Why Local Governments Support Increased Centralization: An Analysis of Norwegian and Swedish Central–Local Governance of Immigration Integration

Abstract

Local autonomy is a highly valued and promoted feature of European governance, but why do local governments sometimes support increased centralization, which infringe their local autonomy? An intuitive assumption is that local governments would oppose policy changes that infringed their autonomy vis-à-vis the central government. However, this article explores an opposing hypothesis outlining a rationale for why local governments may either oppose or support increased central steering. The study includes analyses of 190 municipal consultation responses from five policy processes in Norway and Sweden regulating central–local governance of the immigrant integration field. The empirical analysis reveals that at least some – and often most – municipalities supported policy proposals that would increase central governance of the integration field. Some municipalities supported increased centralization because they would benefit from it if higher levels of government are made legally accountable for specific aspects of the service provision or if responsibilities between municipalities were redistributed. Additionally, principles of equal service provision across municipalities and refugees’ legal safeguards were actively voiced. In the conclusion, I discuss a dilemma for the broader central–local governance literature: how should we analytically assess and classify policy changes that involve increased central governance if such changes are supported by local governments themselves?