Extract

This article is linked to ‘Mediating pathways between neighborhood disadvantage and cardiovascular risk: quasi-experimental evidence from a Danish refugee dispersal policy’ and ‘Invited commentary: dispersal policies, neighborhood disadvantage, and refugee health in a Nordic context’ (https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae158 and https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae239).

We appreciate Dr. Mikael Rostila’s commentary1 on our study,2 which leveraged a natural experiment in the form of a Danish refugee dispersal policy to estimate the health effects of neighborhood disadvantage among refugee populations later in life. We agree with Dr. Rostila that being assigned to a less disadvantaged neighborhood may not necessarily have positive effects on health or social outcomes—for example, if there are fewer immigrants in such neighborhoods to provide social support or increased discrimination against newcomers.3-5 Dr. Rostila referenced studies that suggest there are potentially harmful effects of dispersal policies on social and economic integration. We would also add evidence from US-based studies showing that the Moving to Opportunity experiment resulted in worse mental health outcomes for Black boys randomized to low-poverty neighborhoods,6 which has been similarly hypothesized to be due to disruption of social networks and supports. Yet, there is additional counter-evidence that supports the positive effects of refugee dispersal policies. For example, in Sweden, exposure to peers with high levels of education (independent of the share of peers with the same ethnicity) was associated with better school performance,7 and exposure to a larger share of welfare receipts among same-ethnicity nationals was associated with welfare receipt8 among refugees under the dispersal policy. In Denmark, refugees placed in socioeconomically better neighborhoods had lower criminal involvement,9 higher chances of finding employment,10 and higher wages.11

You do not currently have access to this article.