Explaining Local Swedish Refugee Policy

Article

Abstract

In the Swedish migration system, the local level plays a crucial role since the municipalities have full autonomy to accept or decline refugees. This has created a considerable variation in numbers of immigrants among municipalities, and there is a large variation in local societies' willingness to receive refugees. In this study, we focus on all the Swedish municipalities for a time span of several years and derive from economic, demographic, socio-cultural, and explanatory factors that have been put forward in earlier research. Through quantitative analysis, we can show how income, the unemployment rate, population, and support for the right-wing party negatively vary with the willingness to receive refugees. Moreover, the distribution of income results in the opposite significant direction. These results, partly contradicting theory, show the importance of a nuanced and holistic theoretical base in further research.

Keywords

Refugee policy Migration Local government Sweden 

Notes

Acknowledgments

An earlier draft of this manuscprit was presented at the annual meeting of the Swedish Political Science Association in Växjö 2012. We would like to thank Svante Ersson and the three anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier drafts of this manuscpript.

References

  1. Akkerman, T. (2012). Comparing radical right parties in government: Immigration and integration policies in nine countries (1996–2010). West European Politics, 35(3), 511–529. doi: 10.1080/01402382.2012.665738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arango, J. (2000). Explaining migration: A critical view. International Social Science Journal, 52(165), 283–296. doi: 10.1111/1468-2451.00259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Åslund, O. (2005). Now and forever? Initial and subsequent location choices of immigrants. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 35(2), 141–165. doi: 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2004.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, N. (2001). Time-series-cross section data: What have we learned in the past few years? Annual Review of Political Science, 4(1), 271–293. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck, N., & Katz, J. N. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. The American Political Science Review, 89(3), 634–647. doi: 10.2307/2082979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boräng, F. (2012). National institutions—International migration. Labour Markets, Welfare States and Immigration Policy. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/31638.
  7. Borevi, K. (2012). “Sweden: The Flagship of Multiculturalism”. In Immigration Policy and The Scandinavian Welfare State 1945–2010, by Grete Brochmann and Anniken Hagelund. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Borg, P. (2009). Den Långsiktiga Finansieringen-Välfärdspolitikens Klimatfråga?” Expertgruppen för studier i offentlig ekonomi. Stockholm: Finansdepartementet: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  9. Caponio, T., & Borkert, M. (Eds.). (2010). The Local Dimension of Migration Policymaking. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Castles, S., & Miller, M. J. (2003). The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World (3rd ed.). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Chimni, B. S. (2009). The Birth of a ‘Discipline’: From Refugee to Forced Migration Studies. Journal of Refugee Studies, 22(1), 11–29. doi: 10.1093/jrs/fen051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Confederation of Swedish Enterprise (2010). “Företagsklimatet i Sverige.” www.foretagsklimat.se.
  13. Cornelius, W. A., & Rosenblum, M. R. (2005). Immigration and politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 8(1), 99–119. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.082103.104854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  15. Database for Local and County Councils (2010). “KOLADA.” www.kolada.se.
  16. De Giorgi, G., & Pellizzari, M. (2009). Welfare migration in Europe. Labour Economics, 16(4), 353–363. doi: 10.1016/j.labeco.2009.01.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Vries, M. (2000). Left and right among local elites: Comparative figures from Switzerland, Spain, Germany and The Netherlands. Local Government Studies, 26(3), 91–118. doi: 10.1080/03003930008434001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Demker, M. (2007). “Attitudes toward immigrants and refugees. Swedish Trends with Some Comparisons.” In Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Easton, D. (1965). Framework for Political Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Election Authority (2010). “Valresultat.” www.val.se.
  21. Emilsson, H. and Hagström, M. (2009). Asylsökandes Eget Boende, EBO-En Kartläggning. Statens Offentliga Utredningar SOU 2009:99. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  22. Eurostat (2012). “Asylum applicants and first instance decisions on asylum applications: Third quarter 2012”. 14/2012.Google Scholar
  23. Facchini, G., & Mayda, A. M. (2008). From individual attitudes towards migrants to migration policy outcomes: Theory and evidence. Economic Policy, 23(56), 651–713. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0327.2008.00212.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Facchini, G., Mayda, A. M., & Prachi, M. (2011). Do interest groups affect US immigration policy? Journal of International Economics, 85(1), 114–128. doi: 10.1016/j.jinteco.2011.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Finansdepartementet. (2008). Långtidsutredningen 2008: huvudbetänkande. Stockholm: Fritzes.Google Scholar
  26. Finansdepartementet (2010). “Utvecklingen Inom Den Kommunala Sektorn”. Skr. 2010/11:102. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  27. Freeman, G. P. (1994). Can liberal states control unwanted migration? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 534(1), 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Freeman, G. P. (2006). National models, policy types, and the politics of immigration in liberal democracies. West European Politics, 29(2), 227–247. doi: 10.1080/01402380500512585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Freeman, G. P. (2011). Comparative analysis of immigration politics: A retrospective. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(12), 1541–1560. doi: 10.1177/0002764211409386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gilljam, M., Karlsson, D., & Sundell, A. (2010). Politik på hemmaplan: tiotusen fullmäktigeledamöter tycker om politik och demokrati. Stockholm: SKL Kommentus.Google Scholar
  31. Giugni, M., & Passy, F. (2006). “Introduction: Four Dialogues on Migration Policy”. In Dialogues on Migration Policy, edited by Marco Giugni, and Florence Passy, 1–21. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  32. Givens, T. E. (2005). Voting Radical Right in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hanson, G. H., & Spilimbergo, A. (2001). Political economy, sectoral shocks, and border enforcement. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue Canadienne D’économique, 34(3), 612–638. doi: 10.1111/0008-4085.00091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hix, S., & Noury, A. (2007). Politics, not economic interests: Determinants of migration policies in the European Union. International Migration Review, 41(1), 182–205. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-7379.2007.00061.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hollifield, J., Hunt, V. F., & Tichenor, D. J. (2006). “Immigrants, Markets, and the American State: The Political Economy of U.S. Immigration”. In Dialogues on Migration Policy, edited by Marco Giugni, and Florence Passy, 91–107. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  36. Hooghe, M., Trappers, A., Meuleman, B., & Reeskens, T. (2008). Migration to European countries: A structural explanation of patterns, 1980–20041. International Migration Review, 42(2), 476–504. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-7379.2008.00132.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ireland, P. R. (2004). Becoming Europe: Immigration, Integration, and the Welfare State. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  38. Jacobsen, K. (1996). Factors influencing the policy responses of host governments to mass refugee influxes. International Migration Review, 30(3), 655–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Joppke, C. (1998). Why liberal states accept unwanted immigration. World Politics, 50(2), 266–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jørgensen, M. B. (2012). The diverging logics of integration policy making at national and city level. International Migration Review, 46(1), 244–278. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-7379.2012.00886.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kadhim, A. M. (2000). Svenskt Kommunalt Flyktingmottagande: Politik Och Implementering. Akademiska Avhandlingar Vid Sociologiska Institutionen, Umeå Universitet, 1104–2508; 20. Umeå: Univ.Google Scholar
  42. King, R. (2002). Towards a new map of European migration. International Journal of Population Geography, 8(2), 89–106. doi: 10.1002/ijpg.246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kitschelt, H. P. (1986). Political opportunity structures and political protest: Anti-nuclear movements in four democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 16(01), 57–85. doi: 10.1017/S000712340000380X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Klevmarken, A., & Lindgren, B. (Eds.). (2008). Simulating an Ageing Population: A Microsimulation Approach Applied to Sweden. Contributions to Economic Analysis, 0573–8555; 285. Emerald: Bingley.Google Scholar
  46. Lahav, G. (2004). Immigration and Politics in the New Europe: Reinventing Borders. Themes in European Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Loughlin, J. (2000). Regional autonomy and state paradigm shifts in Western Europe. Regional & Federal Studies, 10(2), 10–34. doi: 10.1080/13597560008421118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Massey, D. S. (1990). The social and economic origins of immigration. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 510(July 1), 60–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A., & Edward Taylor, J. (1993). Theories of international migration: A review and appraisal. Population and Development Review, 19(3), 431–466. doi: 10.2307/2938462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Meyers, E. (2000). Theories of international immigration policy—A comparative analysis. International Migration Review, 34(4), 1245–1282. doi: 10.2307/2675981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Minkenberg, M. (2001). The radical right in public office: Agenda–setting and policy effects. West European Politics, 24(4), 1–21. doi: 10.1080/01402380108425462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Odmalm, P. (2011). Political parties and ‘the Immigration Issue’: Issue ownership in Swedish Parliamentary Elections 1991–2010. West European Politics, 34(5), 1070–1091. doi: 10.1080/01402382.2011.591098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Piore, M. J. (1979). Birds of Passage: Migrant Labor and Industrial Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Qvist, M. (2012). Styrning Av Lokala Integrationsprogram. Institutioner, Nätverk Och Professionella Normer Inom Det Svenska Flyktingmottagandet. Linköping: Linköpings universitet.Google Scholar
  55. Robinson, V., Andersson, R., & Musterd, S. (2003). Spreading the “Burden”?: A Review of Policies to Disperse Asylum Seekers and Refugees. Bristol: Policy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rokkan, S. (1970). Citizens, Elections, Parties : Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Processes of Development. Oslo: Scandinavian University Books, 99-0103642-9.Google Scholar
  57. Rothstein, B. (2011). The Quality of Government: Corruption, Social Trust, and Inequality in International Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rotte, R., Vogler, M., & Zimmermann, K. F. (1997). South–north refugee migration: Lessons for development cooperation. Review of Development Economics, 1(1), 99–115. doi: 10.1111/1467-9361.00008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Scheve, K. F., & Slaughter, M. J. (2001). Labor market competition and individual preferences over immigration policy. Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(1), 133–145. doi: 10.1162/003465301750160108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schierup, C.-U., Hansen, P., & Castles, S. (2006). Migration, Citizenship, and the European Welfare State: A European Dilemma. European Societies, 99–3101797-X. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. SFS (2000).:1383. “Lag Om Kommunernas Bostadsförsörjningsansvar.”Google Scholar
  62. Soininen, M. (1992). Det Kommunala Flyktingmottagandet. Genomförande Och Organisation. Stockholm: CEIFO.Google Scholar
  63. Sridhar, K., Reddy, A., and Srinath, P. (2012). “Is it push or pull? Recent Evidence from Migration into Bangalore, India.” Journal of International Migration and Integration: 1–20. doi: 10.1007/s12134-012-0241-9.
  64. Statistics Sweden (2009). “Beskrivning Av Sveriges Befolkning 2008”. Örebro.Google Scholar
  65. Statistics Sweden (2010). www.scb.se.
  66. Steen, A. (2009). “Hvorfor Tar Kommunene Imot ‘De Fremmede’? Eliter Og Lokal Skepsis”. In Det Nære Demokratiet-Lokalvalg Og Lokal Deltakelse, edited by Jo Saglie. Oslo: Abstrakt forlag.Google Scholar
  67. Steen, A. (2010). “Crossing the Local Community Border: Immigrant Settlement in Norway”. In Diversity, Inclusion and Citizenship in Scandinavia, edited by Bo Bengtsson, Per Strömblad, and Ann-Helén Bay. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
  68. Swedish Public Employment Service (2010). “Arbetslösa Och i Program, Andelar Av Befolkningen.” www.arbetsformedlingen.se.
  69. Swedish Social Insurance Agency (2010). “Ohälsotalet.” www.forsakringskassan.se.
  70. Tarrow, S. G. (1994). Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action and Politics. Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics, 99–1559315–5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. The Swedish Migration Board (2010). “Överenskommelser Om Kommunalt Flyktingmottagande 2007–2010.” www.migrationsverket.se.
  72. The Swedish Migration Board (2012). www.migrationsverket.se.
  73. Thielemann, E. R. (2004). Why asylum policy harmonization undermines refugee burden-sharing. European Journal of Migration and Law, 6, 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wilson, S. E., & Butler, D. M. (2007). A lot more to do: The sensitivity of time-series cross-section analyses to simple alternative specifications. Political Analysis, 15(2), 101–123. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpl012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social SciencesMid Sweden UniversitySundsvallSweden

Personalised recommendations