more effectively to pursue shared objectives’ (Putnam 1996: 1). Coleman broadly defines social capital by its function as ‘a variety of different entities, with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain actions of actors within the structure’ (Coleman 1988: S98). This vagueness has generated confusion and criticism around the use of these concepts (see e.g. Fine 2001: 11–12; Portes 1998: 5). In particular, equating social capital with the resources acquired through it can gloss over a difference between possessors, sources and resources of capital, and may lead to a tautological explanation. Portes highlights the risk of obscuring this difference:
Saying, for example, that student A has social capital because he obtained access to a large tuition loan from his kin and that student B does not because she failed to do so neglects the possibility that B’s kin network is equally or more motivated to come to her aid but simply lacks the means to do so. Defining social capital as equivalent with the resources thus obtained is tantamount to saying that the successful succeeded. (Portes 1998: 5)
Among various definitions of social capital in the academic arena, perhaps the most durable one was presented by the French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu. He posited this elusive concept as ‘the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition – or in other words, to membership in a group’ (Bourdieu 1986: 51). This definition makes it clear that social capital is decomposable into two elements: first, the sum and quality of resources; and second, the social relationships that allow individuals to access these resources (Portes 1998; Siisiainen 2000). Bourdieu’s original definition emphasizes that the volume and quality of assets are dependent on the very potency of the social networks that one can effectively mobilize (Bourdieu 2005: 2, 198).
Due to refugees’ specific vulnerabilities as non-citizens in the host country and little access to relief aid, social networks play a vital role in their economic lives in protracted contexts. As ample evidence shows, mutual assistance between different refugee households constitutes one of the principal livelihood strategies in prolonged refugee settings (Golooba-Mutebi 2004; Grabska 2005; Palmgren 2014). These examples of support within refugee populations are often referred to as a sign of refugees’ communal resilience to survive effectively in times of stress, crisis and emergencies (Doron 2005: 184).
Refugees’ networks also often go beyond national borders. In the recent literature on forced migration there has been a number of studies that have highlighted the role of transnational connections and, inter alia, the significance of access to remittances for refugees’ economic survival (Al-Sharmani 2004; Doocy et al. 2011; Jacobsen et al. 2014; Lindley 2006, 2008, 2010; Monsutti 2005). These financial transfers from abroad are often viewed as not only a source of additional income for the recipient household but also a potential resource for contributing to poverty reduction in the recipient communities.
Despite the increasing focus on the role of social capital in refugees’ livelihoods, the existing literature alarmingly obscures some important aspects of this capital. For example, as Devereux and Sabates-Wheeler (2004: 14) warn, there is a ‘dark side’ to informal assistance networks. It is widely acknowledged that charitable help sometimes causes a sense of defeat and shame in recipients of such aid (Davies 1996: 37; Devereux 2003: 16). In addition, some scholars see the formation of mutual support in deprived communities as an inescapable response to crisis and social breakdown (Griffiths et al. 2005; Zetter et al. 2005). Especially during times of severe scarcity of resources, the burden of assisting others can result in tension or resentment between members (Mosoetsa 2011). Without understanding these negative aspects entrenched in internal assistance practices, researchers can end up painting overly positive pictures of resilience, cohesion and benevolence among refugees.
More importantly, the elusive and intangible nature of social networks is often turned into a ‘catch-all’ concept. Since everyone has some form of social capital, it is very likely that researchers will come up with evidence that social networks play a role in refugees’ economic activities. But it is necessary to differentiate the effects and roles of social capital for refugees with different socio-economic statuses and different institutional contexts. In his development of the original concept of social capital, Bourdieu aimed to highlight how different social classes form and reproduce themselves in relation to one another, with corresponding implications for different types of privilege, inequality and oppression (see also Fine 2006).
Over a protracted period of exile, each household in Buduburam constructed their own portfolio of resource networks, which played an essential role in sustaining their survival in the camp. Nevertheless, there was considerable internal differentiation in the extent and potency of social networks among households. While some had privileged access to socio-economic assets through their personal connections, others could draw upon only limited resources from their contacts. Crucially, internal differentiation in their social capital was often related to their lives prior to displacement. Drawing upon detailed analysis, I elucidate the differences inherent in the relational networks of households, and draw attention to the importance of historical inequalities and privileges from the pre-displacement period vis-à-vis refugees’ socio-economic status during exile.
Repatriation and Economic Reintegration after Prolonged Exile
My field research overlapped with a period involving the large-scale repatriation of refugees from Ghana to Liberia, enabling me to expand the scope of the study and follow refugee returnees to their homeland in order to gather data on their economic reintegration back in Liberia.
Refugees’ repatriation and reintegration have been under-theorized areas in forced migration. This limited theoretical attention is largely due to both a lack of data and some common myths or tropes within forced-migration policy that assume that return to the homeland is always the best solution for refugees. This belief is predicated on the assumption that post-repatriation life in the country of origin will necessarily be better than a life in exile (Hammond 1999: 230). Previous studies, however, paint less positive experiences for returning refugees undergoing processes of reintegration (Eastmond and Ojendal 1999; Lindley 2011; Marsden 1999; Omata 2013a; Rogge and Akol 1989). Among various difficulties, establishing a new economic base after lengthy exile is a particularly onerous challenge (see Jackson 1994; Kaun 2008; Stefansson 2004; Tapscott 1994).
On the other hand, some researchers have reported relatively auspicious cases. Sorensen (2000: 197), for example, in his discussion of the repatriation of Eritrean refugees from Sudan, reports that returnees managed to restore their livelihoods and improved their living conditions in a relatively short time, mainly because of an extensive range of coordinated support from refugee-assisting agencies as well as from the Eritrean government.
Although the current scholarship suggests considerable variations in levels of economic integration among returnees, the causes of these differences remain poorly understood. By drawing on the wider migration literature, however, some plausible hypotheses can be formed. For instance, if the nature of repatriation, especially after decades of exile, does not lead to a ‘homecoming’ in a familiar setting, but rather leads to ‘a new life cycle in an unfamiliar environment’ (Black and Koser 1999: 11–12), this implies a significant role for social networks in facilitating transitions following repatriation. In migration literature, the importance of personal or ethnic ties in arrival destinations is extensively documented; these linkages facilitate migrants in adjusting to a new place by helping them to find accommodation and employment opportunities, and to access social and economic information (Koser 1997: 600; Massey et al. 2008: 43; Poros 2001: 245; Vertovec 2009: 39). This book thus looks into refugees’ repatriation through a social network lens and attempts to account for variations in levels of economic integration among returnees.
Also, in the existing literature, refugees’ repatriation and reintegration are rarely investigated in relation to their exilic experiences. However,
