Barriers and Bridges: Essays on Local-Migrant Dynamics and Refugee Integration

Abstract

This dissertation investigates the conditions under which refugees are more welcomed by local communities. I focus on Turkey, the country that currently hosts the largest population of Syrian refugees in the world \citep{unhcrTurkey} and examine how host society attitudes, policy preferences and behaviors toward refugees are shaped by social interactions, aid framing and information-based interventions. Using a series of original survey experiments, I explore the underlying causes of exclusion and identify strategies that can foster social cohesion in contexts of forced displacement. Each chapter focuses on a distinct factor influencing refugee inclusion: residential preferences, the framing of international aid and intergroup contact followed by corrective information. These studies shed light on how local communities react to the arrival of refugees and offer useful lessons for shaping integration policies, especially in countries in the Global South. In Chapter 1, my co-authors, Karen Ferree and Kristen Kao and I examine whether residential segregation between migrants and hosts reflects symmetric preferences to live among co-ethnics or is primarily driven by host-side avoidance. This chapter draws on a door-to-door survey of 5,000 Turkish and Syrian residents in the city of Adana, a major hub of Syrian displacement. We embed a conjoint experiment in the survey to isolate how neighborhood demographic composition, crime, social capital and public services affect individuals’ willingness to move into hypothetical neighborhoods. The results reveal a striking asymmetry. Turkish citizens strongly prefer to live in neighborhoods with high concentrations of their ingroup and are particularly sensitive to Syrian outgroup size, often preferring higher-crime areas over neighborhoods with more than 30 percent Syrian residents. In contrast, Syrian respondents show no evidence of preferences for segregation. Refugees care more about feeling safe in their neighborhoods and don’t place much importance on the ethnic makeup of the area. This suggests that segregation in Turkey is not something both sides choose, it’s mainly driven by locals who prefer to live apart. That raises a bigger question: why are so many citizens hesitant to live next to refugees? The following chapters address this question by examining how the framing of refugee-related international policies shapes public responses and by exploring the role of intergroup contact and exposure to accurate information in reducing exclusionary attitudes. In Chapter 2, co-authored with Melani Cammett, I investigate how the framing of international aid programs influence local support for refugee inclusion. Drawing on an original online panel survey with a randomized embedded experiment, we test how Turkish citizens respond to three types of aid directed at refugees: cash transfers, vocational training and social cohesion programs. We also vary whether the aid is described as benefiting refugees or the local economy and whether it is funded by international organizations or the Turkish government. We find that aid programs framed as promoting refugee self-sufficiency, particularly those described as also benefiting the host economy, generate significantly less exclusive policy preferences. The mediation analysis shows that people’s sense of economic burden plays a big role in how aid shapes their views on refugees. This chapter highlights why the way aid programs are framed matters. When done right, they can help build local support for including refugees. It also adds to broader conversations about how foreign aid works in countries that host large refugee populations. In Chapter 3, I explore how online intergroup contact and fact-checking from academic sources jointly influence attitudes, policy preferences and behaviors toward refugees. Although research on the effects of contact and misinformation correction on intergroup relations has typically developed along separate lines, combining these approaches can produce more substantial improvements in public perceptions and responses to refugees. I design and implement a three-week randomized controlled trial using WhatsApp groups in Turkey. I find that online intergroup contact meaningfully improves attitudes, reduces support for exclusionary policy preferences and increases willingness to donate to refugee-related causes. Fact-checking on its own has no measurable effect. However, when fact-checking follows contact, it significantly reduces support for exclusionary policies. These results suggest that the effectiveness of information correction depends on prior relational engagement. Misinformation is not simply an informational deficit but a product of social distance. Efforts to correct it tend to be more effective when there’s already some level of personal connection or familiarity in place. Across the three chapters, my dissertation shows that refugee inclusion depends on reducing economic anxieties but also on creating opportunities for meaningful social interaction and ensuring that corrective information is delivered in trusted and relationally grounded contexts. In doing so, it advances our understanding of the microfoundations of social cohesion in settings of mass displacement. These findings suggest that fostering inclusion requires a coordinated set of structural, interpersonal and informational interventions.