An analysis from both a value and a risk perspective

Jack Kruf | June 2016

In this essay, I examine the refugee issue from the perspective of values and risks. I arrive at several reflections. In my view, the issue at hand concerns our collective willingness and capacity to receive refugees and integrate them into our society. The issue moves us deeply.

The dynamics are intense. Our democratic system is creaking at the seams. Society is voicing its views on the literal and figurative boundaries. This is also a political and administrative issue. The public value of ‘balance and cohesion in society’ is coming under pressure due to the large influx. Politicians and administrators speak of public risks and how we need to do things differently.

Values and risks

Mark Moore defines public value as ‘the value that the government creates for its citizens and that citizens value’. These values are enshrined not only in the Dutch constitution but also, for example, in the Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms.

This is where the connection lies. Public risks are linked to public values. Potential deviations from (public) values in the future are interpreted as risks. In this case, one could say: human devaluation in the broadest sense and social instability or disruption. Risk management in relation to our theme is therefore aimed at safeguarding the underlying values. And that, in turn, concerns the quality of reception, care for fellow human beings, streamlined procedures, and tackling the root causes of migration.

In the global discourse on identifying societal ‘risks’, the World Economic Forum ranks ‘large-scale involuntary migration, caused by conflicts, disasters, environmental or economic reasons’ among the top five. Refugee issues are long-term in nature, as they are closely linked to international conflicts between countries, state failure, climate change, and water crises.

It seems somewhat as though we have entered a new period of major population movements (the previous one was between 400 and 1000 AD). According to the Forum, the issue of ‘the refugee’ is taking on a structural character. It is here to stay… And that creates structural risks. In my view, the drivers of this are:

• Protracted conflicts: 80% last longer than 10 years. The longer people are away from their homeland, the harder it is to return. They can no longer make a living ‘at home’, often lose family ties and their possessions, and suffer a loss of dignity. The lack of effective integration policies in most countries leads to the emergence of ghettos and isolated communities on the fringes of society, resulting in frustration, disillusionment and even radicalisation.
• Lack of international commitment: many countries have either not signed the Geneva Convention or do not adhere to it. There is no enforcement mechanism for ‘refugee status’. Without this status, refugees find it much harder to find work, are not entitled to social assistance, or have no access to travel documents. They are second-class citizens.
• Segregation and deliberate bureaucracy: many societies are unable to achieve the integration and inclusion of refugees and keep them at a distance in reception camps. Procedures are often lengthy and formal, and discouraging for refugees.
• Lack of effective governance and failing infrastructure: migrants in developing countries with weak social and governance systems are in a particularly difficult position. In 2014, 86% of refugees lived in developing countries and 12% in less developed countries. Refugees place a significant strain on the national budget (up to 7%); only 2% reach the wealthy West.

Reflections

If we were to prioritise value-driven action by governments, combined with sound risk management, ideally the rest would follow naturally. In this context, risk management means working from ‘the intention’, focused on human dignity, respect and balance in society. This requires administrative leadership and professional management, particularly at the local authority level, as the ‘first line of government’.

In this context, administrators, managers and also care workers are, in fact, the frontline risk managers. They stand for decent hospitality in procedures, humane reception and support for refugees, and optimal communication with and transparency towards society.

It may also require us to think one step further, drawing on our own history. After all, many of our ancestors who later became successful were once refugees themselves. New blood in Dutch society also means new opportunities for us as a host society; with a boost to the economy through increased demand, an influx of knowledge and a rise in international contacts. This fits with the tradition of our entrepreneurial spirit. If we take the human being in all their dignity as our starting point, we must be able to manage the risks of migration…

Bibliography

Translated from original publication: Kruf, J. (2016). Over publieke waarden en risico’s: Een andere kijk op het vluchtelingenvraagstuk. WagenaarHoes Magazine, nummer 32.