Developing Inclusive Social Policies: Education for Azerbaijan's Internally Displaced Vitaly Radsky CIE Policy Unit1 Introduction:

The social exclusion framework In the 1970s, French Secretary of State for Social Action Rene Lenoir coined the phrase social exclusion to categorize 10% of the French population, which included not only the poor, but also handicapped, suicidal and aged people, abused children, substance abusers (de Haan 2000, p. 23). By the 1990s, social exclusion (SE) was replacing poverty as the dominant measure of deprivation within the European Union; since 2001, all EU countries have been required to submit National Action Plans for Social Inclusion (Levitas, 2003). However, even in Europe, it has been difficult to create a single definition for the concept and much work is needed to test the value of the idea, especially in developing contexts (de Haan, 2000; Laderchi, Saith, & Stewart, 2003). What is social exclusion? De Haan (2000) describes the two defining characteristics of social exclusion: 1) multidimensionality in the measure of livelihood outcomes and, 2) a focus on the interaction of processes, actors, and institutions leading to those outcomes. Firstly, the social exclusion concept extends the measurement of deprivation beyond the monetary, to the social and political spheres. At this level, the concept is equivalent to ideas of multidimensional poverty, which also measure a wide range of economic, social, and political indicators of well-being. A multidimensional approach recognizes that disadvantage in accessing education, health services, political participation, the welfare state, housing, community life, and even respect can be just as detrimental to well-being as lack of money. Secondly, the social exclusion concept provides a framework for analysis of the social interactions, processes, actors, and institutions that include some groups and exclude others (de Haan, 2000, p.37). The value of the concept is that it measures outcomes of deprivation and explains, with a focus on interactions within society, why and how these outcomes come about. Above all, de Haan summarizes that the SE concept is a way of conceptualizing societ y, including (and with a focus on) the processes of deprivation that are an integral part of that society. The value of the social exclusion concept extends beyond its multidimensional mapping and monitoring of deprivation, which has been well established in literature on poverty, and brought into the mainstream through Sens capabilities approach (de Haan, 2000, p. 33). Its value comes from its ability to describe the process of exclusion, and in so doing, explain how and why exclusion happens. The social exclusion framework is valuable because it links specific cases of deprivation to the exclusionary process that causes this deprivation. In this paper we hope to avoid the criticism that empirical work in developing countries has been unable to justify the use of the SE framework and has used the concept to describe outcomes of poverty rather than the processes leading to that poverty (Laderchi et al., 2003, p. 22-23; Sen, 2000, p. 9-12). Social Exclusion in Azerbaijan: The case of IDPs
1

The CIE Policy Unit (www.cie.az) is a newly formed think tank focusing on providing better solutions for social policy in Azerbaijan. Author can be reached at radsky.vitaly@gmail.com.

In the case of IDP and CWD groups in Azerbaijan, the SE concept is useful because it allows us to explain how social relationships and institutions impact the relative deprivation of these groups. In these two cases, an unequal societal relationship has developed between mainstream society and displaced persons and the disabled, respectively. The unequal relationship is characterized by stigmatization in society and the states inability to move beyond strictly monetary measures of deprivation and medical models of disability to provide for better integration of these groups. In order to apply the social exclusion framework to the over 600,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Azerbaijan, we must consider whether IDP families are more vulnerable than the societal average in Azerbaijan and explore the processes behind the vulnerability of this particular group. First, however there is a significant debate whether special attention should be paid to displaced persons, over and above the attention given to other possible vulnerable groups such as the poor, rural communities, or communities near the line of combat. In fact, a synthesis report on donor response to IDPs found that the separate identification of IDPs is somehow at odds with the humanitarian principle that assistance should be determined by needs and needs alone and recommend that displacement be used as an indicator of potential vulnerability rather than as a means of defining target groups (Borton Buchanan-Smith, & Otto, 2005, p. 9, 68-69). In other words, aid should be given to those who need it the most, not to certain categories, even if those categories predominately fall into the most need-worthy. Twenty years after displacement, the debate on special policies for IDPs is even more salient and has vital policy ramifications for any state policy designating particular vulnerable groups. Mooney (2005) challenges the strict interpretation of need-based targeting, referring to the fact that the needs of IDPs are often distinct from the rest of the population and that the identification of IDPs as a specific target group can be important in developing appropriate responses. Furthermore, she writes that, the purpose of identifying IDPs as a distinct category of concern is not to privilege them over others but rather to ensure that their needs are addressed and their human rights are respected along with those of other persons (Mooney, 2005, p. 19). Twenty years after the conflict, IDPs in Azerbaijan suffer from isolation in their communities and stigmatization in society, while the provision of separate housing, education, health, and governance for IDPs reflects an overall state policy considering the return of IDPs to their lands of origin as the only viable long-term solution (World Bank, 2011, p. 22, GureyevaAliyeva, Y., & Huseynov, 2011, p. 19). However, the focus on repatriation over integration has serious drawbacks on the ability of IDPs to reintegrate into society (Brun, 2005, p. 13-14). The first issue (regarding education) is the lack of attention provided to IDP students within state educational statistics. The state provides separate, but equal education where IDP children study under identical curriculums and often in the same school buildings as non-IDP children. Thus, IDP children are considered to have equal educational opportunities as non-IDP children and therefore specific statistics on their educational results are not tracked. Although, the State Students Admissions Commission (SSAC) tracks results for each of the 76 Azerbaijani school regions (including the 10 IDP districts), there are no cumulative statistics for the IDP districts. In addition, because IDP parents can choose to send their children to non-IDP schools (but non-IDP children cannot attend IDP schools), only approximately 60% of IDP children attend separate IDP schools (ICG Report, p. 6). Thus, there is currently no way to track the educational results of the IDP community as a whole.

This seems a serious policy oversight, especially in light of the need to justify the distinction of IDP children as a vulnerable group. In order for a group to be socially excluded, and to warrant a specialized state response, it stands to reason that there should be a way of demonstrating its disadvantage (vulnerability). Demonstrating vulnerability in a statistically rigorous way is especially important for the IDP community because of the tremendous amount of empirical evidence suggesting that IDPs are deprived on multiple dimensions (income, health, education, social relations), and that it is precisely the social processes of isolation, dependency, and non-integration that have led to their precarious social position. For example, partial data on IDP living standards collected by the World Bank in 2008 suggest that although 20 years has passed, the vulnerabilities of displacement have been difficult to overcome. According to that report, IDPs are particularly vulnerable and more likely to be poor, suffer worse living conditions, display lower employment rates, and have a widespread sense of social marginalization and hopelessness (World Bank, 2011, p. 9, World Bank 2010). IDPs are still poorer than the population at large (25% of IDPs compared to 20% of the non-IDP population live in poverty), show much lower levels of employment (40% to 57%), and a greater dependence on government transfers as the main source of income (70% to 51%). In addition to the material indicators, the psychological aspects of displacement are also reported to negatively impact IDP integration. For many IDPs a sense of helplessness and dependency on the government, feelings of stigmatization in society, and the development of a separate group identity have been reinforced by institutional arrangements such as separate housing and schooling to create a sense of isolation from Azeri society. Five of six groups of respondents in CIEs focus groups suggested that there is a difference in educational opportunities between IDP and regular children, with three of six reporting heavy stigmatization. For example, a Qubadli school district administrator (one of the top performing IDP districts) reported that the difference between IDP and non-IDP children is decreasing but remains and said, Our schools are beautiful, but they are labeled as IDP schools. That is why capable children are leaving to get education in Lyceums and we are left with lower achieving students. This quotation illustrates the strong stigma placed on both IDP schools and individual students. This stigma is often described with the often derogatory use of the terms qacqin (one who ran away) and mcburi kkn (one who was forced to move). Despite equal access to education, equal curriculums, and free school supplies, this stigmatization seems to be an important factor impacting the quality of IDP schooling. For example, one Agdam district schoolteacher reported that stigmatization is one of the negative effects of segregation and the low learning motivation, low teachers development, and pessimism present in IDP schools. Another interviewee reported that a good young teacher will never choose an IDP school over a regular school when choosing a job (CIE focus group discussions conducted in 2011). Empirical evidence also seems to suggest that stigma and isolation put IDP children at a disadvantage compared to the non-IDP population. According to a Qubadli district teacher, IDP schools operate in a distinct environment from regular schools: Some people compare Sumgait schools with Sumgait IDP schoolthis is not fair. They have richer parents, we have an IDP status label, that is why there are a small number of students who want to come to our school. This quotation also suggests that the living situation outside of the school negatively affects learning opportunities for IDP children. Qubadli parents reported that the housing situation for IDP families (over 42% of IDP households lived in accommodations with one room

and over 80% in two rooms) make it very difficult for children to study (World Bank, 2011, p. 42), and gave the example of one student who was forced to drop out of the State Oil Academy because he did not have enough money for transportation (2011 FGDs). Finances and poverty were mentioned by four of six focus groups, including by one NGO leader who agreed that IDP children should be considered children with special needs because they are the most impoverished group in Azerbaijan. Both NGO specialists interviewed mentioned the increased risk of school dropout among the IDP population due to forced labor. Others, however, such as preschool employees from Mingechevir see IDPs as regular children without special needs: They are regular children, they can be pupils in regular schools as well. When we accept kids to our kindergarten we do not consider their status or from which family they come. This quotation questions the special needs of the IDP community and the need to design policies targeting IDPs as a special vulnerable group. Despite stigmatization, many IDPs hold on to and value their separate IDP identity. Many IDPs value and wish to retain their IDP status and their public institutions, such as schools, health care facilities and local authorities in-exile (Gureyeva-Aliyeva, Y., & Huseynov, 2011). Although the 2011 WB report reports lower satisfaction with education among IDP respondents (26.8% of IDPs compared to 33% of non-IDPs rated quality of education as good), other reports suggest that IDPs are more satisfied with education than non-IDPs. Najafizadeh (2013) describes how the closeness of IDP communities and schools work to reinforce nostalgia about the past. As reported by one woman: How can I forget? I live next door to four other families from Kelbajar. Every time I step out my door and see them, I am reminded of home. And our children, they all attend the same IDP school. They all attend Kelbajar School (Najafizadeh, 2013, p. 176). In sum, there is strong empirical evidence, but little definitive statistics on the educational achievement of IDP children. About half of the focus group respondents, mostly those working in civil society in the field of childrens rights said that IDP children are children with special needs in education, though other respondents rejected this idea or did not understand the question. In a review of displacement in Europe and Central Asia for the World Bank, Holtzman & Nezam (2004) caution that, Similar level of enrollment (or even attendance) does not mean that DP children, given the burden of financial and psychological effects of displacement, learn or advance at the same rate as other children. Indeed they found that local populations were twice as likely as IDPs to be enrolled in university level education and concluded that, Although there are not sufficient data to make general statements regarding higher education and DPs, the data from Armenia and Azerbaijan suggest the possibility that the displaced, in general, may face some disadvantages when it comes to accessing higher education (Holtzman & Nezam, 2004, 83, 86-87). Are IDPs disadvantaged? A Data Discussion The scarcity of comparative data on IDP achievement in education is a huge cause for concern in the policy making process. Working with annual SSAC reports we compared two indicators measuring school quality: 1) percentage of secondary school students who received a diploma who applied to university, and 2) percentage of secondary school students who received a diploma who were accepted to a university. Score distribution of the SSAC university exam and the percent of secondary school students receiving a school diploma were also compared on a national-level comparisons.

The findings validated our hypothesis that 1) IDP students underachieve compared to non-IDP students located in the same location, and 2) that the achievement of IDP districts and schools is largely based their geographic locations. Differences between the number of IDP and non-IDP students accepted to university (but not in the numbers applying to university) were found to be significant nationally (comparing all IDP and all non-IDP students), in rural areas (comparing IDP schools in rural areas from a sample of five IDP regions to all rural schools nationally), and in urban areas (comparing IDP schools in urban areas from a sample of the same five IDP regions to all urban schools nationally). However, although the difference in students accepted to university between all ten IDP districts was significant (2 (9, N= 3942) = 77.53886, p<.001) the differences between IDP districts were not statistically significant when only the subset of schools located in rural and urban areas was compared. In other words, all ten IDP regions show significant differences in the proportion of students they send to universities, but schools of different districts located in similar (either urban or rural) areas did not show significant differences. This supports our hypothesis that the difference between educational results of IDP regions is mainly based on the current geographic location of the majority of schools in that region, rather than an intrinsic quality of the region itself. For example, though Qubadli is one of the best-performing IDP districts and has the highest proportion of students applying to university (along with Zengilan), its success seems mainly a result of the fact that 27 of its 29 schools (93%) are located in urban areas, specifically in either Sumgayit or Baku. Looking only at schools in urban areas, Qubadli did not outperform other IDP regions, and underperformed compared to non-IDP schools in that urban area. For example, urban Lachin schools had a slightly higher proportion of students accepted to university compared to Qubadli and the proportion of Susa students accepted to university was equal to that of Qubadli. In addition, although there is a difference in the university acceptance rates between urban Qubadli, Susa, and Lachin schools, and urban schools from districts that are generally thought to be lowerachieving such as Fuzuli and Agdam, the differences are not statistically significant. Methodology All gathered data came from the State Students Admission Commission from the 2012 university admissions exams. Data was gathered for individual regions from the 2012 report, p,120 (chart 1.71) and p. 343 (chart 6.27) on the number of school graduates, students receiving a secondary school diploma, students applying to university, and students accepted to university. Data on individual schools was taken from additional SSAC statistics available from www.mekteb.edu.az and from CDs provided by the SSAC. Five IDP regions (Agdam, Fuzuli, Lachin, Qubadli, and Susa) were chosen through purposeful sampling to provide adequate comparison of regions with schools located in both urban and rural areas as well as to include IDP regions with both small and large school enrollment. The sample of five IDP districts was conducted due to time constraints and could be expanded to include all 10 regions in follow research. Also due to time constraints, data from only 2012 was used and further research will compare all ten IDP regions with data from 2012, 2011, and 2010. Schools from five IDP regions were matched with their current location by region, village or district (where available), and closest non-IDP school (where available). The schools were then separated based on their location in individual regions and within the broader categories of urban and rural.

Comparison of university admissions in IDP and non-IDP regions was done on multiple levels and tested for statistical significance using the chi squared and z tests. In most cases .05 was used as the statistically significant p value. The proportion of students applying to university was only checked between aggregate IDP and non-IDP schools, and judging by this test and by the small differences in the data, assumed not significant for most of the divisions. A national comparison Taken together, IDP districts send proportionally fewer students to university compared to the national average, but there is a big difference in the performance of schools within IDP districts based on where they are located. Figures one and two (below) show that IDP districts perform below national average on all indicators including admission to university and SSAC score distributions.2 The difference between the percentage of students applying to universities is very small with both IDP and nonIDP schools showing a 60% application rate. However, the gap widens (and is significant) regarding actual successful admittance to universities, suggesting that even if a similar number of students apply, students from IDP schools tend to score lower on the SSAC exam and fail to get the required SSAC scores for admittance. This suggests a gap in knowledge and schooling quality, rather than a difference in motivation or ambition between IDP students and their nonIDP peers. Only 22 percent of IDP school graduates compared to 27 percent graduates nationwide are accepted by universitiesa difference that is corroborated by score distributions shown in figure 2. The minimum SSAC exam score for admittance at most universities is 200, and nearly 59 percent of IDP school graduates (compared to 51% of national graduates) fail to make this grade. IDP schools also show lower percentages of students receiving higher scores in the 300-500 and 500-700 range.3 Figure 1 and 2: IDP vs. Non-IDP, National 3 University Admissions Indicators, 2012
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 % Hsgrads receiving diploma
2 3

National Average

IDP Average

% Hsgrads applying to univ.

% Hsgrads admitted

Only difference in % of students admitted to university has been shown to be statistically significant. TQDK Score Distributions have not been checked for statistical significance (will be done for final version).

0.4 0.35 Distribution (%) 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.25

University Admissions Exam Score Distributions, 2012

IDP

0.15 National 0.05 0-100 100-200 200-300 300-500 TQDK exam range 500-700

A rural comparison The difference in university admittance is evident in both rural and urban regions. Figure 3 shows that approximately 16% of IDP students receiving a school diploma are accepted to university compared to 22% of non-IDP rural students. This difference in proportions is significant with an 2 coefficient (1, N= 44294) of 26.66607, p<.001. This data suggests that there is something going on to make IDP students in rural schools perform less well than their non-IDP counterparts. Interestingly however, differences between the three regions with significant proportions of rural schools (Fuzuli, Agdam, Lachin) were not significant (2 coefficient (2, N= 1339) = 4.3695, p>.1). This suggests that the lower results of the Fuzuli region cannot be attributed to some systematic difference between regions, and that as a whole IDP regions in rural areas perform rather similarly. Figure 3 and 4: IDP vs. non-IDP, Rural Rural education: IDP vs. Non-IDP, 2012
0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 % of students receiving diploma applying to university % of students receiving diploma accepted to university IDP Total (Rural) Rural Total

Rural- Comparison between IDP regions, 2012

0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 % of students receiving a diploma applying to university % of students receiving diploma accepted to university Rural Total Agdam Rural Lachin Rural Fuzuli Rural

An urban comparison Figures 5 and 6 demonstrate that in urban areas, like in rural ones, there is a significant difference between university enrollment between IDP and non-IDP schools, but no significant difference between different IDP districts. This again suggests that IDP schools from different regions that are located in the same place perform similarly, but worse than the non-IDP schools in that location. Figure 5 shows that approximately 34% of IDP students receiving a school diploma are accepted to university compared to 44% of non-IDP urban students. These rates are much higher than for rural schools, demonstrating the large gap between urban and rural education in Azerbaijan.4 This difference in proportions between urban IDP and urban non-IDP schools is significant with an 2 coefficient (1, N= 28962) of 47.268, p<.001. Again however, differences between the IDP regions themselves were not significant (2 coefficient (4, N= 1156) = 3.8364, p>.1). This suggests that despite the small differences shown in figure 6 between Agdam and Lachin urban schools, these differences cannot be attributed to a systematic difference between regions, and that as a whole IDP schools in urban areas perform rather similarly.

The urban-rural gap is a topic that will be touched up in this paper but should be dealt more comprehensively in further research.

Figure 5 and 6: IDP vs. non-IDP, Urban Urban education: IDP vs. Non-IDP, 2012
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 % of students receiving diploma applying to university % of students receiving diploma accepted to university

IDP Total (Urban) Urban Total

Urban-Comparison between IDP regions, 2012

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 % of students receiving a % of students receiving diploma applying to university diploma accepted to university Urban Total Lachin Urban Qubadli Urban Susha Urban Fuzuli Urban Agdam Urban

A closer look To demonstrate the point that school location seems to be the most salient factor for determining educational performance (as measured by proportion of students accepted to university), university admissions results from Baku-based schools from the five sample IDP districts were analyzed. Firstly, despite the fact that overall, Qubadli is a highly performing IDP district based on most indicators, Fuzuli one of the lowest-performing, and Susa close to average, a comparison of IDP schools located in Baku (the only common city where all three regions have schools) shows really slight (and not significant) differences between the IDP districts (2 coefficient (4, N= 817) of 6.168, p>.1). For example, over 41 percent of Lachin and close to 38

percent of Qubadli students enrol in universities compared to nearly 36 percent of Susa and Fuzuli students. IDP Schools in Baku, 2012
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 % of students receiving diploma applying to university % of students receiving diploma accepted to university

Baku Total Lachin (in Baku) Qubadli (in Baku) Fuzuli (in Baku) Susa (in Baku) Agdam (in Baku)

Secondly, Baku-based and urban-based schools in each IDP region significantly outperform the region as a whole, and even had a higher percentage of students accepted by universities than the national average. The difference is especially pronounced in Fuzuli, whose Baku-based schools outperform the national average of 32 percent despite the fact that only 19 percent of all Fuzuli graduates who receive their high school diploma (and 13 percent of all school leavers) are accepted to university. This again suggests that the current location of schools is far more important than the region the school belongs to. Finally, however, students from Baku-based schools in all three IDP regions are accepted to universities at a rate 8-10 percent lower than for non-IDP schools in Baku. Despite living in the same geographic area, students at IDP schools seem to perform worse. This educational underperformance adds to the evidence pointing to the IDP community as a vulnerable group and suggests that integrating policies should be considered to close the education gap between students from IDP and non-IDP schools. Qubadli schools in Baku, 2012
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 % w/ HS diploma % w/HS diploma applying to accepted to university university Qubadli schools in Baku Baku Schools 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 % w/ HS diploma % w/HS diploma applying to accepted to university university Qubadli IDP schools in Sumgayit Sumgayit City Schools

Qubadli schools in Sumgayit, 2012

Conclusion Although a birds eye view is often useful, it is often the case that group differences can be hidden within certain sub-categories such as time or location. Looking at the results of IDP districts as a whole, one sees that some districts perform better, others worse, and some such as Qubadli, Zengilan, and others perform better than the national average on some educational indicators. This outcome can be dismissed as a natural occurrencesome regions perform better, others worse, but it does not seem like a pressing policy issue. However, taking a closer look at the educational geography of the IDP districts and comparing apples to apples (schools located in the same place), paints a completely different picture. When controlling for school location, IDP schools send proportionally fewer students to university than non-IDP schools. Differences were not significant for proportion of students applying to university, suggesting the issue is in quality of education rather than motivation of the students (or the schools efforts in motivation). In addition, differences were generally not significant between IDP regions, suggesting that what separates overall lower achieving IDP regions such as Agdam and higher achieving regions such as Qubadli is school location, rather than something like regional education management. These findings suggest that there is something going on within IDP schools that leads to fewer university enrollees and lower results on the university admissions exam. The first section of the paper reviewed some literature on IDP schools and communities that point to the combination of isolation, stigma, and poverty as possible explanatory variables for lower educational performance. More concrete research needs to be done to get a clearer picture of why such underperformance happens in IDP schools, but we hope that by showing that these IDPnon-IDP differences are real, this paper will make such research more urgent. In addition, we propose the social exclusion framework as a tool for further analysis. Social exclusion provided the impetus for comparison between like groups (rural IDP vs. rural non-IDP rather than IDPs nationally vs. national average), but more importantly can help look for relevant divisions between groups. IDPs as a whole have their own story of disadvantage that the concept of social exclusion can help uncover, but we also suspect that IDP schools in rural areas have a related yet distinct story from IDP schools in urban centers. In addition, we found that there was less overlap in where IDP schools are located than expected. For example, each IDP region has 1-2 urban areas and 2-3 rural ones where its schools are locatedand these regions tend to be different between IDP regions. Thus, we also expect that many of the groups of schools within particular regions have salient individual stories to tell. Learning these stories should be part of educational policy.

Bibliography Social Exclusion Section Atkinson, A. B. (1998). Social exclusion, poverty and unemployment.Exclusion, employment and opportunity, 4. Barata, P. (2000) Social exclusion in Europe. Survey of literature. Document prepared for the Laidlaw Foundation. February 2000. Available from: http://action.web.ca/home/narcc/attach/Social[1].pdf. Buvinic, M., & Mazza, J. (2005, December). Gender and Social Inclusion: Social Policy Perspectives from Latin America and the Caribbean. In Trabajo presentado en la conferencia del Banco Mundial, New Frontiers of Social Policy: Development in a Globalizing World, del (Vol. 12). De Haan, A. (2000). Social exclusion: Enriching the understanding of deprivation. Studies in Social and Political Thought. Vol, (22-40). Farrington, F. (2011). Towards a Useful Definition: Advantages and Criticisms of'Social Exclusion'. GEOView: Online Undergraduate Review of Geography and Environmental Studies. Levitas, R. (2003). The Idea of Social Inclusion. Social Inclusion Research Conference. Canadian Council on Social Development. Laderchi, C. R., Saith, R., & Stewart, F. (2003). Does It Matter that We Don't Agree on the Definition of Poverty. A Comparison of Four Approaches, QEH Working Paper #107. Saunders, P. (2003). Can social exclusion provide a new framework for measuring poverty? Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales. Available from:
http://nchsr.arts.unsw.edu.au/media/File/DP127.pdf.

Sen, A. K. (2000). Social exclusion: Concept, application, and scrutiny. Manila,, Philippines: Office of Environment and Social Development, Asian Development Bank. Available from:
http://housingforall.org/Social_exclusion.pdf.

Silver, H., & Miller, S. M. (2003). Social exclusion. Indicators, Vol. 2(3), 5-21. Available from:
http://wwwcit.brown.edu/Departments/Sociology/faculty/hsilver/documents/silver_and_millereuropean_approach_to_social_disadvantage.pdf.

Taskan, S.. (2007). The experiences of urban poverty among recent immigrants in Ankara: Social Exclusion or not? Unpublished Master thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara. Toye, M., & Infanti, J. (2004). Social inclusion and community economic development literature review. Victoria, BC: The Canadian CED Network. Available from: http://ccednetrcdec.ca/en/node/892.

Thanges, P. (2008). Caste and Social Exclusion of IDPs in Jaffna Society. Colombo Review, Vol. 1(2). Available from: http://archive.cmb.ac.lk:8080/research/handle/70130/1102.

IDP Section Borton, J., Buchanan-Smith, M., & Otto, R. (2005). Learning from evaluation of support to internally-displaced persons: IDP synthesis report. Available from: http://www.channelresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/16-04-BE-IDP-Synthesis-Danida2004.pdf. Brun, C. (2005). Research guide on internal displacement. NTNU Research Group on Forced Migration Department of Geography Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) Trondheim, Noruega. Available from: http://www.forcedmigration.org/researchresources/expert-guides/internal-displacement/fmo041.pdf. Cernea, M., & McDowell, C. (2000). Reconstructing Resettlers and Refugees Livelihoods. In M. Cernea & C. McDowell, Risks and Reconstruction: Experiences of Resettlers and Refugees (pp. 1-8). The World Bank. Cernea, M. (2000). Risks, Safeguards, and Reconstruction:A Model for Population Displacement and Resettlement. In M. Cernea & C. McDowell, Risks and Reconstruction: Experiences of Resettlers and Refugees (pp. 11-55). The World Bank. Ferris, E., & Winthrop, R. (2010). Education and Displacement: Assessing Conditions for Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons affected by Conflict. Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2011, The hidden crisis: Armed conflict and education. Available from: https://www.cimicweb.org/cmo/Afghanistan/Crisis%20Documents/Humanitarian%20Assistance/ Migration/01%20IDPs/2011_02_idp_unesco_ferrise.pdf Gureyeva-Aliyeva, Y., & Huseynov, T. (2011). Can You be an IDP for Twenty Years?": A Comparative Field Study on the Protection Needs and Attitudes Towards Displacement Among IDPs and Host Communities in Azerbaijan. Brookings Institution-London School of Economics Project on Internal Displacement. Holtzman, S. B., & Nezam, T. (2004). Living in limbo: Conflict-induced displacement in Europe and Central Asia. World Bank Publications. Available from: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCPR/Resources/296970PAPER0Living0in0limbo.pdf. Kalin, W. (2000). Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement: Annotations. The American Society of International Law and the Brookings Institution Project on Internal Displacement, Studies in transnational Legal Policy, (32). Available from: http://idp-keyresources.org/documents/2000/d04279/000.pdf.

Mooney, E. (2005). The concept of internal displacement and the case for internally displaced persons as a category of concern. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 24(3), 9. Available from: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2005/9/fall%20humanrights%20moone y/9.pdf. Najafizadeh, M. (2013). Ethnic Conflict and Forced Displacement: Narratives of Azeri IDP and Refugee Women from the Nagorno-Karabakh War. Journal of International Women's Studies, 14(1), 161-183. Available from: http://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol14/iss1/10. Voutira, E.& Harrell-Bond, B., (2000). "Successful" refugee settlement: are past experiences relevant? In M. Cernea & C. McDowell, Risks and Reconstruction: Experiences of Resettlers and Refugees (pp. 56-76). The World Bank. World Bank 2011. Azerbaijan. Building Assets and Promoting. Self Reliance: The Livelihoods of. Internally Displaced Persons. Report No. AAA64-AZ. October 2011. Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Resources/2443621265299949041/6766328-1265299960363/ESW-Report-complete_highres.pdf. World Bank 2010. Azerbaijan Living Conditions Assessment Report. Report No. 52801-AZ. Available from: http://ddp-ext.worldbank.org/EdStats/AZEstu10.pdf.