ISF / Why Norway?
Why Norway?
Why do asylum seekers end up in one particular country? In a recently published report ISF researchers Jan-Paul Brekke and Monica Five Aarset present and analyse factors affecting the arrival of asylum seekers to Norway.
Three different angles are used to grapple with the enigma that has puzzled politicians, bureaucrats and researchers alike: Why Norway? One set of questions relates to understanding the sequential sets of individual and collective action that lead an asylum seeker to this very Northern country. In a second set of questions the researchers look for elements that caused the number of asylum seekers arriving to Norway in 2008 to increase from 6500 to 14500. A third discussion is related to the link between migration policy measures and arrival numbers.
In September 2008 the Norwegian government announced 13 restrictive asylum policy measures intended to reduce the number of arrivals. The report shows that this policy initiative did not have the effect the government had hoped for. Numbers stabilised but did not drop for the next 12 months.
The report is based on interviews with asylum applicants from Eritrea, Iraq and Russia (Chechnya), civil servants and NGO personnel, as well as relevant documents, statistics, articles and case files. UNHCR data of asylum arrivals is used in the effort to understand the forced migration flows in Europe. The findings should be relevant to the international debate on asylum migration.
Destination by chance or choice?
In the report, Brekke and Aarset challenge the cliché understanding of asylum action where an individual alone chooses the destination before leaving their home country. Interviews with the three groups of asylum seekers revealed great variation on all aspects of their asylum journeys: How many persons were involved in the decision making, when was the final decision taken, what information was available when and from whom, and what resources were available.
Also, the time spent in transit differed substantially.
- In our material, most informants coming from Chechnya had spent less than a week travelling from their home town to Norway. This differed from the Eritreans or Iraqis. Some of the Eritrean informants had spent a year or longer on their way to Norway, Brekke and Aarset point out.
During the journey new information may become relevant and decisions about the destination country may change.
Reputation
In interviews with asylum seekers, the researchers found that the countries of Northern Europe in general are considered to provide security, access to labour markets and social security. Norway appears to have positive reputation.
- Norway was considered a good country by those who came. Snippets of information were combined to help form the concept of «Norway» involving positive connotations the decision makers at various points of the journey, write Brekke and Aarset.
Asylum seekers also emphasised the importance of personal networks and policies. Again, there are substantial variations among different groups; asylum seekers from different countries put different weight to the importance of networks, asylum policies and the prospect for making a better life.