conclusions on the role of individual characteristics. As for employment, results on wages could not be predicted by basic theory and are in clear contrast with popular beliefs.

# 5. Conclusion

The paper reviewed 49 empirical studies that focused on estimating the impact of forced displacement on host communities. This literature covers 17 different displacement situations in high, medium and lowincome countries covering the impact on the labor and consumer markets. A total of 762 results have been used for the meta-analysis. To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive review of this literature.

The empirical modeling analysis highlighted the main traits of this literature. By definition, all studies operate _ex-post_ , after the displacement crisis has taken place. The unexpected nature of the crisis and the randomness of the allocation of displaced persons are two elements used to defend the natural experiment assumption. However, all papers address the central question of endogeneity. The instrumental variable approach is the dominant method to address endogeneity issues and instruments tend to focus on either distance from the shock or previous location of migrants. Double difference and linear elasticity models are the dominant choice of estimation models with matching and placebo counterfactuals often supporting these choices. Cross-section econometrics is the predominant approach (mostly dictated by the type of data available), few papers use time-series models whereas panel data models are the exception. Most papers are set in a partial equilibrium framework, but a few papers use Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) models.

The meta-analysis of empirical results shows that negative and significant outcomes are less than 1 in 5 overall. Between 45 and 52% of results show that household well-being for the hosts increases as a result of forced displacement. An additional 34-42% of results are found to be non-significant and only in between 6 and 20% of results are found to be negative and significant. The review of studies on employment and wages shows that, when taken together, between 12 and 20% of results are positive and significant, around 63% are non-significant and only between 22 and 25% are negative and significant. When we zoomed in on negative results on employment and wages, we found that these related mostly to young and informal workers in MICs whereas results on gender and skills remained inconclusive, possibly because of our limited number of observations for these population characteristics. Results on prices show asymmetric behavior across types of products. As compared to the basic predictions made in the theory section, results largely reflect predictions for young and informal workers. No predictions were made for the net effect on household well-being, employment and wages and the results provided above represent the first evidence derived from a global analysis.

The review also identified some recurrent findings once we consider small and large crises, poor and rich host countries, low and high skilled persons and short and long-term effects. Studies on larger crises in richer countries with more developed labor markets provided evidence that low-skilled informal workers are the main losers during a displacement crisis. In line with the literature on economic migration, studies that compared short and long-term effects found that negative effects tend to disappear in the long-run. Studies on the overall well-being of hosts in the aftermath of a displacement crisis in poor countries show rather consistent positive results also explained by the inflow of international aid and its relative importance in a poor country. These are preliminary but consistent findings that emerged from the review.

Some selected evidence on policies can also be derived from the review by crisis provided in Annex 2, even if few studies analyze the mechanisms through which forced displacement impacts labor and consumer markets. Prices increase because supply might be non-elastic, at least in the short-term, in poor and isolated areas and for non-tradables, like housing. To increase the price elasticity of supply for food items in poor and isolated areas, investments by the government, donors and humanitarians can help connect these places to markets. The improved road network seems to have a positive impact on household welfare even after 16