A handful of countries are shouldering the burden of housing refugees, while rich countries

increasingly refuse to take on the responsibility. How would the world look if there was a
more just distribution of refugees?

Today, an unprecedented number of people are displaced. Modern conflicts typically take place
in poor developing countries, and most displaced people reside either inside their own country or
in a neighbouring country. Most displaced people want to return home as quickly as possible,
and so they seek safety and protection close to home.

However, many displacement crises become protracted, and those displaced are often unable to
return home. In the ‘90s it was more common that displaced people could return home. After a
few years, a peace agreement would likely be reached. But today many crises are deadlocked.
The conflict in Syria has now entered its eighth year, while many Afghans have been refugees
for decades.

While fewer refugees can return home, there is also little opportunity to become full citizens in
the countries they reside in. Many Syrian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon are treated as second-
class citizens, unable to seek employment. Uganda and Ethiopia are honourable exceptions to
this; these countries have supported refugees leading as normal lives as possible. Regrettably,
most refugees spend their lives waiting to return to normality.

Solving the crisis is possible

Though the number of displaced in the world is at an all-time high, we are better equipped than
ever before to protect everyone. In 1950, 1.8 billion people were living in extreme poverty –
more than 70 per cent of the world's population at the time. Since then, the world's population
has increased to three times the size, and the number of people living in extreme poverty has
gone down by two thirds. The social development in many countries is impressive, and billions
of people have improved their standard of living.

The world has also become more peaceful. The wars in Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen have
caused great suffering. But the number of people killed in the world due to war and conflict is
still much lower than in the ‘60s, ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s.

Despite the impression often given, global migration has been stable over the past 70 years.
Refugees make up only a small part of all the world’s migrants. Despite the significant increase
in refugees over the past five years, the number of refugees relative to the world's population is
much lower now than it was at the start of the 1990s. However, the proportion of people
displaced within their own country due to war and conflict has increased.

In a more affluent world, rich on resources, we have the opportunity to provide protection to
those forced to flee, if the public wills it.

Turkey has received the most refugees in the world according to the UN High Commissioner for
Refugees’ Global Trends study. Now, almost four million refugees live there. The other
countries receiving a large number of refugees are almost all African and Asian. Of the western
countries, Germany has received the most refugees, at 1.4 million.

In 2017, a total of 3.6 million refugees arrived in a new country, either on their own or as
resettlement refugees. Turkey received almost 20 per cent of all new refugees in 2017. After
Turkey, Bangladesh (18 per cent), Uganda (15 per cent), Sudan (14 per cent) and Germany (8
per cent) received the most people.

When many people are forced to flee at the same time, neighbouring countries are often faced
with receiving many people in little time, as was the case for Bangladesh in 2017. Other
countries far away from war and conflict also receive a significant number of refugees every
year, usually as asylum seekers and resettlements refugees, like Sweden has done for years.

Many wealthy nations receive few refugees

Aspects like population size, natural resources, unemployment rates and economic development
affect how equipped a country is to receive refugees. To see which countries are contributing
above or below their ability, we have compared the number of refugees received by each country
in 2017 to the size of their gross domestic product (GDP). The percentage shows to what extent
each country is contributing related to their economic capabilities. The countries contributing
100 per cent have received their "share" of refugees, according to this formula.

We have calculated the ratio of how many refugees a country received in 2017 and how many
they would receive if refugees were distributed in the world by the size of a country's economy
(GDP). The countries that contribute 100 percent have, according to this formula, taken "their
share" refugees. The three parts of this chart are shown on seperate scales for practical reasons.
Uganda's post would have been over 250 meters long if it should appear on the same scale as the
bottom countries in the list.

You can see the full list of calculations here.

Some countries stand out from the rest. Uganda received 45,000 per cent, or 450 times their
"rightful share". After Uganda follows Sudan with 10,600 per cent and Bangladesh and the
Democratic Republic of the Congo with 6,200 per cent each. Except for Turkey, the top 20
countries on the list are in Asia and Africa.
Many wealthy nations have taken on very little responsibility. In Europe, the eastern European
EU- countries score the lowest, with Slovakia and the Czech Republic at the bottom of the list, at
1.3 and 1.6 per cent, respectively. Poland follows with 2.3 per cent.
Tukey stands out in a positive way in Europe. They received 17 times more refugees than their
GDP indicates, while Greece and Germany received 360 and 180 per cent of their shares. In
2017, Norway took in 40 per cent, as did France, Canada and Australia.

Japan has one of the strongest economies in the world. For many years, the country has been one
of the biggest contributors to the UN's refugee work, but they have been very restrictive when it
comes to receiving refugees. In 2017, they only received 94 refugees, or 0,04 per cent of their
share based on GDP. China scores even lower with 0,02 per cent.

Several countries in South America have had strong economic development, but this is not
reflected in an increased willingness to receive refugees. Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil
all received one per cent or less of their shares. In comparison, the US received seven per cent.

Even though many people from Syria and Yemen have fled to Saudi Arabia and other rich
nations in the Persian Gulf, few are registered as refugees. These countries have not ratified the
UN's 1951 Refugee Convention, so people are not awarded refugee status. Displaced people are
not guaranteed any rights guaranteed under the convention, such as the right to work, education
and access to the legal system.

Because only a few Asian and African countries are receiving a very large share of all the
refugees in the world, we need to relieve these countries through resettlement. Resettlement
refugees are refugees transferred to a third country through a UN deal because they cannot get
help and protection where they are. The resettlement system is a good way for countries that
aren't receiving many refugees, for example due to geography, to take on their share of the
responsibility.

The resettlement system exists to protect vulnerable groups of refugees. For some refugees, like
those who are stateless, persecuted on political grounds, or especially vulnerable children, it can
be difficult to find protection in the country they first fled to. For example, some minorities are
also persecuted in the countries they have fled to. Others have medical needs requiring them to
get protection elsewhere.

For refugees who have been displaced for many years, and who cannot return home, sometimes
the only opportunity for a dignified life is starting afresh in a new country. Both returning home
and permanent integration into host countries are becoming increasingly difficult. Therefore, it is
even more important that people are given the opportunity to relocate as resettlement refugees.

In total, 32 countries received resettlement refugees in 2017, but most of these have only
accepted a token amount. While 189,000 people became resettlement refugees in 2016, the total
dropped to 103,000 in 2017. The main cause behind the drop was that the US, who usually
receive the highest number of resettlement refugees, reduced their share by two thirds after
Donald Trump became president. In addition, Denmark, who previously took in many people
relative to its population size, now refuses to receive any more. They claim to have received too
many asylum seekers over recent years.

Wealthy nations must contribute

We have shown that most displaced people flee to impoverished neighbouring countries, while
refugees are helped most effectively in their own region. Therefore, it is important that wealthy
countries aid displaced people by providing economic support to the countries that receive them.

The UN indicated that they would need about

190 billion NOK

for their work in humanitarian crises in 2017. Only 60 per cent of this amount was
contributed by donor countries.

The UN indicated that they would need about USD 23.6 billion for their work in humanitarian
crises in 2017. Only 60 per cent of this amount was contributed by donor countries. If every
country had contributed based on ability, the sums needed from each would be relatively low. To
illustrate this point, the 2017 return on the Norwegian oil fund was almost six times higher than
the world's UN- reported humanitarian needs.

Though most people, both now and in the future, will be helped most effectively in their
neighbouring countries, it is crucial that wealthy countries share the responsibility. They can do
this by providing protection in their own countries, both for resettlement refugees and individual
asylum seekers. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that 1.2 million
refugees need to be resettled in a third country. This is less than two per cent of all the displaced
people in the world. In recent years, as few as between 100,000 and 200,000 refugees have
become resettlement refugees, a number that is way too low considering the need.

Instead, if the world had relocated 300,000 people as resettlement refugees each year, the
number of people now waiting to be resettled would be in a safe third country within five to ten
years. If more countries had participated, each country would receive a small number of refugees
and solving the challenge would be possible. Countries receiving a very small number of people
should contribute much more than they are now.

Rich countries like Canada, the US, Australia and the Nordics have received the highest number
of resettlement refugees, but middle-income countries in Latin America also take part in the
program. However, most receive very few people and many of the richest countries do not
participate at all. If all rich and middle-income countries had contributed according to economic
ability in the way Canada does, 1.3 million resettlement refugees would be relocated every year.
So it is feasible to increase the number of resettlement refugees in the world to 300,000 per year.

When it comes to providing the necessary protection for displaced people all over the world,
European countries are central. The EU organised the reception of refugees through the Dublin
Regulation. So it is crucial that it facilitates the sharing of the responsibility between European
countries for the agreement to survive.

The Dublin Regulation is an agreement between the EU countries, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland
and Liechtenstein. It determines who is responsible for processing an application for asylum and
providing protection to those who qualify for asylum. The main rule is that asylum seekers must
be registered and processed in the first country they arrive in. In the latest version of the
agreement, called Dublin III, there is no automatic mechanism of distributing refugees evenly
between members.

Much of the responsibility falls on the countries lying on the outer border of the area regulated
by the Dublin Regulation, such as Italy and Greece. As it now stands, these countries are
responsible for providing protection to all asylum seekers arriving in Europe in any other way
than by airplane.

But the principles of this agreement have not really been upheld for a long time. Up until the
large flow of refugees entering Europe in 2015 and 2016, many of the EU's border states
refrained from registering fingerprints to enable asylum seekers to travel on to other countries.
Therefore, countries such as Sweden and Germany received the largest numbers of refugees,
despite very few asylum seekers making it directly into these countries. This changed
dramatically in 2016, when countries such as Italy and Greece were pressured into following the
Dublin Regulation and registering refugees on arrival.

In addition, border controls were implemented in several EU countries to keep asylum seekers
from traveling through Europe to countries further north. The consequences of these measures
became apparent in 2017, when all the countries bordering the Mediterranean saw a significant
increase in asylum applications, despite the fact that the total number of people arriving in
Europe had halved.

To relieve Greece and Italy, the EU designed a new resettlement program where 160,000 asylum
seekers from the two countries were redistributed to other EU countries over a two-year period.
But when the program was ended in the autumn of 2017, only the better part of 30,000 asylum
seekers had been redistributed. One reason for this was a powerful opposition from many
countries objecting to being forced to receive refugees.

Now, the EU has no program to relocate refugees. And countries such as Greece and Italy are
shouldering a large part of the European burden. The European Commission has realised that if
we do not share the responsibility throughout Europe, the Schengen collaboration and the Dublin
Regulation may be threated. They are working to ensure that Dublin IV, which is now being
negotiated, should include a limit on how many asylum seekers one country should have to
receive. The EU suggests that other member states must commit to receive asylum seekers from
those member states receiving the most people, and that there should be economic penalties for
the countries that refuse to participate.

There is great discord between different EU states in these matters. And there is a large divide
between new members in the east, who do not wish to be forced to receive refugees, and the rest
of the EU who are working for a more equal sharing of responsibility. Great Britain's decision to
leave the EU has shaken the entire EU system, and many are worried about pushing through
unpopular decisions, fearing that doing so could result in further destabilising the union.

Hopes for international commitment in 2018

In September 2016, world leaders met in New York to discuss the challenges connected to poor
protection for refugees and migrants. At the time, there was increasing resistance towards
refugees and migrants in many countries, but the result exceeded expectations. All 193 UN
members agreed to "the New York Declaration." This committed each country to strengthening
aid to refugees, contributing to increased and predictable economic support to host countries
receiving large numbers of refugees, and to working for a better distribution of responsibility by
relocating refugees as resettlement refugees.

In 2018, the declaration will result in a detailed plan for bettering the protection of refugees. The
talks with every member country has begun. The goal is to commit everyone to sharing the
responsibility equal to their ability.

The challenges are still many, but if there's a will, there's a way.
In 2019, the U.N. Refugee Agency reported that there were about 26 million refugees
globally. An estimated 68% of refugees come from just five countries: Syria, Venezuela,
Afghanistan, South Sudan and Myanmar. Refugees exist in a state of flux, with their
futures and fates in the hands of potential host countries. Refugees are one of the
world’s most vulnerable groups yet the idea of hosting refugees comes with hesitancies
due to misinformation and misconceptions. There are several benefits of hosting
refugees.

Refugees Bring Productivity

There is a misconception that refugees come into a host country and subsist on benefits
instead of working. Though not every country allows refugees to work, those that do
allow this, see just how productive refugees are. Often unable to use their credentials in
other countries, refugees are known for starting from the ground up and they are
effective at it. Economic advisor, Phillipe Legrain, estimates that 1,000 refugee
businesses could generate $100 million each year. If host countries loosen restrictions
and allow refugees to expand their job opportunities, it could significantly improve the
economies in host countries.

This would also mean making language learning classes and integration courses more
accessible, but in the long run, the fiscal rewards outweigh the cost. Countries that allow
refugees to work and open up businesses know that the influx of productivity is one of
the major benefits of taking in refugees.

Refugees Enrich Culture

Some fear that accepting refugees means that the native culture will disappear.
According to Anna Crosslin of the International Institute in St. Louis, cross-cultural
understanding is vital for integration. Events like the annual Festival of Nations, which is
run by the International Institute, not only help expose St. Louis residents to other global
cultures but also help immigrants feel more at home. Even though there are differences
between each culture, most cultures are incredibly similar at their core. Refugees are
fleeing the same things ordinary citizens fear: families being torn apart, the right to vote
being taken away, lack of education and more.

Refugees do not aim to disrupt the culture of their host countries but enrich it. They may
bring with them different practices, foods and religions, but in the end, most people have
similar ideals.

Refugees Stimulate the Economy

The more people participating in a country’s economy the better. Economic activity
alone is one of the many benefits of taking in refugees. There is an initial investment
required when allowing refugees into a country. Housing, language classes, healthcare,
sustenance. All of these things cost a significant amount of money to provide, but once
refugees are established in their host country, the initial investment pays off.
Refugees start businesses that employ locals, pay taxes and generate wealth. In
countries with an aging workforce, young refugees entering the workforce complement
their work and allow them to retire, while also contributing to social security or pension
funds. Being able to work and make money, in general, allows refugees to stimulate the
economy of their host country. Refugees allowed to work and enterprise are great for an
economy, much more so than refugees that are not allowed in or not allowed to work.

Refugees Complement the Job Market

There is a misassumption that refugees take jobs away from their host country’s job
market. Most studies conclude that refugees have very little effect on the job market at
all. The U.S. State Department’s analysis of the labor market over a 30-year period
showed that not only did refugees not negatively impact the job market, but they had no
effect when compared to regions with no refugee population.

The work migrants do actually fill in the job market. In the United States, it is migrants
doing much of the hard, physically demanding work like farming and cleaning meat and
fish for consumption. These are jobs that not many native citizens want to do. The
economic benefits of taking in refugees are also seen in areas with low domestic
migration. In these places, migrants offer an economic boost that native citizens do not.

Refugees Bring Novel Skillsets and Knowledge

Many cultures make rugs, but who makes them like the Persians? Who can delicately
remove the meat from a poisonous pufferfish like a Japanese sushi chef? Every country
and culture has something that makes them stand out, something that they can teach
and share with others.

Refugees offer language skills that natives might not. Many already have professional
qualifications from their home countries. Most refugees exhibit a high degree of
adaptability, a skill that is important in every industry. To top it off, organizations benefit
greatly from diversity, experiencing greater profits, collaboration and retention than
organizations that are not as diverse. Though refugees are not the only way an
organization can become more diverse, the experiences, skills and perspectives gained
are some of the greatest benefits of hosting refugees.

Welcoming Refugees

Resistance to accepting refugees is often due to misconceptions. Native citizens fear a

disruption in their economy and culture. But in actuality, refugees stimulate the
economy, enrich culture and supplement the job market. Better understanding the
benefits of hosting refugees will hopefully mean that countries globally will be more
accepting of this vulnerable group, realizing that benefits are provided on both sides.