- cross-posted to:
- dataisbeautiful@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- dataisbeautiful@lemmy.world
I was curious how well wealthy countries do at hosting refugees.
The plots are interactive so its better to view them here: https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/insights/explainers/refugee-hosting-metrics.html
In the plot, the size of the circle is the number of refugees.
Germany is really doing an amazing job, y’all should be proud.
Compared to Chile, the US has 15x the population and 5x the wealth per capita but hosts fewer refugees. I certainly don’t have the full picture but its not a good look.
Larger circle is better? Or what are the criteria used for ranking?
The diameter of the circle is the number of refugees that the county hosts.
The wealthier and more populous countries are in the top right corner. The chart doesn’t rank them but I think that in a more fair world the wealthy countries would host more.
Why’s that?
Good question.
I’m making a lot of assumptions. I assume that hosting a refugee takes some money, at least initially until they get settled. I assume that refugees don’t have a preference in where they live, which is almost certainly wrong.
So I guess in a fair world when there is work that needs to be done the more wealthy would pay more, maybe each country pays a fixed percent of GDP. On that thought, just because a country doesn’t host a refugee, doesn’t mean that they aren’t paying for the refugee to be hosted. It seems like UNHCR probably facilites moving money around to pay for refugees. So a better plot than this plot, to asses “fairness”, would be how much of each country pays to have refugees hosted. But that may be a harder number to calculate.
In a fair world, wouldn’t the party that caused the displacement be responsible for the consequences?
That would be the most fair. For sure.