Kristoffer Jutvik’s research while affiliated with Linköping University and other places

Migration policy in the Nordic welfare states is increasingly marked by restrictiveness. Although research has studied the consequences of this policy trend, there is limited knowledge about how it affects stress levels and the well-being of migrants. In this study, we examine the impact of a policy change implemented in Sweden in 2016 that resulted in the swift abandonment of permanent residence. To conduct our research, we use survey data to compare differences in self-stated levels of stress and well-being among those granted permanent residence status according to the pre-2016 policy and those granted temporary residence according to the new policy. Our findings indicate a significant difference in well-being between the two groups, with those granted temporary residence permits experiencing lower levels of well-being as well as more stress related to their own and their family members’ status. Importantly, we conclude that a lower sense of well-being is correlated with higher levels of stress connected to residence status. These results have important implications for evaluating the impact of the new migration policy in Sweden and assessing similar policy trends in other contexts.

A neglected dimension of housing policy is how municipalities use it as a gatekeeping mechanism to exclude vulnerable groups and thereby control their territory. To examine this topic, we apply a systematic review that draws on the international academic literature and utilizes three bibliometric analyses. First, statistical analysis reveals the field’s growth and how it is characterized by publications often combining an impressive set of data and methods. Second, the material is explored through network analysis, emphasizing how a few important journals lead the distribution of knowledge. Finally, a thematic analysis highlights consistency in the detrimental effects of exclusionary policies across different contexts. A distinction between planned excluding practices and policies with such unintended effects are also evident. The analysis underscores the conflict between individual responsibilities and societal obligations, where current policies tend to place substantial burdens on the individual.

The return and reintegration of rejected asylum seekers is a growing concern, not least following the migration flows in the summer of 2015. In general, only a third of individuals with negative asylum decisions are estimated to have returned to their origin countries in recent years. We provide the first causal evaluation of a specific policy aimed at incentivizing the return of rejected asylum-seekers, namely a cash grant given to those who return to their home countries on their own. We use individual level administrative data from Sweden and implement a regression discontinuity design, which leverages that the eligible nationalities have changed over time. Our estimate suggests that being informed about the cash grant increased the take-up rate and subsequently the share who returned on their own, within 2 to 5 years. However, the overall take-up rate is low. We find no evidence of adverse selection, as there is no increase in applications after the introduction of cash the grants.

Do asylum‐seekers respond to destination country policy changes, and to what extent? We approach this question by using high‐frequency data and focus on a sudden liberalization in Swedish policy toward Syrian asylum‐seekers, which implied permanent instead of temporary residence. We show a clear and fast, yet temporary, increase in Syrian asylum applications in Sweden after the policy change. Also, the policy caused a shift, not limited to the short‐term, in the share of individuals arriving without family, and consequently in the share applying for family reunification. Our study adds quasi‐experimental evidence to the literature on inter‐country asylum‐flows and migration policy. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

The dramatic event that the great migration in the summer of 2015 entailed changed the migration policies of various countries. Substantial amendments were hastily made in a policy field in which already tense state-local relations struggled to manage coordination, responsibilities, and funding. Sweden, recognized as a final host country of the massive flows of refugees and asylum-seekers, was no exception. In Sweden, autonomy in terms of local refugee reception was circumvented in 2016. Municipalities' remaining discretion is above all concentrated to one of the most crucial spheres of refugee reception: the outline of local housing policies. We argue that housing may be perceived as a tool of resilience that local governments may use to maintain far-reaching influence over the settlement of migrants with a refugee background by selecting restrictive or generous policy options. In this paper, we conduct a theoretically grounded analysis of local housing policy for refugees among Swedish municipalities. To capture the intrinsic dynamic, we propose a generic typology applying the dimension of either a liberal or a restrictive housing policy and relate it to theoretical notions of refugee policy as characterized by either a rights-based or a more restrictive approach. Our findings show that local governments in Sweden pursue a wide array of policy stances that appear to be correlated with factors originating from prior experiences of refugee reception, conditions in the labor and housing markets, and political circumstances. Based on this, we argue that local housing policy has offered municipalities a tool to exert a form of intentional, or unintentional, migration control despite national efforts to impose a more just system of refugee reception.

Whether refugees in need of protection should be granted long- or short-term residence permits in the host country upon arrival is a long-standing debate in the migration policy and scholarly literature. Rights-based models of inclusion advocate for secure and long-term residency status arguing that this will provide the foundations for successful inclusion. Responsibilities-based models on the other hand claim that migrants should only be granted such status if certain criteria, such as full-time employment, have been met, again under the belief that such a system will facilitate inclusion into the host society. Using a sudden policy change as a natural experiment combined with detailed Swedish registry data, we examine the effect permanent residency on three measures of labour market inclusion in the short-term. Our findings are twofold. On the one hand, we find that temporary residents that are subject to a relatively less-inclusive situation have higher incomes and less unemployment. However, at the same time, they are less likely to spend time in education than are those with permanent residency. First part title Permanent or Temporary Settlement? Second part title A Study on the Short-Term Effects of Temporary and Permanent Residence Permits on Labour Market Participation

This study exploits close elections in Sweden to assess the causal relationship between seat majorities for mainstream political parties and refugee reception policy. The study focuses on the two dominant mainstream political blocs, in a centre‐right and a centre‐left coalition, during three waves of elections from 2002 to 2010. In doing so, the study makes a few contributions to current research: Firstly, besides addressing a current knowledge gap in the focus on mainstream parties and refugee reception policy, this study investigates the impact of seat majorities which potentially have a more influential position compared to individual parties. Secondly, the study relies on an empirical strategy which allows comparison of comparable cases. Lastly, the study focuses on mainstream parties at the local level of government within one institutional context and thus addresses the obstacle of case comparability within cross‐country studies. In conclusion, this study finds that the relationship between the mainstream political blocs and refugee reception policy is of an associative nature. In order to find significant estimates of seat majorities, the win margin for each bloc needs to be substantial. These results indicate that there is a unified political attitude over the mainstream blocs towards refugee reception and that other factors, and not political seat majorities, have contributed to the uneven distribution of refugees among municipalities in Sweden.

This paper uses quasi-experimental evidence to understand how changes in asylum policy affect the number of asylum-seekers. We look specifically at a sudden, regulatory change in the Swedish reception of Syrian asylum-seekers. The change took place in September 2013 and implied that all Syrian asylum-seekers would be granted permanent instead of temporary residence permits. Using high-frequency data and an interrupted time-series set-up, we study the extent to which this change caused more Syrian citizens to apply for asylum in Sweden. The paper provides several new insights: Our estimates show a clear increase in the number of asylum applications in Sweden after the policy change. The increase had implications for the distribution of Syrian asylum-seekers in Europe, but only in the short term. Also, the change caused a shift in the share of adult men arriving without a household member, and consequently in the share of refugees applying for family reunification.

In this study we exploit a sudden policy change implemented in Sweden in order to evaluate the effects of permanent residency on labour market participation. In short, the policy change implied that Syrians were granted permanent instead of temporary residency as before the new regulations. Using detailed Swedish registry data, we examine the effect of the introduction of permanent residency on three measures of labour market inclusion in the short-term. We analyze the data through a simple difference-in-means as well as through comparison to groups unaffected by the policy in a difference-indifferences design and a synthetic control group approach. Our conclusions are twofold. On the one hand, we conclude that temporary residents that are subject to a relatively less-inclusive situation earn more and are unemployed less. However, at the same time, they are less likely to spend time in education than are those with permanent residency.