Livelihood programs in Kenya's refugee camps emerged as humanitarian efforts to reduce dependency on international assistance and generate income enabling refugee households to meet needs beyond humanitarian rations. UNHCR and implementing partners including CARE International developed multiple livelihood initiatives: vocational skills training, self-employment support, cash transfer programs, refugee business opportunities facilitation, and agricultural projects. The underlying logic presumed that refugees transitioning from pure dependency toward economic participation would develop agency, self-sufficiency, and dignity while reducing pressure on humanitarian budgets. However, livelihood programs encountered structural constraints limiting effectiveness: limited employment opportunities within and adjacent to camps, insufficient access to capital, market saturation from refugee business proliferation, and host community resentment toward refugee economic activity.
Vocational training programs taught skills intended to generate income: tailoring, hairdressing, carpentry, masonry, and small-scale trading. Refugees completing training theoretically could establish small businesses or obtain employment. However, market demand for such services within largely impoverished refugee populations was limited; potential customers lacked purchasing power for most services. Consequently, trained individuals often struggled to convert skills into reliable income. Some obtained employment with humanitarian organizations or Kenyan government agencies serving refugees, but such positions were extremely limited and highly competitive. Others attempted self-employment but generated meager income insufficient to substantially improve household welfare. Livelihood initiatives thus benefited motivated and relatively privileged refugees while failing to structurally solve poverty characterizing the refugee majority.
Cash transfer programming became increasingly prominent after 2010, as humanitarian policy shifted toward direct financial assistance rather than in-kind aid provision. Organizations distributed cash to vulnerable refugee households, enabling household heads to purchase food, pay school fees, and meet priority needs. Cash transfers theoretically stimulated local refugee economies; recipients spent money in refugee markets, supporting refugee merchants. However, cash transfers rarely proved sufficient to achieve self-sufficiency; transfer amounts covered only partial household needs, maintaining dependency on humanitarian assistance. Additionally, cash transfers created incentives for market inflation; as cash inflows increased, refugee merchants adjusted prices upward, partially capturing humanitarian transfers.
Agricultural initiatives including kitchen gardens, multi-story gardens, and small-scale farming plots attempted to enhance food security while generating income. These initiatives required initial inputs (seeds, tools, construction materials) and technical support (agronomic training, water management). Successful practitioners produced vegetables supplementing household rations and generating modest market income. However, participation remained limited; most refugees lacked initial capital or water access necessary for agriculture. Successful farmers often belonged to more privileged refugee segments with pre-existing resources. Larger-scale agricultural projects involving refugees in market gardening for commercial sale encountered obstacles: insecurity limiting labor availability, water shortage limiting production scale, land tenure complications affecting plot security, and inadequate post-harvest handling limiting product preservation. Overall, livelihood programs generated modest improvements for select populations while failing to achieve broad-based economic transformation within refugee communities facing structural poverty and market limitations.
See Also
Refugee Business Opportunities Cash Transfer Programs Food Distribution Systems Refugee Economic Integration Dadaab Refugee Camp Vocational Training Refugee
Sources
-
"Microfinance." CARE International. https://web.archive.org/web/20151015024432/http://www.care.org/work/economic-development/microfinance
-
"Can Microcredit Worsen Poverty? Cases of Exacerbated Poverty in Bangladesh." Development in Practice, 2011. https://owlspace-ccm.rice.edu/access/content/group/HUMA-SOCI-371-001-F15/Course%20Readings/Thu%2C%20Nov%2014/Mar%2031/Required%20Readings/Jahiruddin2011_CanMicrocreditWorsenPoverty.pdf
-
"What Microloans Miss." The New Yorker, 2008. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/03/17/what-microloans-miss