Sammanfattning av publikation

Åter till förteckningen i tabellformat

KartlÀggningens förstasida | Listan över ÀmnesomrÄden

01. Asyl- och flyktingpolitik | 01.2 Kommun-stat relationer
Bengtsson, 2002 🔗

Stat och kommun i makt(o)balans : En studie av flyktingmottagandet

År: 2002

Typ av text: Doktorsavhandling

Publicerad av:  Lunds universitet

SprÄk: Svenska (sammanfattning pÄ engelska)

Författare: Marie Bengtsson

Antal sidor: 251

TillgÀnglig pÄ: https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/ws/files/4460223/1002048.pdf

Vad texten handlar om 

Författaren anlĂ€gger ett perspektiv av interdependens mellan stat och kommun pĂ„ politikomrĂ„det flyktingmottagande 1985-2001. Det Ă€r ett politikomrĂ„de dĂ€r staten reglerar det totala antalet mĂ€nniskor som slĂ€pps in och beviljas uppehĂ„llstillstĂ„nd samtidigt som staten har det formella och finansiella ansvaret, men det Ă€r kommunerna som tar emot flyktingarna och introducerar dem till det svenska samhĂ€llet. 

Viktigaste resultat

“Avhandlingens viktigaste resultat Ă€r att det verkligen föreligger ett ömsesidigt beroende mellan stat och kommun inom det hĂ€r politikomrĂ„det.” (201)

“Vi har i denna avhandling sett att den utan tvekan mest anvĂ€nda resursen i statens maktbas Ă€r den finansiella resursen. “ (208)

“Vanliga statliga strategier Ă€r inkorporering, konsultation, förhandling, incitament, övertalning, professionalisering och uppdelning. Kommunerna har anvĂ€nt sig av strategierna konfrontation, övertalning, penetrering och förhandling.” (208)

“Att staten hĂ€r har nĂ„gon form av politiskt och juridiskt ansvar för flyktingarna under deras första tid i landet förefaller mer eller mindre oomtvistat. FrĂ„gan Ă€r vad detta ansvar innebĂ€r och vilken tidsaspekten Ă€r. Formellt kan detta leda till vissa grĂ€nsdragningstvister, men vad som reellt inneburit stora problem Ă€r det ekonomiska ansvaret som, Ă„tminstone delvis, följer med det juridiska ansvaret. HĂ€r förefaller det i mĂ„nga fall klart att staten inte har tagit detta ansvar trots att kommunerna krĂ€vt det. Statens ansvar har inte inneburit kostnadstĂ€ckning för kommunerna och tidsaspekten av ansvarsfördelningen mellan stat och kommun har inte diskuterats trots ett allt lĂ€ngre och mer omfattande kostnadsansvar för kommunerna gentemot flyktingarna. Sammantaget leder detta till kommunernas, i stort sett samfĂ€llda, kritik att staten inte har tagit sitt ansvar utan skjutit över det pĂ„ kommunerna. “ (211)

“I stĂ€llet gĂ„r den stora politiska skiljelinjen ur vĂ„rt perspektiv mellan rikspolitiker och kommunpolitiker. Detta innebĂ€r inte att det inte funnits partiskillnader vad betrĂ€ffar andra aspekter av politikomrĂ„det men nĂ€r det gĂ€ller relationen mellan stat och kommun har enigheten varit stor. Det verkar mest ha funnits ett frĂ„n alla partier gemensamt intresse av att den problematik som hĂ€r berörs inte kommer upp pĂ„ den politiska dagordningen.” (211)

“Swedish local government introduction for refugees started in 1985. The previous system, which was suited for worker immigration was obsolete and more local government involvement was needed in the refugee policy area. The shared, and blurred, responsibility within this area has been debated all the time since 1985. That the central government is responsible for the refugees during their first time in the country is not controversial in itself. Questions arise, however, as to what the practical implications in terms of division of labour are, and how long this responsibility lasts. At some point the newcomers become inhabitants like everyone else and should be treated as such. The interdependence is here very obvious especially when it comes to the economic responsibility where the local governments argue that the central government has not fulfilled its responsibilities. When it comes to the time frame for the responsibility, the line is drawn when the refugee has been integrated into Swedish society. In practice such a fictionary time limit has been set to on average three and a half years after the newcomer received his permit to stay in the country. Also this temporal aspect has been criticised by the local governments.” (219-220)

“This is a policy area with an external origin – the government cannot control how many refugees that come to the country’s borders. This uncertainty is built into the area with unpredictable effects. One aspect concerns the number of refugees, which has changed drastically during the time period studied. In the beginning of the 1990s it rose radically, due to the situation in the former Yugoslavia, and peaked in 1992 when around 85 000 asylum-seekers crossed the Swedish border. This has of course affected the central government’s dependence since its sensitivity increased drastically. By the end of the 1990s the number decreased substantially, which means a better interdependence position for the central government.” (220-221)

“There is no legislation regulating the relationship between central and local government within this policy area. In part the reason for this is the risk involved in using the political resource. The central government could not take the risk of forcing local governments into taking part in the integration policy, by fear for the effects this would have on public opinion, both towards the central government and towards the refugees. The fear for increased hostility towards the refugees has indeed been great. Even in 1992 when the pressure was extremely high, a legal regulation of the relationship was not seriously considered. There were principally two possible roads for the central government to reduce its sensitivity, either forcing the local governments to provide introduction places for the newcomers or reduce the number of refugees. The central government choose the latter, which was implemented through demanding visa for citizens from certain countries, resulting in a reduction of possible asylum-seekers. This was not an easy choice for the government, which had previously claimed Sweden to be a humanitarian country and thus feared international criticism.” (221)

“The financial resource was also used to reduce sensitivity. When the number of refugees peaked in 1992 and the central government was extremely sensitive to the actions of the local governments, special grants to encourage local governments to increase the number of introduction places for refugees was introduced. Later on this kind of extra grants has been more scarce since the interdependence has changed so that the central government is now the less dependent actor and therefore does not have to consider the demands of the local governments to the same degree as before.” (222)

“Despite the negotiated agreements between central and local government, throughout the period the refugees themselves have had the right to move wherever in the country they have liked. This has meant that a lot of refugees have moved to the major cities, where problems of organisation and segregation have been rather difficult. The local governments have on innumerous occasions tried to persuade the central government to use its authority resources to make, by economic incentives, the refugees to stay during an introductory time period of a few years in the local government where they have been placed. The central government has never acknowledged these demands. Instead, the central government made use of its authority resource in the other direction in the middle of the 1990s by allowing asylum-seekers to live with friends or relatives (rather than on refugee centres) while their applications for permission to stay in the country are being tried. At the time of the reform the expectation was that about five to ten percent of the asylum-seekers would use this opportunity, but in reality more than fifty percent have done this. The reason for this change was economic. It was cheaper to have the asylumseekers living in the local community than in refugee centres, but the effect was not only that central government saved money but also that it found a way around the interdependence by reducing its vulnerability towards the local governments. “ (222-223)

“Local governments have also lacked financial resources. All studies made show that local government costs for taking care of newcomers have not been covered by the central government.” (223)

Perspektiv/teoretiska begrepp

Interdependens

Metoden för studien

ProcesspÄrning

Propositioner, skrivelser, utredningar, budgetpropositionerna frÄn Ären 1985-2001, skrivelser frÄn regeringen till riksdagen som berör flyktingpolitiken, dokument som visar kommunernas instÀllning till politiken (brev och skrivelser frÄn enskilda kommuner, remissvar pÄ olika utredningsbetÀnkanden frÄn myndigheter och kommuner, dokument frÄn kommunförbundet).

Intervjuer  med sex tjĂ€nstemĂ€n i olika kommuner och en tjĂ€nsteman vid Invandrarverket Region Syd Ă„r 1994 som inspiration

Intervjuer med sju ledande tjÀnstemÀn som varit involverade i politikomrÄdet, d.v.s. nyckelpersoner för staten (inom departement eller myndigheter) och kommunerna (frÀmst genom kommunförbundet) som deltagit i de redovisade förhandlingarna inom omrÄdet

Ev policy-rekommendationer

–

Ev förslag för vidare granskning

–

Sammanfattad av: Josefin Åström