Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper aims to identify positive and negative impacts on refugee children brough about through policy developments. It focuses on policy developments in the US and in Nigeria as examples of West and African policy directions and uses multiple streams analysis framework (MSF) to uncover issues pertinent to refugee children who are often invisible in migration policies. 

 

The aim of the article is a very interesting one and has the potential to contribute to highlighting the invisibility of child refugees, migrating with their families or as separated migrant children. Use of the MFS offers insight into steps in policy development and their influences, offering insights into political perspectives and actors involved in legislative and policy changes. However, the analysis offered could be more detailed: The Problem discussion on the US could be more detailed, especially the post WW2 discussion; the US Political Stream discussion could be stated more clearly; more detail on the Hearings (p6/7) would be helpful too. 

 

It seems to me also that policy direction related to children could be incorporated into the MSF analysis very usefully and would offer the reader an understanding of both migration and child-focused policy in each jurisdiction and thus, be more comprehensive and speak to the aim of the paper more fully. This adjustment would also ensure that discussion of the UNCRC would be included more cohesively and earlier in the article.  

 

The section Socioeconomic Impact of Refugee Act on Refugee Children section I think could be combined into one discussion piece with specificities of each location detailed there. As is there seems to be repetiction when separated into 2 sections. 

 

Mention of MSF insights (P9) could be more detailed and referenced more fully. 

 

There are also several minor grammatical errors throughout which detract from the article which a close editing of the article will address. 

 

Overall, I consider that with adjustment this article is within the scope of the journal, is of interest to readers and has the potential to contribute to addressing the invisibility of child refugees in policy making. These adjustments will also assist in strengthening the conclusion to the paper.

Author Response

Reviewer 1: 

Reviewer 1 offered several helpful writing suggestions to clarify the manuscript throughout, Particularly, in responses to these suggestions, I made the following changes:

• Comparative Multiple Streams Analysis of the United States and Nigeria Policy
• Problem Stream (United States) (Pages 5 & 6)
  • After World War II, the United States of America not only helped create the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) but also welcomed hundreds of thousands of refugees into the country. This early reaction to refugee flows was motivated more by humanitarian and foreign policy issues than by US immigration policy, which frequently gave priority to economic concerns and addressed internal demands (McBride, 1999). The United States' refugee policy developed through a set of legislation that welcomed those fleeing "communist oppression" but offered minimal assistance to those fleeing other regions of the world, particularly countries considered US allies (Zolberg, 1995).
  • Under the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, about 205,000 (later up to 415,000) refugees were granted, although the number was deducted from other immigration benefits. Another 214,000 refugees were allowed under the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, and several hundred thousand more were admitted under the Refugee Escapee Act of 1957 (which ended the practice of charging the number of refugees against immigration allotments after the 1956 Hungarian Uprising) (Zolberg, 1995).

 Political Stream (United States): (Page 7)

• • President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Refugee Relief Act of 1953 into law on this day in 1953. This legislation replaced the previous law, "The Displaced Persons Act of 1948, which expired in 1952. Eisenhower's proposal to let more immigrants from southern Europe who had been denied entry due to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952's prevailing quotas, also referred to as the McCarran-Walter Act, was addressed by the legislation, which was first known as the Emergency Migration Act. The bill was then renamed by Senator Pat McCarran (D-Nev.) (Glass, 2018). At McCarran’s urging, amendments were added that required applicants to undergo an in-depth security screening, including a verifiable history of their activities for the prior two years. With the backing of the majority of Democrats and an equally divided Republican cohort, the bill passed the House by a vote of 221 to 185. McCarran was noted as opposing the bill, which the Senate approved on a voice vote (Glass, 2018). 

 

• Multiple Streams Analysis Framework (MSF) (page 5)
  • Since refugee policy is agenda-driven and time-sensitive. The U.S. Refugee Act of 1980 and Nigeria’s 1989 National Commission for Refugees Act did not emerge from a linear, evidence-only process. They arose when problems, politics, and policy ideas briefly aligned exactly with the dynamic MSA is designed to explain (problem stream - policy stream - politics stream - short “policy windows”). This study frames both countries’ laws as products of shifting crises, ideas, and political incentives. It captures cross-national similarity and difference. MSA lets us compare how the same problem (refugee flows and child socioeconomic impact), coupled with different politics (Cold War/foreign-policy priorities in the U.S. and OAU convention in Nigeria), produced distinct policy paths. It centers children even when the system did not. The core claim is that children’s socioeconomic needs were sidelined as adults’ issues dominated agenda setting and design. MSA helps show where that happened: Problem stream: indicators and focusing events highlighted “refugees,” not child-specific harms. Policy stream: solution menus emphasized admission ceilings, parole powers, and resettlement logistics rather than child-focused provisions. Politics stream: electoral incentives, foreign-policy optics, and bureaucratic feasibility crowded out child socioeconomical well-being.
• Socioeconomic Impact of Refugee of the Refugee Act on Refugee Children. (page 8 & 9)

United States

• The Refugee Act of 1980 marked a shift in how refugee admissions were managed in the United States, aligning policy with international humanitarian standards. However, in practice, the socioeconomic experiences of refugee children reveal that the law’s implementation has been shaped more by political priorities than by sustained social investment. In the United States, refugee children represent a significant portion of resettled populations.

 

• However, longitudinal studies such as those by Hooper et al. (2016) show that children of refugees from groups like Bosnia and Vietnam tend to achieve higher socioeconomic stability than their parents, suggesting that U.S. integration systems offer eventual mobility despite initial disparities. Nevertheless, the Act did not explicitly center children’s developmental or psychosocial needs. By excluding targeted children’s provisions, it left their welfare dependent on general refugee services designed for adults. This gap highlights a recurring theme in U.S. refugee governance: children’s interests are legally visible but politically peripheral a pattern consistent with the politics stream of the Multiple Streams Analysis framework.

 

Nigeria 

• Nigeria’s 1989 National Commission for Refugees Act (Decree No. 52) established a formal structure for managing refugees and aligned with the 1951 UN Convention, the 1967 Protocol, and the 1969 Organization of African Unity (OAU) Convention. However, the Act, like its U.S. counterpart, omitted specific socioeconomic protections for children.

 

Cross-National Analysis (page 10)

o   ^{Across both countries, refugee legislation emerged from policy windows shaped by political opportunity rather than child-focused intent. The Multiple Streams Analysis (MSA) framework helps explain this outcome: In the problem stream, refugee flows were recognized primarily as geopolitical or security crises, not as child welfare emergencies. In the policy stream, solutions emphasized national stability and adult resettlement logistics rather than child integration strategies. While, in the politics stream, short-term administrative feasibility and foreign policy optics dominated, sidelining humanitarian dimensions of children socioeconomical needs. Consequently, while the Refugee Act of 1980 and the National Commission for Refugees Act of 1989 provided institutional structures for refugee admission, they did not establish the socioeconomic safeguards required to ensure refugee children’s educational, psychological, and developmental well-being. Both nations demonstrate that without child-centered provisions, refugee legislation no matter how comprehensive it risks reproducing structural inequities.}

• MSF insights could be more detailed and referenced more fully (page 5)
  • Since refugee policy is agenda-driven and time-sensitive. The U.S. Refugee Act of 1980 and Nigeria’s 1989 National Commission for Refugees Act did not emerge from a linear, evidence-only process. They arose when problems, politics, and policy ideas briefly aligned exactly with the dynamic MSA is designed to explain (problem stream - policy stream - politics stream - short “policy windows”). This study frames both countries’ laws as products of shifting crises, ideas, and political incentives. It captures cross-national similarity and difference. MSA lets us compare how the same problem (refugee flows and child socioeconomic impact), coupled with different politics (Cold War/foreign-policy priorities in the U.S. and OAU convention in Nigeria), produced distinct policy paths. It centers children even when the system did not. The core claim is that children’s socioeconomic needs were sidelined as adults’ issues dominated agenda setting and design. MSA helps show where that happened: Problem stream: indicators and focusing events highlighted “refugees,” not child-specific harms. Policy stream: solution menus emphasized admission ceilings, parole powers, and resettlement logistics rather than child-focused provisions. Politics stream: electoral incentives, foreign-policy optics, and bureaucratic feasibility crowded out child socioeconomical well-being.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for this interesting paper. However, I would like to address the following points in order to help you reflect and thus improve your paper, if you find them relevant, of course. 

Introduction

Initially, it is not quite clear and sufficiently explained why the comparison between these two countries is beneficial regarding the topic of discussion, refugee children, since these two countries have major differences and the similarities, if any, are not elaborated accordingly. Secondly, the brief historical background does not make clear what its purpose is.

Main part

The Multiple Streams Analysis Framework needs to be elaborated upon: why is it relevant for this analysis, and provide sufficient reasoning why it was selected as a theoretical background. Moreover, the analysis that it follows is not clear; what purpose does it serve since the two countries are completely different in their policy formulation and regime?

Furthermore, after all this mainly descriptive policy analysis, the discussion on the Socioeconomic Impact of the Refugee Act on Refugee Children does not really fit the rest of the paper. It is rather poor conceptually and intellectually and not supported by relevant empirical bibliography. The same applies for Analyzing the Refugee Situation in the United States and Nigeria.

Limitations and conclusions

These two paragraphs have limited impact. They are correctly conceived and thus do not achieve their purpose. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are several syntax errors that need to be corrected. 

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

 

Reviewer 2 made some excellent suggestions to strengthen the introduction, main part, limitations, and conclusion. I have substantively revised this context, and I believe the writing is stronger for it. I appreciated these suggestions.

Introduction

• Importance of a Cross-National Comparison (Page 2 & 4)
• A cross-national comparison is important because it allows for a deeper understanding of how different countries design and implement policies, and how these policies impact the socioeconomic well-being of refugee children. By comparing contexts like the United States and Nigeria, researcher can identify both universal challenges, such as access to education, protection, and stability, and context-specific issues shaped by political, social, and cultural factors. This comparison helps to highlight gaps in policy, uncover best practices that can be adapted across nations, and ensure that children’s needs are not overlooked during policy development. It also strengthens the evidence base for international policy reforms, offering a broader and more inclusive perspective that challenges assumptions rooted in one cultural or political context. Ultimately, cross-national comparison provides a framework to design social policies that are more effective, equitable, and responsive to the realities of children across diverse societies.

 

• More specifically, both the United States and Nigeria designed refugee policies under pressure from international and domestic forces following World War II. While the United States emphasized Cold War alliances and global image, Nigeria responded to regional instability within Africa. In both contexts, children’s welfare was largely absent from the policy agenda. The focus on adult migration and political legitimacy overshadowed child-specific provisions, revealing a consistent pattern where refugee children were legally visible but politically invisible.

 

Main part (Page 5)

• Since refugee policy is agenda-driven and time-sensitive. The U.S. Refugee Act of 1980 and Nigeria’s 1989 National Commission for Refugees Act did not emerge from a linear, evidence-only process. They arose when problems, politics, and policy ideas briefly aligned exactly with the dynamic MSA is designed to explain (problem stream - policy stream - politics stream - short “policy windows”). This study frames both countries’ laws as products of shifting crises, ideas, and political incentives. It captures cross-national similarity and difference. MSA lets us compare how the same problem (refugee flows and child socioeconomic impact), coupled with different politics (Cold War/foreign-policy priorities in the U.S. and OAU convention in Nigeria), produced distinct policy paths. It centers children even when the system did not. The core claim is that children’s socioeconomic needs were sidelined as adults’ issues dominated agenda setting and design. MSA helps show where that happened: Problem stream: indicators and focusing events highlighted “refugees,” not child-specific harms. Policy stream: solution menus emphasized admission ceilings, parole powers, and resettlement logistics rather than child-focused provisions. Politics stream: electoral incentives, foreign-policy optics, and bureaucratic feasibility crowded out child socioeconomical well-being.

 

Importance of a Cross-National Comparison (Page 4)

• A cross-national comparison is important because it allows for a deeper understanding of how different countries design and implement policies, and how these policies impact the socioeconomic well-being of refugee children. By comparing contexts like the United States and Nigeria, researcher can identify both universal challenges, such as access to education, protection, and stability, and context-specific issues shaped by political, social, and cultural factors. This comparison helps to highlight gaps in policy, uncover best practices that can be adapted across nations, and ensure that children’s needs are not overlooked during policy development. It also strengthens the evidence base for international policy reforms, offering a broader and more inclusive perspective that challenges assumptions rooted in one cultural or political context. Ultimately, cross-national comparison provides a framework to design social policies that are more effective, equitable, and responsive to the realities of children across diverse societies.

 

• Socioeconomic Impact of Refugee of the Refugee Act on Refugee Children (page 8 & 9).

United States

• The Refugee Act of 1980 marked a shift in how refugee admissions were managed in the United States, aligning policy with international humanitarian standards. However, in practice, the socioeconomic experiences of refugee children reveal that the law’s implementation has been shaped more by political priorities than by sustained social investment. In the United States, refugee children represent a significant portion of resettled populations.

 

• However, longitudinal studies such as those by Hooper et al. (2016) show that children of refugees from groups like Bosnia and Vietnam tend to achieve higher socioeconomic stability than their parents, suggesting that U.S. integration systems offer eventual mobility despite initial disparities. Nevertheless, the Act did not explicitly center children’s developmental or psychosocial needs. By excluding targeted children’s provisions, it left their welfare dependent on general refugee services designed for adults. This gap highlights a recurring theme in U.S. refugee governance: children’s interests are legally visible but politically peripheral a pattern consistent with the politics stream of the Multiple Streams Analysis framework.

 

Nigeria 

• Nigeria’s 1989 National Commission for Refugees Act (Decree No. 52) established a formal structure for managing refugees and aligned with the 1951 UN Convention, the 1967 Protocol, and the 1969 Organization of African Unity (OAU) Convention. However, the Act, like its U.S. counterpart, omitted specific socioeconomic protections for children.

 

Cross-National Analysis (page 10)

o   Across both countries, refugee legislation emerged from policy windows shaped by political opportunity rather than child-focused intent. The Multiple Streams Analysis (MSA) framework helps explain this outcome: In the problem stream, refugee flows were recognized primarily as geopolitical or security crises, not as child welfare emergencies. In the policy stream, solutions emphasized national stability and adult resettlement logistics rather than child integration strategies. While, in the politics stream, short-term administrative feasibility and foreign policy optics dominated, sidelining humanitarian dimensions of children socioeconomical needs. Consequently, while the Refugee Act of 1980 and the National Commission for Refugees Act of 1989 provided institutional structures for refugee admission, they did not establish the socioeconomic safeguards required to ensure refugee children’s educational, psychological, and developmental well-being. Both nations demonstrate that without child-centered provisions, refugee legislation no matter how comprehensive it risks reproducing structural inequities.

 

• Analyzing the Refugee Situation in the United States and Nigeria (page 10)
• When addressing the refugee issue, adults are mostly the focus, with little consideration for their children. Starting from the problem stream, we observed that while addressing refugee issues in both the United States and Nigeria, the situation of refugee children was not taken into account. Also, refugee children were not seen as having been impacted by the challenges that likely led them to come to these countries with their parents; therefore, an appropriate remedy was not developed to cushion the socioeconomic impact on these children. In the United States, the Policy stream considered individuals, including children, as part of the ceiling when implementing a new refugee policy for refugees. While in Nigeria, this information was not available. Thus, based on the MSF framework, children were observed to have been impacted in the crises that made them flee their countries alongside their parents; however, adequate provision seems not to have been made around the socioeconomic impact of the refugee process on their well-being. When looking at the political stream, especially in the United States, at some point, refugee resettlement assistance was increased in order to accommodate where refugees would live upon coming to the country. However, refugee integration is beyond settlement, especially among children who are faced with the psychological effects of leaving what they are familiar with to begin a new environmental attachment process. However, from review articles in Nigeria, there is no clear process for how refugees received resettlement after they got into the country.

 

 

 

 

• Limitations (page 12)
• This study faced several key limitations that restricted the scope and generalizability of its findings. First, there is limited access to research studies that document the legislative process and implementation of the National Commission for Refugees Act of 1989 in Nigeria. The absence of first-hand testimonies from actors involved in the policy’s formulation constrained the ability to fully trace the convergence of the problem, policy, and politics streams in the Nigerian case. Second, there is a lack of empirical studies and longitudinal data specifically examining the socioeconomic impact of refugee policies on children in both countries. Existing data often aggregate refugees as a single population, masking differentiated effects by age, gender, or generation. Third, the study could not access direct narratives or lived experiences of refugee children’s voices that are critical to understanding the psychosocial and developmental implications of displacement and resettlement. Fourth, given that both the United States and Nigeria operate within distinct sociopolitical and administrative systems, comparing them under the same theoretical framework required careful interpretation to avoid overgeneralization. Finally, the study did not measure intergenerational effects, that is, how refugee policy impacts might extend across generations of resettled children and their families due to the unavailability of longitudinal or demographic tracking data.

 

 

• Recommendations and conclusion (page 12)
• Future refugee policy development in both the United States and Nigeria should systematically include refugee children’s perspectives, thereby co-creating policy through inclusion of Refugee Children’s Voices. Creating child-focused consultation forums or integrating UNICEF and child advocacy agencies in policy design could ensure that children’s distinct needs are recognized during agenda setting and implementation. There is a need to amend existing refugee acts to incorporate child welfare and protection clauses, aligning with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), through developing a workable child-centered refugee framework. This would require the United States to reconsider ratifying the Convention and Nigeria to strengthen its enforcement mechanisms. Both countries should prioritize refugee children’s access to quality education and psychosocial support, such as education and mental Health Interventions.

 

• Using the Multiple Streams Analysis Framework (MSA), this study illuminated how refugee policies in the United States and Nigeria were shaped by the convergence of problem recognition, policy proposals, and political dynamics. In both cases, policies emerged during brief windows of opportunity where political and international pressures aligned but without explicit attention to the needs and rights of refugee children. The analysis demonstrates that refugee children were often invisible in the policymaking process: they were included statistically as dependents but excluded substantively from policy design and protection frameworks. Consequently, their socioeconomic outcomes, education, mental health, and long-term integration remain precarious. This research contributes to the growing understanding that policy design and timing are as critical as intent. Unless children are recognized as distinct policy actors, refugee laws will continue to reproduce systemic inequities that limit their developmental potential. Moving forward, the study advocates for the deliberate inclusion of child-centered perspectives in refugee policymaking, both as a moral imperative and as a strategy for building resilient, equitable societies.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well done for improving your manuscript. Congratulations for its upcoming publication.