The 2025 Global Changemakers Workshop: Price of Passage provided a rich and multilayered exploration of migration as a defining test of societal resilience. Rather than approaching resilience as a purely technical capacity to withstand shocks, the discussions framed it as a broader societal condition shaped by governance choices, institutional trust, social cohesion, and the distribution of responsibility among states, communities, and individuals. Migration was examined as a cumulative and non-linear journey: beginning with the drivers of departure, continuing through internal displacement and transit, and culminating in arrival and integration. Each stage places distinct and compounding pressures on societies.

Across seminar sessions and policy roundtables, participants repeatedly emphasized that migration should not be treated as an episodic “crisis,” but as a structural feature of the contemporary world. In this sense, societal resilience emerged not as an abstract ideal, but as a concrete question of political capacity: how societies anticipate mobility, how they absorb its impacts, and whether they are willing and able to transform in response to long-term demographic, economic, and environmental change.

A central analytical thread of the workshop concerned the meaning of resilience itself. Participants implicitly challenged interpretations that equate resilience with endurance or coping, particularly when such framings risk shifting responsibility downward—onto individuals, families, and communities—while leaving structural drivers unaddressed. In the context of migration, this critique was especially salient. Resilience narratives, several participants argued, can become problematic when they normalize chronic strain or mask the absence of institutional support.

Instead, the workshop discussions pointed toward a more political and relational understanding of societal resilience: one that foregrounds power, inequality, and the role of public institutions. From this perspective, resilience is not simply the ability of communities to “bounce back,” but the capacity of societies to reduce vulnerability, prevent harm, and expand the conditions under which people can live with dignity. This framing aligns with broader debates in migration and human security scholarship, which caution against depoliticized uses of resilience that obscure accountability.

Migration, in this sense, was repeatedly described as a stress test that reveals pre-existing fractures within societies, whether in labor markets, welfare systems, housing, or democratic legitimacy. The question raised throughout the workshop was therefore not whether societies can be resilient, but how resilience is produced, who bears its costs, and who benefits from prevailing policy choices.

During the workshop, the distinctions between economic migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and undocumented migrants were interrogated not only as administrative tools, but as instruments of governance that can either strengthen or undermine societal resilience. Rigid categorizations often fail to reflect the complex and overlapping drivers of migration, where conflict, economic precarity, climate stress, and political instability intersect. When legal frameworks do not correspond to lived realities, migrants may fall into protection gaps, while host societies experience rising uncertainty and polarization.

This mismatch was discussed as a resilience risk. Inconsistent or opaque migration regimes can erode trust in institutions, fuel misinformation, and exacerbate social tensions. From this perspective, legal clarity and fairness were framed as essential components of societal resilience—not only because they uphold human rights, but because they contribute to social stability and democratic legitimacy.

A key point of debate concerned the tendency to valorize community adaptability in contexts where institutional support is weak or absent. While local solidarity and informal coping mechanisms were widely recognized as critical assets, participants cautioned against romanticizing them. Communities hosting IDPs often face sustained pressure on housing, public services, employment, and social cohesion, particularly when displacement becomes protracted.

From a resilience perspective, the discussion underscored that community strength cannot substitute for effective governance. Societal resilience depends on the ability of States and institutions to anticipate displacement, invest in preparedness, and integrate humanitarian responses with development planning. Without such structural support, resilience risks becoming a narrative that legitimizes endurance rather than enabling transformation.

Technology featured prominently in the discussion, described as both an enabler and a risk factor. Digital tools can enhance migrants’ agency by facilitating access to information, communication, and financial resources. At the same time, technologies are increasingly exploited by smugglers, traffickers, and disinformation networks, shaping migration routes and public perceptions alike.

Narrowly securitized responses to transit undermine societal resilience by externalizing risk and prioritizing containment over protection. Instead, the workshop highlighted the need for integrated approaches that combine human security, digital governance, and international cooperation. Such approaches were framed as essential to reducing harm while preserving trust in institutions and cross-border solidarity.

Workshop discussions stressed that integration is where economic considerations, social cohesion, and political narratives most visibly intersect. While evidence suggests that migration can contribute positively to economies over time, participants noted that short-term pressures (particularly on housing, education, and public services) can generate resistance if not proactively addressed. From a resilience standpoint, integration policies must therefore balance material investment with symbolic inclusion, addressing not only access to jobs and services, but also questions of belonging and recognition.

An important analytical insight that emerged was the understanding of integration as a reciprocal process. Host societies are not static backdrops, but actors that adapt and change through migration. When managed inclusively, this process can strengthen societal resilience by fostering pluralism, innovation, and democratic engagement. When mismanaged, it can deepen inequality and erode trust.

Taken together, the workshop discussions underscored that societal resilience is neither automatic nor evenly distributed. It is produced through political choices, institutional design, and collective action over time. Migration, far from being an external shock, functions as a revealing lens—exposing the strengths and weaknesses of societies as they confront uncertainty, diversity, and change.

A key takeaway from the workshop was that resilience-oriented migration governance must move beyond short-term crisis management toward long-term, inclusive strategies that integrate protection, security, and social cohesion. Crucially, resilience should not become a rhetorical substitute for responsibility. Instead, it should serve as a framework for rethinking how societies anticipate mobility, distribute its costs, and create the conditions for shared futures in an era of sustained human movement.