The migration–development nexus in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Center for Local Development and Diaspora seen ‘from below’

Abstract

The paper explores the migration–development nexus in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) from the perspective of the development policies vis-à-vis returnees and refugee migrants from 1995 onwards. In order to understand the link between the two, the paper elaborates on the Center for Local Development and Diaspora (CLDD) model established between the City of Stockholm and six municipalities in BiH. The key question is how ‘development’ can be understood under the complexities of the economic and social transformation processes in BiH. The empirical evidence – based on interviews with individuals conducted in BiH and Sweden in 2012 – suggests that the meaning and implications of ‘development’ recommended by the CLDD model differ from how returnees and refugee migrants perceive these.

Keywords:

• development
• Center for Local Development and Diaspora
• returnees
• refugee migrants
• community development workers

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to all my research interviewees and to Julie Vullnetari, Russell King and workshop participants for their constructive feedback on an earlier version of this paper presented at the IMISCOE Annual Conference in Amsterdam in August 2012. Above all, I express my deep gratitude to Maja Povrzanović Frykman for giving me constant support to finalize this paper despite challenges I encountered along the way.

Notes

1. The civil war in BiH in 1992–1995 caused huge economic and human losses. UNHCR (1997) estimates that over a million refugees from BiH, constituting 23.9% of the pre-war population, live in about a hundred countries all over the world. I use the term ‘refugee migrants’ to reflect their now consolidated status, with citizenship, in many European and other countries, especially Sweden. Hence they no longer carry the ‘categorizing’ implications and potential stigmatization that the simple term ‘refugees’ connotes.

2. Out of some 2.2 million persons from BiH who were forcibly displaced during the war in the 1990s, some 800,000 left for Western Europe. The Swedish government decided to devote the entire refugee quota (1800 people) for the budget year 1992/93 to refugees from Former Yugoslavia (FY). For the budget year 1993/94, the refugee quota was extended to 6000, and 5500 out of those were reserved for people from the FY. Moreover, an ad hoc decision that took into consideration the massive plight of one particular group of people was made on 21 June 1993, when 42,000 asylum seekers from BiH were granted permanent residency. A third of some 400,000 individuals who sought asylum in Sweden between 1984 and 2007 originated from the FY. In connection to the war in 1992–1995 Sweden received 60,000 refugees from BiH. By 2008, some 80,000 people of Bosnian origin lived in Sweden, and some 50,000 have obtained Swedish citizenship (see Povrzanović Frykman 2012).

3. There has been a long discussion of the application and meaning of the concept of local ownership. In general, local ownership is regarded as a desirable outcome of international peace operations, which enables local populations to ‘control reform and reconstruct processes, and internationals to eventually scale down or end their presence in a country’ (Martin and Moser 2012, 1). In the case of BiH, the studies of Wittman and Bojičić-Dželilović (2012) and others show that local ownership is not a straightforward concept and the relationships between local and international actors are multi-faceted and present a particular case due to high levels of mistrust and the lack of constructive interaction between different actors. While local and international constituencies agree that international intervention in BiH was successful in ending the war, it has been less successful in building a functioning state. In addition, there are disagreements within and between local and international actors on how the international community can leave behind sustainable institutions, even when there is broad agreement on the overall goals of the intervention.

4. Human development is defined as the process of expanding people’s choices and improving human capabilities (the range of things that they can do or be in life) and freedoms so they can live a long and healthy life, access education and a decent standard of living, participate in their community and the decisions that affect their lives (Sen 1999).