M.M Cernea and C. McDowell, eds. Risks and Reconstruction: Experiences of Resettlers and Refugees.

Michael M. Cernea and Christopher McDowell, editors.
Risks and Reconstruction: Experiences of Resettlers and Refugees.
Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 2000, xvi+488 pp. NPL

The study of involuntary population movements within and across national boundaries is a relatively new and underdeveloped area in sociology. This large volume, co-sponsored by the Social Development Department of the World Bank and the Refugee Studies Programme at the University of Oxford, is a timely contribution to that scholarship. As the editors put it, the volume aims to bridge a twofold gap in the literature: (a) between refugee research and resettlement research; and (b) between the displacement and reconstruction segments of either research branch. The strategy proposed in regard to the first gap is a comparative analysis of two displaced populations, i.e. refugees, including internally displaced persons, and involuntary resettlers uprooted by development-inducing programmes. Given the previous attention directed to the negative effects of displacement, a deliberate emphasis on the reconstruction of livelihoods is seen as the way to bridge the second gap.

Michael M. Cernea's article in Part I sets the tone of the volume, proposing a theoretical model of population displacement and resettlement, the so-called impoverishment risks and reconstruction (IRR) model. Cernea identifies eight fundamental impoverishment risks associated with development-induced, forced displacements: landlessness, joblessness, homelessness, marginalization, food insecurity, increased morbidity and mortality, loss of access to common property resources, and community disarticulation. Pointing to the inequitable gains and pains of existing development policies and practices among the populations affected, Cernea also incorporates a component of risk reversal (reconstruction) into his model. Resettling displaced populations through an equity compass would include land-based resettlement, re-employment, house reconstruction, social inclusion, improved health care, adequate nutrition, restoration of common property resources, and community rebuilding.

Although Cernea develops the IRR model on the basis of development-induced displacements, he maintains that it is applicable to refugee situations as well. This issue is further taken up in an article by Eftihia Voutira and Barbara Harrell-Bond in Part I. A reciprocal transfer of knowledge between the experiences of refugees and development oustees or displacees, Voutira and Harrell-Bond argue, is hampered more by institutional factors originating in the practices of major agencies than by conceptual factors residing in one-sided research. Most notably, they mention the incompatibility of the two current “solutions” to displacement: (a) resettlement as proposed by development agencies such as the World Bank; and (b) repatriation as proposed by the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). Moreover, Voutira and Harrell-Bond point out that, whereas individual states can still determine policy concerning development oustees as their citizens, it is for the most part the international humanitarian community which defines policy for sovereign states in relation to the refugees they host.

The rest of the volume is organized according to the impoverishment risks and risk reversals formulated by Cernea. In Part II, Ranjit Nayak and Véronique Lassailly-Jacob deal with land loss and land-based relocation. Drawing upon data from his field research among the displaced Kisan tribe of Orissa in India, Nayak highlights the importance of the “land for land” scheme of compensation (as opposed to those offering cash and employment for land) for the resettlers. For her part, Lassailly-Jacob focusses on the land-based resettlement of both development displacees and refugees in rural sub-Saharan Africa, comparing the circumstances and problems of the two groups. Part III consists of two studies highlighting successful experiences with job creation for populations displaced by development projects. One, done by Sheilah Meikle and Zhu Youxuan, examines the case of China (particularly Shanghai) under market reforms whereas the other, done by María C. Mejía, concentrates on an economic recovery programme for brickmakers displaced by a reservoir project on the Argentina-Paraguay border. In Part IV, I. U. B. Reddy and Christian Sørensen discuss the risk and reversal of homelessness. Reddy explores recent approaches to relocation and home reconstruction in urban India whereas Sørensen addresses home reconstruction in the context of refugee return in rural Eritrea.

Part V is comprised of an essay by Walter Fernandes on the socio-economic marginalization of project-displaced people and the conditions for their re-inclusion. For Fernandes, development oustees can achieve re-inclusion if they become beneficiaries of the projects that lead to their resettlement. Regaining food security and overcoming health risks are the subjects of Part VI. Roxanne Hakim chronicles the struggle against food insecurity by a hill tribe (Vasava) in India who had been resettled from a low-risk forest context to that of a high-risk and market-oriented agriculture. Reginald H. Green discusses goals and dilemmas in restoring food security, health, and sanitation by comparing the cases of refugees, demobilized combatants, and development displacees. Part VII explores the possibilities of reviving common property resources. Gaim Kibreab reviews the controversy surrounding the “tragedy of the commons” and contends that reconstructing or reviving common property resources in a post-displacement period should be one of the goals of development policy. Drawing on their research on a resettlement project in Mali, Dolores Koenig and Tiéman Diarra stress the political dimensions of access to common property resources. Part VIII concludes the volume with four articles on social re-articulation: namely, post-conflict reconstruction in Azerbaijan (by Jonathan Brown), community re-establishment in an urban refugee settlement in Greece (by Renée Hirschon), revival of socio-cultural life in an Ethiopian emergency resettlement area (by Wolde-Selassie Abutte), and an integrated reconstruction of community life in a resettled Indian village (by L. K. Mahapatra and Sheela Mahapatra).

This volume goes a long way in accomplishing its stated mission, that is, bridging the gap between refugee research and research on development displacees. It would, however, go even further if it put more emphasis, from the outset, on the differences between refugee and development displacee experiences. Except for those by Voutira and Harrell-Bond, and by Kibreab, no article included in the volume pays sufficient attention to these differences (e.g., sudden versus planned, temporary versus permanent, and cross-national versus internal displacement). The volume would also benefit from the inclusion of one article, or two, on the resettlement experience of Third World refugees in Western countries. These gaps do not, however, diminish the accomplishment of the volume.

Adnan Türegün
Research Associate
Research Resource Division for Refugees
Carleton University
aturegun@ccs.carleton.ca



		Canadian Journal of Sociology Online November - December 2000 Michael M. Cernea and Christopher McDowell, editors. Risks and Reconstruction: Experiences of Resettlers and Refugees. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 2000, xvi+488 pp. NPL The study of involuntary population movements within and across national boundaries is a relatively new and underdeveloped area in sociology. This large volume, co-sponsored by the Social Development Department of the World Bank and the Refugee Studies Programme at the University of Oxford, is a timely contribution to that scholarship. As the editors put it, the volume aims to bridge a twofold gap in the literature: (a) between refugee research and resettlement research; and (b) between the displacement and reconstruction segments of either research branch. The strategy proposed in regard to the first gap is a comparative analysis of two displaced populations, i.e. refugees, including internally displaced persons, and involuntary resettlers uprooted by development-inducing programmes. Given the previous attention directed to the negative effects of displacement, a deliberate emphasis on the reconstruction of livelihoods is seen as the way to bridge the second gap. Michael M. Cernea's article in Part I sets the tone of the volume, proposing a theoretical model of population displacement and resettlement, the so-called impoverishment risks and reconstruction (IRR) model. Cernea identifies eight fundamental impoverishment risks associated with development-induced, forced displacements: landlessness, joblessness, homelessness, marginalization, food insecurity, increased morbidity and mortality, loss of access to common property resources, and community disarticulation. Pointing to the inequitable gains and pains of existing development policies and practices among the populations affected, Cernea also incorporates a component of risk reversal (reconstruction) into his model. Resettling displaced populations through an equity compass would include land-based resettlement, re-employment, house reconstruction, social inclusion, improved health care, adequate nutrition, restoration of common property resources, and community rebuilding. Although Cernea develops the IRR model on the basis of development-induced displacements, he maintains that it is applicable to refugee situations as well. This issue is further taken up in an article by Eftihia Voutira and Barbara Harrell-Bond in Part I. A reciprocal transfer of knowledge between the experiences of refugees and development oustees or displacees, Voutira and Harrell-Bond argue, is hampered more by institutional factors originating in the practices of major agencies than by conceptual factors residing in one-sided research. Most notably, they mention the incompatibility of the two current “solutions” to displacement: (a) resettlement as proposed by development agencies such as the World Bank; and (b) repatriation as proposed by the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). Moreover, Voutira and Harrell-Bond point out that, whereas individual states can still determine policy concerning development oustees as their citizens, it is for the most part the international humanitarian community which defines policy for sovereign states in relation to the refugees they host. The rest of the volume is organized according to the impoverishment risks and risk reversals formulated by Cernea. In Part II, Ranjit Nayak and Véronique Lassailly-Jacob deal with land loss and land-based relocation. Drawing upon data from his field research among the displaced Kisan tribe of Orissa in India, Nayak highlights the importance of the “land for land” scheme of compensation (as opposed to those offering cash and employment for land) for the resettlers. For her part, Lassailly-Jacob focusses on the land-based resettlement of both development displacees and refugees in rural sub-Saharan Africa, comparing the circumstances and problems of the two groups. Part III consists of two studies highlighting successful experiences with job creation for populations displaced by development projects. One, done by Sheilah Meikle and Zhu Youxuan, examines the case of China (particularly Shanghai) under market reforms whereas the other, done by María C. Mejía, concentrates on an economic recovery programme for brickmakers displaced by a reservoir project on the Argentina-Paraguay border. In Part IV, I. U. B. Reddy and Christian Sørensen discuss the risk and reversal of homelessness. Reddy explores recent approaches to relocation and home reconstruction in urban India whereas Sørensen addresses home reconstruction in the context of refugee return in rural Eritrea. Part V is comprised of an essay by Walter Fernandes on the socio-economic marginalization of project-displaced people and the conditions for their re-inclusion. For Fernandes, development oustees can achieve re-inclusion if they become beneficiaries of the projects that lead to their resettlement. Regaining food security and overcoming health risks are the subjects of Part VI. Roxanne Hakim chronicles the struggle against food insecurity by a hill tribe (Vasava) in India who had been resettled from a low-risk forest context to that of a high-risk and market-oriented agriculture. Reginald H. Green discusses goals and dilemmas in restoring food security, health, and sanitation by comparing the cases of refugees, demobilized combatants, and development displacees. Part VII explores the possibilities of reviving common property resources. Gaim Kibreab reviews the controversy surrounding the “tragedy of the commons” and contends that reconstructing or reviving common property resources in a post-displacement period should be one of the goals of development policy. Drawing on their research on a resettlement project in Mali, Dolores Koenig and Tiéman Diarra stress the political dimensions of access to common property resources. Part VIII concludes the volume with four articles on social re-articulation: namely, post-conflict reconstruction in Azerbaijan (by Jonathan Brown), community re-establishment in an urban refugee settlement in Greece (by Renée Hirschon), revival of socio-cultural life in an Ethiopian emergency resettlement area (by Wolde-Selassie Abutte), and an integrated reconstruction of community life in a resettled Indian village (by L. K. Mahapatra and Sheela Mahapatra). This volume goes a long way in accomplishing its stated mission, that is, bridging the gap between refugee research and research on development displacees. It would, however, go even further if it put more emphasis, from the outset, on the differences between refugee and development displacee experiences. Except for those by Voutira and Harrell-Bond, and by Kibreab, no article included in the volume pays sufficient attention to these differences (e.g., sudden versus planned, temporary versus permanent, and cross-national versus internal displacement). The volume would also benefit from the inclusion of one article, or two, on the resettlement experience of Third World refugees in Western countries. These gaps do not, however, diminish the accomplishment of the volume. Adnan Türegün Research Associate Research Resource Division for Refugees Carleton University aturegun@ccs.carleton.ca http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/cjscopy/reviews/resettlers.html December 2000 © CJS Online