The Refugee Act of the Republic of Korea (hereafter, Korea) came into effect in 2013 and has just passed its tenth anniversary. However, since the very first case of recognizing refugee status in 2001, the cumulative number of recognized refugees remains just over 1,400, reflecting Korea’s conservative approach to accepting, supporting, and accommodating refugees. It is worth noting, though, that since the enactment of the Refugee Act, the yearly number of asylum seekers has increased nearly tenfold, surpassing 18,000 in 2023. This suggests it is time to reflect on whether the country can maintain its current refugee policy.

Recent international developments, often described as a “complex crisis,” which includes mass migration inducing events such as, but not limited to, regional conflicts and climate change, have generated new forms of forced displacement, prompting host countries to expand their roles in providing protection and residence.

Earlier research on South Korean refugee policy has focused largely on normative discussions and the question of whether to accept refugees. However, the public opinion remains polarized, often fueled by suspicion toward so-called “fake refugees” and vague anxieties about immigrants. Instead of engaging in debates on refugee acceptance, this study aims to empirically examine the possibilities for refugee settlement and social integration, provided that a group of immigrants have already been accepted and settled in Korean society. Through this empirical lens, the study seeks to emphasize the need for a reconsideration of existing controversy on Korea’s refugee policy.

In the introduction of this report, four key factors influencing refugee policy are considered. The “external-normative factor” refers to global agenda and the expected role of Korea’s refugee protection. The “external-positivistic factor” involves the actual status of the process of refugee generation, migration, and settlement. The “internal-normative factor” encompasses South Korea’s national identity and social values. The “internal-positivistic factor” refers to the socio-economic and institutional capacity to settle forced migrants and integrate them as members of Korean society.

While the first three factors are well discussed in the existing literature, individual-level empirical study of the actual settlement of refugees within Korean society remains scarce. Therefore, this study focuses particularly on the internal-positivistic factors: the socio-economic settlement of refugees and their integration with local communities in the context of Korea’s response to the complex crisis era.

Chapter 2 provides a review of international discourse and longitudinal trends on forced migration.

Section 1 of this chapter outlines the historical evolution of international refugee discourse, and examines how the global community has conceptualized the refugee issue over time. The discourse has expanded from providing migrants with “temporary protection and minimal support for their vulnerability” to a more robust aim of “supporting the potential capability of immigrants for better settlement and social integration.” Accordingly, the forms of refugee protection have diversified, including resettlement, complementary protection, and family reunification. Traditionally, refugees were seen as passive recipients of humanitarian aid. In contrast, recent discourse increasingly understand them as not only active members, but also as contributors to society, which put further emphases on the refugee as a potential benefit to the society.

Section 2 explores the global trends in forced migration. Since the mid-2000s, the absolute number of forcibly displaced people has surged, with particularly rapid increases in the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs). Furthermore, forced migration routes have become more complex, and refugees increasingly move to neighboring low- and middle-income countries, aggravating the burden of protection on those states and calls for international coordination and cooperation among the destination countries, to share the responsibility.

This trend is also confirmed through quantitative analysis. A series of cross-country level factor analysis for refugee recognition rates shows that the rate has a positive correlation with GDP, restricting the sample to high-income countries. However, without restricting the sample, the correlation becomes negative. Korea, in particular, has demonstrated a notably low rate of refugee recognition, given its income level. While part of this reluctance can be explained by socio-economic factors considered in the factor analysis model, this study confirms that South Korea’s conservative refugee policies persist even after controlling for those variables.

Section 3 provides an overview of institutional background and statistics of refugees and related policy in Korea. As aforementioned, the number of asylum seekers has steadily increased, and both the countries of origin and reasons for seeking asylum have diversified. In contrast, the refugee recognition rate has steadily declined, recently falling below 2%, majorly due to an increase in the number of asylum seekers. However, it is worth noting the number of individuals granted “humanitarian status” has increased over time, and how the status may be potentially understood as a de facto refugee status.

While the budget for refugee recognition and settlement support is classified as Official Development Assistance (ODA), South Korea’s support has remained relatively passive. The largest portion of refugee-related expenditure is still allocated to screening processes, and settlement support is often fragmented, provided primarily by local governments and civil society organizations.

In this study, a survey was conducted in collaboration with civil society organizations which support the Ukrainian evacuees who had settled in Korea following the Russia–Ukraine war. In Chapter 3, we report the key statistics of these 293 refugees, as well as the results of causal analyses. Through this case study, we provide a empirical assessment of the actual experiences of their migration and settlement.

The survey revealed two key insights about the refugee’s socio-economic status in Korea.

First, contrary to the common perception of refugees as impoverished and dependent, many of the evacuees have achieved a self-reliant economic status. Although their participation in the labor market is somewhat limited compared to their careers in Ukraine, most were able to self-sustain their own family, mostly through labor income. In addition, the fact that the majority of these refugees were renting their homes, paying rent through their own efforts—at a rate even higher than that of resettled Ukranian refugees in Europe, where temporary shelter is a common option—is particularly encouraging.

Furthermore, a survey experiment was conducted on public donation behavior to assess refugees’ willingness to contribute to the community. Approximately half of the respondents voluntarily donated money to the CSO which supported them. Interestingly, donation amounts increased when respondents were reminded that their contributions would help the settlement process of later refugees. This behavior suggests that many refugees are not only unwilling to free-ride on the host society, but also willing to contribute back, demonstrating their will to actively participate in building a self-sustainable and self-reliant community.

Second, the study found that these evacuees had not yet been fully integrated into Korean society. While most expressed overall satisfaction with life in Korea, they reported linguistic, cultural, and institutional barriers, particularly when seeking employment. The limited experience with social safety nets—aside from the national health insurance system—raises concerns that they may be at risk of falling through the cracks of the welfare system, which deserves a further follow-up study of a separate issue.

Alarmingly, nearly 30% of respondents reported experiencing verbal abuse or hostile behavior from local residents or in the workplace. This indicates that even when refugees achieve economic independence, incomplete social integration remains a persistent challenge between the refugee community and Korean society.

Chapter 4 explores the other half of the social integration equation: local perception and attitude toward the refugees in the host community. Another survey was conducted among residents of Gwangsan-gu in Gwangju City, where nearly 800 Ukrainian evacuees have settled since the Russia–Ukraine war began. A series of previous studies presents conflicting hypotheses for the attitude formation of the host community: one suggests that increased contact with immigrants reduces public anxiety (inter-group contact theory), while another argues that such exposure can trigger social backlash (group threat theory). Therefore, this study focuses on whether local residents' experiences of contact with evacuees influenced their perceptions and attitudes toward refugee groups.

Despite being a primary settlement area, overall hostility toward refugees remained high among host community residents, especially when compared to attitudes toward other foreign/migrant groups,. The study found that “passive contact and exposure”—such as simply seeing or hearing about refugees—had limited impact on forming the attitudes.

In contrast, “active engagement and communication”—direct, intense interactions—were consistently associated with more inclusive and positive attitudes toward refugees. Additionally, respondents who had participated in multicultural education programs were, in a complementary manner, more likely to support refugee acceptance. These findings suggest that the frequency of contact alone does not ensure integration; instead, well designed educational programs and active, community-driven engagement are more effective in alleviating public anxiety and prejudice.

Based on the analyses, this study proposes Korea’s refugee policy to target an “orderly settlement” of the refugees and forced migrants. An uncoordinated and spontaneous inflow of immigrants may lead to lack of support for a sound settlement of the immigrants, and may push them outside the social safety net, while simultaneously fueling anxiety among host community. Moreover, such negative impressions formed may become long-term obstacles to social integration.

To facilitate this orderly settlement, we recommend leveraging small-scale, open communities led by civil society organizations and local governments. This approach would enable tailored, context-sensitive support while also alleviating the administrative burden on central authorities, which currently carry enough burden for screening processes. By building on existing small-scale communities, this model can support a self-help mechanism among the immigrants for more sustainable settlement, give immigrants a opportunity to contribute to the local community, and strengthen interactions between immigrants and the host community.

This report aims to enhance understanding of refugees and forced migrants who have settled in Korea, by offering a micro-level, empirical analysis of their actual settlement experience. However, it acknowledges that the challenges and insights presented here represent only a partial view of the broader and more complex international issue of forced migration. As outlined in the introduction, the patterns of displacement, migration, and settlement of the refugees, are deeply multi-layered and multifaceted, as are the solutions. This study aims to add on to the discussion on refugees settlement in Korea, and provide a new agenda to related policy. While the pioneering case study and topic deserves further attention, we also expect the limitations of the study to be continuously and critically challenged, through future studies.