Abstract
Several South African focused studies have identified the numerous challenges faced by refugees in securing their legal rights to employment, education, health care, etc. There is a need therefore to investigate the extent to which such challenges are conterminous with bureaucratic institutions (such as government departments) limitations in fully implementing the refugee policy. In cognisance of the many shortcomings associated with state-assisted integration models, we examined how bureaucratic efficiency (in the provisioning of refugee rights) can be achieved, i.e. the feasibility of instituting dependency partnerships between the state and civil society. A case study based interpretive research design technique was adopted, drawing from one focus group discussion with Congolese refugees and face-to-face in-depth interviews with three purposively selected NGO representatives. We used two theoretical perspectives, namely the theory of monopolisation and Weber’s theory on bureaucracy, to analyse how bureaucratic arrangements can negatively impact on the implementation of the refugee policy and consequently on the refugees’ quality of life and standard of living in their host country. We identified that primary cultural factors, amongst others, unruly practices, social closure, and institutional biases widen the chasm between the formulation of a progressive refugee policy and its efficient implementation. The setting up of human rights education interventions and dependency partnerships is recommended as a means of improving bureaucratic efficiency in the transfer or implementation of refugee social protections.
 Significance:
 
 The originality of this paper emanates from its conceptualisation of the state as a bureaucratic institution whose efficiency in implementing policies can be undermined by the existence of not only structural but also primary cultural factors. Refugees’ challenges are thus conceptualised as emanating from a failure to achieve bureaucratic efficiency.
 Multisectoral approaches (dependency partnerships) are suggested as an alternative to a purely vertical top-down model whereby a single bureaucratic institution (often prone to institutional biases and other challenges) is primarily responsible for implementing social protection policy.
 Apart from not providing a hypothesis-based analysis of refugee deprivations, other studies on refugees in South Africa and the region do not examine such deprivations from an institutional standpoint.
Highlights
Introduction and backgroundChambers and Kopstein[1] acknowledge the importance of public and private sector partnerships in policy implementation as well as in averting refugee deprivations
In cognisance of the many shortcomings associated with state-assisted integration models, we examined how bureaucratic efficiency can be achieved, i.e. the feasibility of instituting dependency partnerships between the state and civil society
South Africa is signatory to a number of international conventions governing the well-being of refugee groups; establishing the role of government in inhibiting refugees’ social disaffiliation in accessing the available social protections is important
Summary
Introduction and backgroundChambers and Kopstein[1] acknowledge the importance of public and private sector partnerships in policy implementation as well as in averting refugee deprivations. We examine how non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and stakeholders can augment governments’ efforts in the refugee social protection discourse[2,3], i.e. what Berten and Leisering[4] term ‘inter-organisational exchanges’. The existential limitations in the adoption of a collective approach to the transfer of refugee social protections[5] (multisectoral initiatives) are investigated. This inquiry is rationalised by the existential challenges to refugee groups’ access to a spectrum of rights and services in South Africa.[6] These challenges are hypothesised as principally originating from the deprivations associated with vertical top-down interventions or state-assisted integration models, i.e. institutional biases, normative forms of exclusion and so forth.[5,7]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
