Suchergebnisse

This report compares the strategies to counter segregation which the governments of Denmark, Sweden and Norway launched in 2018. The comparison is conducted at two levels. Firstly, the report carries out a comparison of the "problem definition" in each country, looking at factual, explanatory and normative claims made about segregation. Secondly, the report compares the overall policy design and combination of focus areas of each strategy. The strategies are found to differ significantly both with regard to the highlighted dimensions of segregation, the causal explanations which are advanced, and the proposed policies which are intended to address segregation.

A central insight from the research building on the Stereotype Content Model (SMC) is that different groups elicit different emotional and threat reactions. To advance our knowledge about which groups are likely to share experiences of discrimination and prejudice, we must explore the content of the stereotypes connected to different immigrant groups. Building on population representative survey data, the study applies a split-sample experimental design to test the SCM in Norway, an egalitarian welfare state characterized by low-income inequality. The results confirm the relevance of the SCM model in an egalitarian welfare setting, displaying an ethnic hierarchy expressed through social stereotypes. The results further indicate that ambivalent stereotypes of immigrants are limited in the Norwegian context. Finally, this study extends the SCM model by examining how respondents' motivation to control prejudice (MCP) moderate stereotype judgement and finds that respondents with a high MCP rated the groups that are stereotyped as cold and incompetent more positively than individuals with a low MCP. Thus, individual propensity to hold back on prejudices influences expressions of stereotype content.

AbstractFollowing the record number of asylum seekers to Europe in 2015, Norway intensified its practice of revoking migrants' residence permits and citizenships, which primarily affected refugees and their families, and reflects a broader international trend of increased use of temporary protection. This article explores the effects of revocation on individuals, their families and wider communities by analysing how revocation is experienced and its consequences for integration processes. Drawing on the concepts of deregulariation, temporality and integration, our analysis builds on interviews with migrants from Somalia and Afghanistan living in Norway. We find severe consequences for individuals affected by revocation processes and discuss spillover effects, most notably what we refer to as disintegration. Our conclusions point to the need for futher analytical scrutiny of both the consequences of intensified revocation practices and their purported effectiveness as a measure to regulate immigration.