Search results

The boundaries for whom the welfare state should protect during times of crisis are not necessarily obvious. Deservingness studies have identified unemployed people and immigrants as groups perceived as 'less deserving' of welfare state support than other groups in need during 'normal' times. These two groups have in recent years been subject to more conditional requirements and an incentivizing rationale. In this article, we compare the policy responses for 1) unemployed people and 2) immigrants during the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway form 2020–2022. We ask: Who deserves exceptions in times of crisis? We find that a cross-partisan parliament introduced extensive economic relief packages and temporary regulations to mitigate negative financial consequences for unemployed persons and furloughed workers. Politicians argued that individuals were not to blame for their unfortunate financial circumstances during the pandemic, and that the welfare state had to take the larger share of the burden. However, the government chose not to make temporary exemptions from economic requirements for permanent residence or family reunification. It was explicitly stated that there was no reason to deviate (temporarily) from the general economic requirements during the pandemic, referring to the potential strain on the Norwegian welfare state if immigrants were not self-sufficient. We argue that the political rationale of incentives underlying these requirements falls short during economic crises and that this non-policy response illustrate new forms of welfare state chauvinism.

Abstract
Transnational family living refers to the situation of maintaining relationships across national borders. It is dependent on a certain degree of flexibility from the state. As part of the crisis response to the COVID-19 pandemic, this flexibility was revoked. As a result, existing mobility inequalities became more visible than ever: while travel restrictions came as a shock to many, they created an additional challenge to those who had been struggling in the past. All persons engaged in transnational family living had to find ways to navigate the new situation. Our project is based on policy review and online ethnography taking Norway as a case. We discuss how individuals tried to maintain cross-border and mixed-status family lives during the first year of the pandemic, reacted to the borders closing, and found solace and advice from others in similar situations. The COVID-19 pandemic and the travel restrictions that followed have exposed vulnerabilities associated with transnational living and revealed to those involved that their arrangements were conditioned by the non-interference of the state. Our article engages in the discussion on the complexity of transnational family living and uses the case of the pandemic and the sudden state intervention in mobility regulations to expose the hidden parts of the puzzle that sustain the contemporary attributes of transnationalism.

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.