Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

Through a comparative analysis of the housing market in Germany and Austria, this shapter shows how access to housing is a crucial factor for the structural integration of refugees.

This chapter examines belonging in nine different country cases by investigating two domains. First, it shows that belonging is highly related to the specific social locations of individual refugees (i.e., their legal status, employment, ethnic background and gender). Second, it demonstrates that meso-level inclusion (either in existing organizations or via forming migrant-led organizations) matters for belonging.

This chapter critically discusses the grid of legislation, policies, discourses, practices, institutions, and actors that shape the governance of movements and configure borders from the global to the local scale by focusing on the Greek island of Lesvos.

This chapter shows how contestation over migration has influenced discursive constructions of ‘Europe’ in mainstream politics and media.

This chapter presents the various degrees of refugee agency in three areas—the journey, civic participation, and health— and seeks to answer the question of the extent to which refugees exhibit agency against a backdrop of unfavourable external structural conditionings.

Based on the meta-analysis of thematic country and comparative reports produced in the EU Horizon 2020 RESPOND project, this report seeks to revisit multilevel governance as a theoretical framework in comparative migration research. Focusing on the period of 2011-2018 where the governance of migration has been very much affected by the ‘crisis’ climax, we question the adaptability of multilevel governance in describing main patterns in governance, their drivers and consequences. The report problematizes the generalized notions of local, nationalist, centralist turn in migration management, instead offering more nuanced understanding that highlights the dynamism and tensions within spatial and temporal axes.Firstly, we propose that when migration is managed through and in a crisis, such as in mass migration or protracted refugee situations, actors at multilevel governance settings choose from a repertoire of possible and available actions, including strict non-admission, deterrence, restriction, ad hoc or welcoming responses.Second, we contend that four characteristics have increasingly marked the inscription of ‘crisis’ in the multilevel governance of migration, including: 1) complicated and fragmented legal systems, 2) multiplicity of actors, 3) re-nationalisation and restrictiveness and 4) increased complexity and uncertainty.Lastly, we conclude that multilevel governance in and through crisis inevitably leads to temporary governance models that become visible through policy convergence in strengthening restrictive measures, sophistication of remote controls, eradication of the norms and rights-based procedures of the refugee regime. The temporality of these governance modes runs the risk of governance failure and gridlocks in developing common solutions (for example, the EU’s internal solidarity crisis or problems in relocation quotas).

This chapter looks at the implementation of interna- tional protection policies (especially asylum procedures and refugee protec- tion) in the EU as well as in non-EU countries and underline four findings that are evident across country cases: 1) a highly restrictive and complex legal framework; 2) the proliferation and fragmentation of forms of protec- tion and asylum procedures; 3) the ambiguous role of multiple actors; and 4) the failure of the hotspot approach and the Dublin Regulation.

This report analyses an important aspect of migrant life: psychosocial health among migrant newcomers. To this respect, it draws data and findings from the RESPOND reports in several work packages. This report employs a methodology of transdisciplinary research design, by establishing a strong collaboration beyond discipline-specific approaches, exchanging information and sharing sources. While the general analysis in RESPOND is structured along macro (policy), meso (implementation) and micro (individual) levels, this report focuses primarily on newcomers' experiences at the micro level.