Return Aspirations of Syrian Refugees in Turkey

Abstract

Voluntary return is proposed as a durable solution for mass displacements, but little is known about how refugees perceive their options. This article discusses what drives the return aspirations of Syrian refugees in Turkey. Based on the analysis of quantitative and qualitative data (2017–18), it shows that many Syrians condition their return on the provision of security, regime change and livelihood opportunities in Syria. However, their integration in Turkey also matters, albeit paradoxically, for return aspirations. Specifically, perceived and experienced discrimination and socio-cultural distance influence aspirations. These emerge as indirect implications of the economic, social and cultural integration. This article shows the complexity behind the return issue by advancing the discussion on the role of origin country-related factors in refugees’ aspirations on the one hand, and the relevance of the integration into the host country on the other. Our findings contribute to further understanding of the return-integration nexus, particularly the impact of refugees’ socio-psychological experiences, in the protracted refugee situations.

Keywords:

• return aspirations
• integration paradox
• return-integration nexus
• Syrian refugees
• Turkey

Acknowledgments

This paper hugely benefited from the suggestions and comments of four anonymous reviewers and the editor, Prof. Anna Triandafyllidou. The usual disclaimer applies. ZSM conducted the field research under the European Commission funded Horizon 2020 project ‘RESPOND Multilevel Governance of Migration in Europe and Beyond’ (770564), and her writing period was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation Experienced Researcher Fellowship (2020–21), Germany.

Authors’ contributions

ZSM collected and analyzed the qualitative data; AK performed descriptive and statistical analyses; MME provided the quantitative data; and AK and ZSM wrote the manuscript.

Notes

1 As of March 2020, only 58,241 Syrians live in camps (called accommodation shelters), while among 3,598,283 registered Syrians live in urban centers. https://en.goc.gov.tr/temporary-protection27. [accessed 05 March 2021]

2 We also use the term ‘mediators’ for these variables in order to be in line with the terminology of structural equation modelling.

3 Surveys are conducted in 10 provinces at household-level. Out of a total of 1,235 Syrian households, 348 were living in camps and 887 were living in urban areas. Boosted sampling used for refugees living in camps in order to have a representative sample of them. Computer assisted personal interview technique is used in interviews.

4 The survey data were collected by Syrian university students/graduates. It was designed as a household survey and all of the interviews were conducted face-to-face. At each household, one eligible individual (in terms of age and knowledge about other household members) answered the questions. The data cover Syrian refugees who live in and out of the temporary accommodation camps.

5 Syrians are not free to migrate to other cities than their registered province for permanent residency unless the necessary conditions listed by DGMM are satisfied since 2018. If they migrate, then they are not able to benefit from free health and education services.

6 Provinces that are included in the sample are selected given the highest Syrian population distribution in Turkey, including Adana, Bursa, Gaziantep, Hatay, Kilis, Mardin, Mersin, İstanbul, İzmir and Şanlıurfa. The camps that are visited for the data collection are Kilis, Midyat in Mardin, Çadırkent in Gaziantep, Sarıçam in Adana, Yayladağı and Güveççi in Hatay and, lastly, Harran, Tel Abyad and Suruç in Şanlıurfa.

7 Boosted sampling strategy has been followed for the Syrians living in camps so that their proportion among the total sample has been increased to improve the statistical findings. For Syrian families outside camps, a simple random sampling strategy is used and the target sample is determined by the Syrian population living in each province.

8 Although there is one year gap between the collection of survey and interview data, the survey administered by the third author was the only available quantitative data source when the first draft of this paper was written in the fall of 2018. The following survey became public only in mid-2020. One-year differences data collection is often acceptable for mixed-method research. Also, between 2017 and 2018, no substantive development happened about return politics. We have added the period into the abstract in the revised version., This gap in data collection can be still noted as one limitation of this study, while longitudinal studies in the future would be better.

9 Those who did not answer (35 individuals) the question are excluded from the analysis.

10 Interview 37, Syrian woman, 03 August 2018, Izmir, Turkey.

11 Interview 41, Syrian womaen working part-time, migrated to Canada recently, 5 June 2018, Istanbul, Turkey.

12 Interview 12, Syrian womaen, mother, 17 August 2018, Izmir, Turkey.

13 Interview 17, Syrian old man, unemployed, 12 July 2018, Sanlıurfa, Turkey.

14 Interview 9, Syrian male writer activist, 13 July 2018, Sanlıurfa.

15 Interview 12, a Syrian woman living in a village, 15 July 2018, Sanlıurfa, Turkey.

16 Interview 35, a Syrian working woman, 10 August 2018, Izmir.

17 Interview 20, unemployed architect woman, 28 August 2018, Sanlıurfa.

18 Interview 1, Syrian man working for a printed house, 11 July 2018, Sanlıurfa, Turkey.

19 Sample size for those who report to having ‘never return’ intention is 188.

20 Interview 13, Syrian women, 04 August 2018, Izmir, Turkey.

21 Interview 8, Syrian girl, university student, 13 July 2018, Sanlıurfa, Turkey.

22 Interview 6, Syrian unemployed man, 12 June 2018, Sanlıurfa, Turkey.

23 We did not include the continuous year or month variable because it is rather a short time spent in the receiving country and we wanted to see if there are clear differences between the short-term and long-term stayers in such a short window. This variable is coded as ‘1’ if the respondent stayed in Turkey for less than 24 months, as ‘2’ if they spent between 25 and 59 months and finally as ‘3’ if they lived in Turkey for more than 59 months.