This thesis investigates the reasons behind divergent policy responses of Peru and Colombia to Venezuelan forced displacement. Specifically, it aims to explain why two countries with similar histories of international migration, political and economic systems, and relations with the sending country, have adopted different approaches to a comparable phenomenon in terms of demographic composition, scale and duration. Under President Iván Duque, Colombia introduced the Estatuto de Protección Temporal para Migrantes Venezolanos (ETPV) in 2021, an unprecedented liberal policy which provides Venezuelans with a 10-year stay permit and a pathway to permanent residency. In contrast, Peru, under President Martín Vizcarra, shifted from an initially welcoming stance to a more restrictive approach by imposing a visa requirement known as the Humanitarian Visa on Venezuelans in 2019 to control their entries.
To address the reasons behind these divergent policy responses I employ outcome-explaining process-tracing and comparative analysis in a Most Similar Systems Design. I triangulate data from 65 interviews with policy-makers and experts, surveys, legal documents, public statements from parliamentary debates and media, and secondary literature. I analyse this data using abductive Thematic Analysis based on a codebook.
I argue that the contrasting policies in these countries primarily stem from variations in their policy-making processes. The study identifies relevant differences in the authorities involved – whether politicians or bureaucrats –, the nature of political considerations – domestic versus foreign affairs – and the presence or absence of cost-benefit analyses. My findings show that Colombia’s adoption of the ETPV resulted from a policy-making process that involved both politicians and bureaucrats, prioritised foreign affairs considerations and included a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. In contrast, Peru’s Humanitarian Visa was formulated by a more limited group of political actors, including the President and key ministers, with minimal bureaucratic input, focusing on domestic concerns and lacking an informed cost-benefit analysis.
The study also highlights the importance of political and institutional contexts in shaping variations in policy-making. In Colombia, foreign affairs considerations are prevalent due to the salience of Venezuela in its political agenda – rooted in historical ties and the role of Venezuela in Colombia’s armed conflict –, as well as the executive’s damaged international reputation resulting from its stances on the armed conflict. Conversely, Peru’s focus on domestic concerns is driven by the executive’s vulnerability amid a political crisis and its strained relations with the parliament. Furthermore, Colombia’s well-established institutional capacities, developed through prolonged conflict and internal forced displacement crises, enabled a robust bureaucratic response and an informed cost-benefit analysis. In contrast, Peru, lacking similar institutional experience and facing political instability, exhibited weaker bureaucratic capacities, leading to a more politically driven approach.
This research advances the forced displacement and migration policy fields by examining the role of policy-making, including the involved authorities and their considerations, and of bureaucracies and knowledge in forced displacement policies in the Global South – aspects thus far largely overlooked in the existing literature. While supporting established theoretical assumptions regarding the impact of the relations between sending and receiving countries and domestic concerns, the study provides new insights into why certain considerations – whether related to foreign or domestic affairs – are prioritised in specific contexts, beyond factors tied to the nature of the exodus itself. Furthermore, it explores how determinants deemed important by the literature, such as regime type, executive vulnerability, and previous institutional frameworks, interact to shape policy. The study introduces the concept of established institutional capacities as a crucial determinant of policy-making, expanding the understanding of how political instability and historical legacies affect policies on forced displacement. Departing from studies in other regional contexts, it reveals the limited role of social contexts and ethnic kinship in explaining policy differences within Latin America. By drawing parallels with countries of the Global North and contrasting them with those of the Global South, my results challenge the traditional South/North divide prevalent in the literature.
Finally, my research suggests several implications for future policy-making on forced displacement. Centralising migration responsibilities within a single department, incorporating trained bureaucrats, and relying on evidence-based practices can enhance policy effectiveness. Furthermore, increased international collaboration, learning from international experiences and establishing stable, legally enshrined policies can address the complexities of forced displacement more effectively. This perspective not only advocates for policies that respect migrants’ rights but also enhances positive outcomes for receiving countries and societies.
