Although existing literature on central–local governance includes comprehensive studies on how constitutional and financial frameworks regulate local government autonomy, this study seeks explanations for the introduction or absence of central coercion within these frameworks. The analysis studies six processes of policy instrument choice with different outcomes in Norway, Denmark and Sweden in the field of refugee settlement. It finds that a uniform perception of crisis and political compromises make political parties abandon their political–ideological standpoints relating to central–local governance. Additionally, the success and failure of political strategies of obfuscation and of dividing the opposition help to explain the different outcomes. The study reveals differences in the political salience of central–local governance in three countries that have systematically been categorised in the same groups in central–local studies. Consequently, more studies on how and why local autonomy is regulated within national frameworks are necessary to understand the actual autonomy that local governments enjoy. © 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Refugee settlement Comparative analysis Central–local governance policy instrument choice local autonomy

Denmark perception comparative study policy approach local government autonomy refugee Norway party politics political ideology Sweden