Abstract
In this article, we investigate local level reactions to the top-down state steering for the housing of refugees in Sweden. We especially reflect on events after the increased refugee reception in Sweden in 2015 and the introduction of a Settlement Act in 2016 which made it mandatory for municipalities to receive a specific number of refugees and organise accommodation. This has resulted in a wide array of housing situations for refugees concerning standard, costs and temporary solutions. A multi-level governance framework from on central government steering perspective is applied. We argue that the modified legislation can be understood as a change in governance throughout the years — from persuasion to economic incentives and, finally, to coercive methods. Sweden is a country that has distinguished itself as one refraining from particularity and continuing to work towards equality between newcomers and citizens. In relation to recent legal and political developments, we identify a change — a paradoxical change, as governance for the more-equal reception of refugees in Sweden seems to lead to increased inequalities for refugees on the local level.
Highlights
Housing for refugees has grown into one of the most urgent integration policy issues in Sweden
The law can be understood as a way to nationally disperse refugee settlement and make it more difficult for free settlement, as refugees who stay in their own accommodation during their asylum period are not entitled to housing through the Settlement Law
As we show in the part of the article, these different categories play an important role for refugee housing provision at the local level
Summary
Housing for refugees has grown into one of the most urgent integration policy issues in Sweden. An article by Borevi and Bengtsson (2015) provides us with some clues as to why the Swedish government did not respond to the pleas from Malmö They identify three sets of arguments which a state can use to legitimise the steering of newcomers’ settlement: (1) the legal status of the new arrivals (legal status argument); (2) the special needs and limited resources of newcomers (resource argument); and (3) the prioritisation of collective political goals about social environments in the integration of newcomers (neighbourhood argument). Borevi and Bengtsson conclude that steering newcomers’ settlement in Sweden is difficult due to the illegitimacy of the legal status arguments which deny refugees (and asylum-seekers) the same rights as citizens in the housing market. These instruments are not mutually exclusive but can, as in the case of refugee housing, be combined to enforce compliance at the local level
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of International Migration and Integration
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
