and plight with each other over Liberian dishes.
Besides the provision of religious services, churches often played a role in assisting Liberian refugees in the camp.6 Especially in the early stage of their exile in Ghana, some of these faith-based organizations were engaged in providing social services, including vocational training and dealing with trauma (Dovlo and Sondah 2001: 207–8).
Furthermore, churches provided a space for networking. The active involvement of local Christian organizations contributed to connecting Liberian refugees with the host community and with Christian institutions abroad. Dick’s (2002a: 34–35, 53) work also underlines the significance of churches as a means for Liberian refugees to access additional financial and material resources through social networks. The role of faith-based organizations in refugees’ economic life will be highlighted in later chapters.
The Causes of Displacement: Liberian Prewar History and the Civil War
Buduburam refugee camp had a history of more than two decades. Despite their prolonged exile, refugees’ camp life could not be divorced from the pre-displacement period in Liberia. In order to contextualize the economic lives of refugees in exile and the aftermath of repatriation and the cessation of refugee status, understanding Liberia’s historical background, including Liberia’s formation and prewar social structure, is essential. Therefore, this and the following sections provide a chronological account of refugees’ displacement: from Liberia’s prewar ethno-political landscape and its civil war to protracted exile in Ghana, including the attitudinal shifts among non-refugee stakeholders.
For the vast majority of Liberian refugees, the direct cause of their forced displacement was the fourteen-year civil war that began in 1989. The roots of this conflict, however, were deeply embedded in the formation of Liberia as a country in the early nineteenth century (Sesay 1996: 37). In 1821, Liberia was founded by interests in the United States as a means of resettling liberated American slaves, who were subsequently called Americo-Liberians. In the new country, the group of emancipated slaves from the United States established a political strategy of division between themselves and other, ‘uncivilized’ natives (Bøås 2015: 61). The Americo-Liberian ‘elites’ severely marginalized the indigenous population and ruled the nation as quasi-imperial masters until the late twentieth century (Adebajo 2002: 21; Ellis 2007: 43; Nmoma 1997: 3). Native Liberians were relegated to second-class status and were given only very limited access to social, political and economic power. As the subsequent chapters highlight, this historical inequality is significant for understanding the diverse realities of refugees’ socio-economic conditions in exile, and even their post-refugee lives.
Accumulated frustration and anger towards the ruling elite paved the way for Samuel Doe, an indigenous military officer, who took over the country in a military coup in 1980. The insurgency led by Doe brought to an end the entrenched Americo-Liberian monopoly of power. Nevertheless, Doe’s ruling regime was characterized by incompetence, corruption and cruelty (Cleaver and Massey 2006: 179). In a process often criticized as ‘new tribalism’, Doe started filling important government posts with people from his own ethnic group (Bøås 2015: 64; Sesay 1996: 37). Doe’s regime experienced multiple coup attempts and a lack of support from the majority of Liberian citizens. Meanwhile, Charles Taylor, a former minister of Americo-Liberian origin who had fled Liberia for the United States, established an anti-Doe military movement during his exile. In December 1989, Taylor’s army advanced into Liberia from Ivory Coast to oust Doe from power. This incursion marked the opening of the brutal fourteen-year civil war in Liberia (Cleaver and Massey 2006: 179–80).
Among Africa’s numerous wars and conflicts, the Liberian war has been seen by some as one of the most destructive. In addition to more than 200,000 fatalities, it displaced one-third of the population internally or externally (Jackson 2006: 16–18). After 1990, owing to the protracted conflict, many uprooted Liberians intermittently sought refuge in Ghana, which at the time was deemed the most stable state in the sub-region. Because Ghana and Liberia do not share a border, Liberian refugees reached Ghana by sea, by road and on foot, through intervening countries, primarily Ivory Coast.7
Prolonged Exile, Aid Fatigue and Repatriation Pressure
Facing the incessant arrival of displaced Liberians, in 1990 the Ghanaian government organized an ad hoc committee and set up a refugee reception centre adjacent to Buduburam village, and this was the origin of the Buduburam refugee camp. In the very early phase of refugee inflows, the Ghanaian villagers generously provided food, water and blankets for displaced Liberians, which considerably contributed to refugees’ survival during the emergency phase (Dick 2002b: 12). In 1991, UNHCR started supplying cooked meals, water, mattresses, blankets, charcoal and other necessities to the refugees. Tents were set up to accommodate the displaced Liberians. Around early 1993, UNHCR, in partnership with WFP, commenced the distribution of dry food rations. Cooking utensils were also provided to refugee households to enable them to cook at home. At this time, dry food rations were distributed to all refugee households in the camp. The basic needs of the Liberian refugees were, in general, met in the initial emergency phase of their exile in Ghana (Essuman-Johnson 1995, 2011).
As the exile of refugees extended due to the prolongation of the Liberian civil war, the environment surrounding the refugees became gradually inhospitable, and the refugees were encouraged by UNHCR to return to their home country. This trend strengthened especially after the ceasefire agreement of 2003. The internationally backed peace accord in 2003 helped the donor community to forge a consensus about Liberia’s restored peace and stability. Thereafter, UNHCR started actively promoting the repatriation of refugees, whose number had risen to a peak of 42,000 in Ghana (UNHCR 2004b: 6). Between 2004 and 2007, UNHCR organized a large-scale repatriation promotion programme for Liberians in the sub-region and encouraged their return to Liberia. But because many were cautious about returning to the precarious political and economic situation in their country of origin (see also Agblorti 2011: 5; Essuman-Johnson 2011: 118), the number of repatriates from Ghana reached only 7,000 during the three-year repatriation programme. At the end of 2007, about 27,000 Liberian refugees remained in Ghana, which made the country host to the largest number of Liberian refugees in the world at that point (UNHCR 2008: 78). Given the limited success of UNHCR’s promotion of repatriation, the Ghanaian administration expressed grave concern about the large number of Liberian refugees remaining in the country (Salducci 2008: 12).
As widely observed in protracted refugee situations worldwide, the volume of relief aid for Liberian refugees dwindled over the period of people’s extended exile. According to Loescher (2001: 321–22), in the late 1990s the amount of funding from donor states for protracted refugees in Africa had already started declining, and refugees in West Africa, including Liberian refugees, were the principal losers as a result of the shortage. After the 2003 ceasefire agreement, the volume of aid for Liberian refugees was further cut. As the Liberian civil war had become a ‘finished’ issue in international politics, the global community’s interest in assisting residual Liberian refugees was already very small. During an interview with UNHCR’s senior programme officer in Ghana, he frankly confirmed that there was no more funding for Liberian exiles in Ghana as it was very difficult for UNHCR to ‘sell this refugee population’ to any donors.8
The dwindling financial support of the donor community also affected the provision of basic services and facilities in the camp. As described above, at the time of my study, camp residents were paying fees for basic services and items such as water, electricity and even using a public latrine. UNHCR provided subsidized services for medical treatment and primary education, but refugees still had to cover a large proportion of these expenses on their own.
Alongside the increasing emphasis on repatriation and the declining financial commitment
