Иллюзия финансовой инклюзии: почему бизнес беженцев в лагерях не ведет к реальной независимости

Refugee entrepreneurs and the illusion of financial inclusion By Petre Kidi One of the least discussed challenges in the shift towards refugee self-reliance that’s touted by development agencies is the extent of poverty within closed camp economies. This reality is often overlooked in conversations that focus on entrepreneurship and financial inclusion, yet it shapes everything that follows. In many camps, small businesses do not operate in thriving markets, they operate in spaces where nearly everyone is struggling. A refugee selling vegetables, airtime, or basic goods is often selling to customers who are equally constrained, equally dependent, and equally uncertain about tomorrow. The exchange exists, but it happens within limits that are difficult to escape. There is movement, but not necessarily growth. Transactions are frequently based on credit rather than cash. Goods are taken with the promise of payment later – payment that may never come. This is not simply a financial arrangement; it reflects the shared reality of hardship. Refusing credit is not always possible, because the people who ask are part of the same community, facing the same conditions. Over time, this creates cycles of debt that quietly erode the very businesses meant to represent progress. What begins as an attempt to generate income slowly becomes difficult to sustain. Stock becomes harder to replace. Income becomes unpredictable. What remains is a business in form, but not always in function. In such an environment, entrepreneurship does not necessarily generate growth. It often redistributes scarcity. This raises an important question: Can self-reliance truly exist in an economy where no one has enough? Self-reliance without integration Beyond the internal limits of camp economies lies a broader structural issue – integration. This is where the focus shifts from individual effort to the conditions that shape what is possible. Refugees are often encouraged to become self-reliant while remaining excluded from the very systems that make self-reliance possible. Restrictions on movement, limited access to formal employment, and barriers to national markets create conditions where opportunity is not only scarce, but structurally constrained. In this context, self-reliance becomes a paradox. Dozens of countries impose refugee encampment policies. Refugees are expected to build independent lives within environments that limit independence. They are encouraged to grow within systems that do not expand. They are asked to sustain themselves in economies that cannot sustain them. This contradiction is not always visible in policy discussions, but it is present in everyday life. For self-reliance to move beyond rhetoric, refugees must be seen not as a burden to be managed, but as an economic and social asset. This requires more than encouragement, it requires change in the systems that define access and opportunity. Access to labour markets, financial services, education, and mobility are not additional benefits; they are necessary conditions. Without them, self-reliance remains limited to small-scale survival rather than meaningful progress. Between what is measured and what is lived Another important dimension of this shift is the increasing reliance on data systems and standardised indicators. Terms such as “consumption scores”, “resilience markers”, and “transition metrics” are used to assess progress and guide decision-making. These tools are important, but they have limits. They capture what can be measured, not necessarily what is lived. A household may appear stable on paper while continuing to face daily shortages. A young person may report having a business while struggling to generate consistent income. These realities exist alongside the data, but are not always visible within it. This creates a growing gap between what is recorded and what is experienced. The issue is not that the data is incorrect, but that it is incomplete. It reflects part of the reality, but not all of it. And when decisions are based primarily on measurable indicators, there is a risk that the unmeasured aspects of life uncertainty, pressure, and dignity are overlooked. The need to reflect reality This does not mean that the shift towards livelihoods and self-reliance is inherently wrong. Many refugees want to work, to build, and to sustain themselves. The desire for independence is real. But desire alone does not create opportunity. The issue lies in how these transitions are implemented, and whether the conditions needed for success are in place. Self-reliance cannot be reduced to the presence of a business or the reduction of aid. It must be understood in terms of stability and sustainability. These questions are necessary if self-reliance is to reflect reality rather than appearance. Is the system ready for self-reliance? As humanitarian organisations continue to adapt to funding constraints and changing priorities, the shift towards self-reliance is likely to continue. It is presented as a necessary transition, and in many ways, it is. But necessity does not remove complexity. As long as refugee economies remain closed and constrained, the potential for meaningful growth will remain limited. As long as integration remains restricted, independence will remain partial. And as long as progress is measured primarily through indicators, there is a risk that appearance will take precedence over reality. The question is not simply whether refugees are capable of self-reliance. It is whether the systems around them are prepared to support it in a meaningful and sustainable way. Because without that support, self-reliance risks becoming something else: not a pathway out of poverty, just a different way of living within it.