you don't know 0.52 226 0.58 0.47 -0.12 0.47 -0.06 (0.50) (0.50) (0.50) (0.07) (0.51) (0.09) =1 if stronger or same trust (compared to 2 yrs ago): Jordanians 0.63 219 0.64 0.63 -0.01 0.56 -0.09 (0.48) (0.48) (0.48) (0.07) (0.50) (0.09) =1 if stronger or same trust (compared to 2 yrs ago): Syrians 0.40 214 0.55 0.25 -0.29*** 0.49 0.11 (0.49) (0.50) (0.44) (0.06) (0.51) (0.09) Forumsbeiträge 340 Z'Flucht 3. Jg., 2/2019 Full sample Email campaign Facebook campaign Diff. FB vs. email Foreign born Diff foreign vs. Jod. mean/(sd) obs. mean/(sd) mean/(sd) diff/(sd) mean/(sd) diff/(sd) =1 if stronger or same trust (compared to 2 yrs ago): Other Non-Jorda‐ nians 0.55 215 0.67 0.43 -0.24*** 0.58 0.04 (0.50) (0.47) (0.50) (0.07) (0.50) (0.09) =1 for having foreign friends whom one would rely on for help 0.72 248 0.88 0.59 -0.29*** 0.85 0.16* (0.45) (0.33) (0.49) (0.05) (0.36) (0.07) =1 if helped stranger in past 12 months 0.93 242 0.92 0.94 0.02 0.91 -0.03 (0.26) (0.27) (0.24) (0.03) (0.29) (0.04) =1 if engaged in com‐ munity work in past 12 months 0.56 216 0.46 0.64 0.18** 0.57 0.02 (0.50) (0.50) (0.48) (0.07) (0.50) (0.09) =1 if engaged in com‐ munity work since arriving in local com‐ munity 0.43 21 0.36 0.50 0.14 0.33 -0.13 (0.51) (0.50) (0.53) (0.23) (0.52) (0.25) =1 for feeling like an active member of soci‐ ety 0.56 242 0.45 0.65 0.20** 0.57 0.01 (0.50) (0.50) (0.48) (0.06) (0.50) (0.08) =1 for ambition to par‐ ticipate more actively in society 0.78 240 0.82 0.75 -0.07 0.70 -0.10 (0.42) (0.39) (0.44) (0.05) (0.46) (0.07) =1 for agreeing ‹not enough public spaces› is barrier for active par‐ ticipation 0.67 199 0.66 0.69 0.03 0.72 0.06 (0.47) (0.48) (0.47) (0.07) (0.45) (0.09) =1 for agreeing ‹I don't know possibilities/ initiatives› is barrier 0.66 196 0.67 0.66 -0.01 0.76 0.12 (0.47) (0.47) (0.48) (0.07) (0.43) (0.09) =1 for agreeing ‹avail‐ able activities are too far away› is barrier for active participation 0.53 193 0.42 0.65 0.22** 0.55 0.01 (0.50) (0.50) (0.48) (0.07) (0.51) (0.10) =1 for agreeing ‹Con‐ cerns for my personal safety› is barrier for active participation 0.32 194 0.30 0.35 0.04 0.34 0.02 (0.47) (0.46) (0.48) (0.07) (0.48) (0.09) Time taken to fill sur‐ vey in minutes 8.37 444 10.47 7.23 -3.24** 7.50 -1.17 (11.17) (15.34) (7.87) (1.10) (10.17) (1.21) Kuhnt/Rischke/David/Lechtenfeld | Social Cohesion in Times of Forced Displacement Z'Flucht 3. Jg., 2/2019 341 Autor*innen Jana Kuhnt, Dr., Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik, Bonn Ramona Rischke, Dr., Berliner Institut für empirische Integrations- und Migra‐ tionsforschung, Humboldt-Universität Berlin Anda David, Dr., Agence Française de Développement, Paris Tobias Lechtenfeld, Dr., Bundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung, Berlin Forumsbeiträge 342 Z'Flucht 3. Jg., 2/2019

Abstract

This article explores perceptions of social cohesion among youth living in Jordan (age 18-35) as well as changing perceptions in times where the country hosted large and growing numbers of Syrian refugees. Using novel data from an online survey, the article presents evidence of a modest decrease in overall social cohesion in Jordan. Young people want to be actors of change and have a clear desire for more civic participation. The results point to opportunities for strengthening social cohesion between host and refugee youth and barriers that youth face to participate in society more actively.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Artikel untersucht die Wahrnehmung des sozialen Zusammenhalts von in Jordanien lebenden jungen Erwachsenen (18-35 Jahre), sowie Veränderungen dieser Wahrnehmungen in Zeiten, in denen hohe und wachsende Zahlen syrischer Geflüchteter im Libanon leben. Ergebnisse einer Online-Umfrage weisen auf einen leichten Rückgang des sozialen Zusammenhalts in Jordanien hin. Junge Menschen wollen Akteur*innen des Wandels sein und haben ein klares Verlangen nach mehr sozialer Teilhabe. Unsere Ergebnisse weisen auf Möglichkeiten zur Stärkung des sozialen Zusammenhalts zwischen jungen Angehörigen der Mehrheitsgesellschaft und Geflüchteten sowie auf Hindernisse für die aktivere Teilnahme von jungen Menschen an der Gesellschaft hin.

References
Alesina, Alberto/La Ferrara, Eliana (2005), Ethnic Diversity and Economic Performance, Journal of Economic Literature, 43 (3), 762–800.
Alshoubaki, Wa’ed/Harris, Michael (2018), The Impact of Syrian Refugees on Jordan: A Framework for Analysis Journal of International Studies, 11 (2), 154–179.
Assaad, Ragui/Ginn, Thomas/Saleh, Mohamed (2018), Impact of Syrian Refugees in Jordan on Education Outcomes for Jordanian Youth, Economic Research Forum Working Paper, No. 1214.
Barone, Guglielmo/Mocetti, Sauro (2016), Inequality and Trust: New Evidence from Panel Data, Economic Inquiry, 54 (2), 794–809.
Becchetti, Leonardo/Conzo, Pierluigi/Romeo, Alessandro (2014), Violence, trust, and Trustworthiness: Evidence from a Nairobi Slum, Oxford Economic Papers, 66 (1), 283–305.
Block, Karen, et al. (2012), Addressing Ethical and Methodological Challenges in Research with Refugee-background Young People: Reflections from the Field, Journal of Refugee Studies, 26 (1), 69–87.
De Bel-Air, Françoise (2016), Migration Profile: Jordan, Migration Policy Centre (MPC) Policy Brief, No. 2016/06.
Delhey, Jan/Dragolov, Georgi (2016), Happier Together: Social Cohesion and Subjective Well-being in Europe, International Journal of Psychology, 51 (3), 163–176.
Delhey, Jan/Newton, Kenneth (2005), Predicting Cross-National Levels of Social Trust: Global Pattern or Nordic Exceptionalism?, European Sociological Review, 21 (4), 311–327.
Dragolov, Georgi, et al. (2013), Social Cohesion Radar Measuring Common Ground: An international Comparison of Social Cohesion Methods Report, Gütersloh.
Fallah, Belal/ Krafft, Caroline/Wahba, Jackline (2018), The Impact of Refugees on Employment and Wages in Jordan, Economic Research Forum Working Paper, No. 1189.
Giraud, Giraud C., et al. (2013), Relational Capability: A Multidimensional Approach. Research Center ESSEC Working Paper, No. 1306.
GoJ (2015), Jordan Response Plan for the Syria Crisis 2016–2018, Amman.
Jacobsen, Karen/Landau, Loren B. (2003), The Dual Imperative in Refugee Research: Some Methodological and Ethical Considerations in Social Science Research on Forced Migration, Disasters, 27 (3), 185–206.
Kanbur, Ravi/Rajaram, Prem K./Varshney, Ashutosh (2011), Ethnic Diversity and Ethnic Strife, An Interdisciplinary Perspective, World Development, 39 (2), 147–158.
Khattab, Farah (2018), Developing a Service Quality Model for Private Higher Education Institutions in Lebanon. J. Mgt. Mkt. Review, 3 (1), 24–33.
Krause, Ulrike (2017), Researching Forced Migration: Critical Reflections on Research Ethics during Fieldwork, Oxford Refugee Study Centre Working Paper Series, No. 123.
Langer, Arnim, et al. (2016), Conceptualising and Measuring Social Cohesion in Africa: Towards a Perceptions-Based Index, Social Indicators Research, 131 (1), 1–23.
Lozi, Basem M. (2013), The Effect of Refugees on Host Country Economy, Evidence from Jordan, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 5 (3), 114–126.
Mackenzie, Catriona/McDowell, Christopher/Pittaway, Eileen (2007), Beyond ‹Do No Harm›: The Challenge of Constructing Ethical Relationships in Refugee Research, Journal of Refugee Studies, 20 (2), 299–319.
Mercy Corps (2013), Mapping of Host Community-Refugee Tensions in Mafraq and Ramtha, Jordan, Amman.
Obijiofor, Levi/Colic-Peisker, Val/Hebbani, Aparna (2018), Methodological and Ethical Challenges in Partnering for Refugee Research: Evidence From Two Australian Studies, Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 16 (3), 217–234.
OECD (2011), Perspectives on Global Development 2012: Social Cohesion in a Shifting World, Paris.
Putnam, Robert D. (2007), E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture, Scandinavian Political Studies, 30 (2), 137–174.
REACH (2014), Understanding Social Cohesion and Resilience in Jordanian Host Communities, Assessment Report June 2014, British Embassy Amman.
REACH (2015), Social Cohesion in Host Communities in Northern Jordan, Assessment Report May 2015, British Embassy Amman.
Rothstein, Bo/Stolle, Dietlind (2008), The State and Social Capital: An Institutional Theory of Generalized Trust, Comparative Politics, 40 (4), 441–459.
Salemi, Colette/Bowman, Jay A./Compton, Jennifer (2018), Services for Syrian Refugee Children and Youth in Jordan: Forced Displacement, Foreign Aid, and Vulnerability, Economic Research Forum Working Paper Series, No. 1188.
Sen, Amartya (1992), Inequality Re-examined, Oxford.
Tiltnes, Åge A./Zhang, Huafeng/Pedersen, Jon (2019), The Living Conditions of Syrian Refugees in Jordan, Results from the 2017–2018 Survey of Syrian Refugees inside and outside Camps, Fafo-report, No. 2019:04.
UNDP (2014), Municipal Needs Assessment Report: Mitigating the Impact of the Syrian Refugee Crisis on Jordanian Vulnerable Host Communities, New York City.
UNHCR (2018), Jordan Vulnerability Assessment Framework: 2017 Population Survey Report, Sector Vulnerability Review, Geneva.
UNHCR (2019), Operational Portal Refugee Situations, https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/syria/location/36, 13.3.2019.
van Der Meer, Tom/Tolsma, Jochem (2014), Ethnic Diversity and Its Effects on Social Cohesion, Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 459–478.
van Staveren, Irene/Pervaiz, Zahid (2017), Is it Ethnic Fractionalization or Social Exclusion, Which Affects Social Cohesion?, Social Indicators Research, 130 (2), 711–731.
Vergolini, Loris (2011), Does Economic Vulnerability Affect Social Cohesion? Evidence from a Comparative Analysis, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 36 (1), 1–23.
Verme, Paolo, et al. (2016), The Welfare of Syrian Refugees: Evidence from Jordan and Lebanon, Washington D.C.
Wei, Lu/Gao, Fangfang (2017), Social Media, Social Integration and Subjective Well-being among New Urban Migrants in China, Telematics and Informatics, 34 (3), 786–796.
World Bank (2016), Economic and Social Inclusion to Prevent Violent Extremism, MENA Economic Monitor, World Bank Middle East and North Africa Region, Washington D.C.

Abstract

Zeitschrift für Flüchtlingsforschung, The German Journal for Refugee Studies (Z’Flucht) is a new peer-reviewed journal which publishes academic works from diverse disciplines on questions related to forced migration and refugee studies. The journal is published twice a year by Nomos publishing house in association with the German Refugee Research Network (Netzwerk Flüchtlingsforschung) and is edited by Marcel Berlinghoff, J. Olaf Kleist, Ulrike Krause and Jochen Oltmer.

Z’Flucht provides a forum for exchange in the field of forced migration and refugee studies through empirical studies, theoretical reflections and methodological discussions. By means of international, regional or national studies, scholar may tackle questions related to the conditions, forms and consequences of forced migration and displacement, protection of refugees and efforts towards durable solutions, such as (re)integration or resettlement. Moreover, refugees’ activities and strategies utilized to contend with their experiences may be analysed. The journal includes all categories of people who have been forcibly displaced or who have fled from their homes due to violence and examines related debates, discourses, practices and concepts. As such topics can be explored from diverse perspectives, the journal places special emphasis on interdisciplinary discussions and comprises various disciplines, including law, sociology, history, politics, philosophy, ethnology, psychology, geography and economics, linguistics and literary studies.

As displacement and forced migration not only represent a growing field of research but also a broad political and practical area, this journal aims to promote the exchange between academia and practice.

Z’Flucht publishes works in three categories: academic articles, forum articles and literature reviews.

Academic articles present research findings on specific questions related to forced migration and refugees which are methodically and theoretically reflected, and consider and further the current state of research in this field. These articles undergo a double-blind peer review and are limited to 80,000 characters (including spaces). Forum articles can include shorter (field) research reports, address theoretical, methodological, conceptual and ethical questions of research or relate to current discussions in forced migration and refugee studies. Manuscripts from practitioners are welcome. The editors of the journal review all forum articles, which are limited to 35,000 characters (including spaces). Literature reviews can relate to individual or a number of new publications from the last two years which discuss aspects of forced migration and refugee studies. In view of the journal’s interdisciplinary focus, publications which cover several fields are preferred. Individual reviews are limited to 6,000 characters (including spaces), while multiple books reviews should be no longer than 20,000 characters (including spaces).

The journal predominantly publishes works written in German, but studies written in English and French may be considered.

Zusammenfassung

Die Zeitschrift für Flüchtlingsforschung (ZFlucht) ist ein neues peer-reviewed journal, das sich explizit als trans- und interdisziplinäres Organ versteht und danach strebt, als „Informationsknoten“ der wissenschaftlichen Community die interdisziplinäre Zusammenarbeit und Vernetzung in der Flüchtlingsforschung sichtbar zu machen und diese langfristig voranzutreiben.

Die ZFlucht zielt darauf, herausragende wissenschaftliche Beiträge zu den Themen Flucht, Vertreibung und anderen Formen der Gewaltmigration sowie zum Flüchtlingsschutz und zur (Re-)Integration von Flüchtlingen zu veröffentlichen. Inhaltlich relevante Beiträge können sich auf globale, regionale, nationale und lokale Entwicklungen sowie auf theoretische Auseinandersetzungen beziehen.

Die Zeitschrift ist an der Schnittstelle zwischen Wissenschaft und Praxis angesiedelt. Sie richtet sich explizit an Sozial-, Kultur-, Rechts- und GeisteswissenschaftlerInnen und zudem an BerufspraktikerInnen und EntscheidungsträgerInnen in Politik, Verwaltung, Verbänden und (internationalen) Nichtregierungsorganisationen sowie an Ehrenamtliche, Freiwillige und Fach- und Führungskräfte der Sozialen Arbeit.

Die in der ZFlucht veröffentlichten Manuskripte werden einem doppelt anonymisierten Begutachtungsverfahren (double-blind peer review) unterzogen: Eine anonymisierte Fassung des Aufsatzmanuskripts wird von mindestens zwei externen GutachterInnen geprüft. Das Periodikum möchte zur Etablierung sowie zur nachhaltigen Verankerung der Forschung über Zwangs- und Gewaltmigration im weitesten Sinne im deutschsprachigen Raum beitragen. Einzelne Beiträge erscheinen in englischer Sprache.

Die ZFlucht veröffentlicht Beiträge in den drei Rubriken „Aufsätze“, „Forum“ und „Literaturbericht“.

Die Rubrik „wissenschaftliche Aufsätze“ bietet die Möglichkeit zur Veröffentlichung der Ergebnisse wissenschaftlicher Forschung. Die Rubrik „Forum" beinhaltet unterschiedliche Beiträge wie Praxis- und Forschungsberichte, Kommentare, Debattenbeiträge und Tagungsberichte. Im „Literaturbericht“ werden Rezensionen zu thematisch passenden Werken veröffentlicht.