Who deserves exceptions in times of crisis? A comparison of policy responses to mitigate negative consequences for unemployed people and immigrants during the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

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.