This study investigates the conditions under which Polish cities adopt proactive reception and early integration responses for Ukrainian forced migrants following the 2022 Russian invasion. Despite Poland's centralized governance and limited municipal authority over migration, certain cities adopted a proactive approach, coordinating reception and initiating early-integration measures beyond minimal compliance. Employing Qualitative Comparative Analysis, we examined 12 urban cases to identify configurations of conditions—political leadership, institutional capacity, socio-economic opportunities, and community attitudes—that facilitate proactive approaches to reception and early integration. Our findings reveal that strong political leadership is a necessary condition across all proactive cases. Additionally, combinations involving high institutional capacity, favorable socio-economic conditions, and supportive community attitudes contribute to municipal action exceeding baseline requirements. These findings help to understand the urban context in shaping reception and early integration, demonstrating that local configurations of resources, governance, and community dynamics can drive municipal responses to forced migration crises, particularly within centralized systems.
AgerAlastairStrangAlison. 2008. “Understanding Integration: A Conceptual Framework.” Journal of Refugee Studies21 (2): 166–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fen016.
2.
AmbrosiniMaurizio.2021. “The Battleground of Asylum and Immigration Policies: A Conceptual Inquiry.” Ethnic and Racial Studies44 (3): 374–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2020.1836380.
3.
ArendtJacob NielsenDustmannChristianKuHyejin. 2022. “Refugee Migration and the Labor Market: Lessons from 40 Years of Post-Arrival Policies in Denmark.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy38 (3): 595–624. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grac014.
4.
BazurliRaffaeleKaufmannDavid. 2023. “Insurgent Asylum Policies in European Cities: A Multi-Level Governance Perspective.” Urban Affairs Review59 (4): 1146–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/10780874221091594.
5.
Bello-GomezRicardo A.AvellanedaClaudia N.. 2022. “Credit Claiming and Mayoral Preferences for Project Uptake Amid a Migrant Crisis.” Journal of Public Policy42 (4): 757–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X22000150.
6.
BettsAlexanderMemişoğluFulyaAliAli. 2021. “What Difference Do Mayors Make? The Role of Municipal Authorities in Turkey and Lebanon’s Response to Syrian Refugees.” Journal of Refugee Studies34 (1): 491–519. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/feaa011.
7.
BirklandThomas A.2006. Lessons of Disaster: Policy Change After Catastrophic Events. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
8.
BoinArjenKuipersSannekeHartPaul ‘t. 2018. “The Crisis Approach.” In Handbook of Disaster Research, edited by RodríguezHavidánDonnerWilliamTrainorJoseph E.. 2nd ed., 23–38. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63254-4_2.
Bucken-KnappGreggOmanovićVedranSpeharAndrea. 2020. Institutions and Organizations of Refugee Integration: Bosnian-Herzegovinian and Syrian Refugees in Sweden. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
11.
CampomoriFrancescaAmbrosiniMaurizio. 2020. “Multilevel Governance in Trouble: The Implementation of Asylum Seekers’ Reception in Italy as a Battleground.” Comparative Migration Studies8: 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-020-00178-1.
12.
CampomoriFrancescaCaponioTiziana. 2017. “Immigrant Integration Policymaking in Italy: Regional Policies in a Multi-Level Governance Perspective.” International Review of Administrative Sciences83 (2): 303–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315611238.
13.
CapanoGilibertoWooJun Jie. 2017. “Resilience and Robustness in Policy Design: A Critical Appraisal.” Policy Sciences50 (3): 399–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9273-x.
14.
CaponioTizianaBorkertMaren, eds. 2010. The Local Dimension of Migration Policymaking. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
15.
CaponioTizianaJones-CorreaMichael. 2018. “Theorising Migration Policy in Multilevel States: The Multilevel Governance Perspective.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies44 (12): 1995–2010. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1341705.
16.
CaponioTizianaPettrachinAndreaPonzoIrene. 2024. “The Drivers of Multilevel Governance as a Mode of Policymaking: The Case of Asylum-Seekers’ Reception in Italy.” Italian Political Science Review / Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica55: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/ipo.2024.20.
17.
ChoudhuryMahed-Ul-IslamHaqueEmdad. 2024. “Disaster Management Policy Changes in Bangladesh: Drivers and Factors of a Shift from Reactive to Proactive Approach.” Environmental Policy and Governance34 (5): 452–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2094.
18.
Council of the European Union. 2022. “Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382 of 4 March 2022 Establishing the Existence of a Mass Influx of Displaced Persons from Ukraine (OJ L 71, 1–6).” Official Journal of the European Union L71: 1–6.
19.
CrawfordNeil. 2021. The Urbanization of Forced Displacement: UNHCR, Urban Refugees, and the Dynamics of Policy Change. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
20.
de GraauwElsBloemraadIrene. 2017. “Working Together: Building Successful Policy and Program Partnerships for Immigrant Integration.” Journal on Migration and Human Security5 (1): 105–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/233150241700500106.
21.
de GraauwElsVermeulenFloris. 2016. “Cities and the Politics of Immigrant Integration: A Comparison of Berlin, Amsterdam, New York City, and San Francisco.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies42 (6): 989–1012. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2015.1126089.
22.
DoomernikJeroenArdonDjoeke. 2018. “The City as an Agent of Refugee Integration.” Urban Planning3 (4): 91–100. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v3i4.1646.
23.
EmilssonHenrik.2015. “A National Turn of Local Integration Policy: Multi-Level Governance Dynamics in Denmark and Sweden.” Comparative Migration Studies3: 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-015-0008-5.
EuropeanCommission. 2020. Action Plan on Integration and Inclusion 2021-2027. COM(2020) 758 final. Publications Office of the European Union.
26.
European Commission, European Migration Network (EMN). 2024. EMN Study 2023: Application of the Temporary Protection Directive: Challenges and Good Practices in 2023. Brussels: European Commission.
27.
Garcés-MascareñasBlancaPenninxRinus. 2016. “Introduction: Integration as a Three-Way Process Approach?” In Integration Processes and Policies in Europe: Contexts, Levels and Actors, edited by Garcés-MascareñasBlancaPenninxRinus, 1–9. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21674-4_1.
28.
GebhardtDirk.2014. Building Inclusive Cities: Challenges in the Multilevel Governance of Immigrant Integration in Europe. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.
29.
GórnyAgataPorwitKatarzynaMadejKarolina. 2021. Imigranci z Ukrainy w aglomeracji warszawskiej w czasie pandemii COVID-19: Wyniki badania panelowego. Warszawa: Fundacja Ośrodek Badań nad Migracjami.
30.
Government of Poland. 2022. Act of 12 March 2022 on Assistance to Citizens of Ukraine in Connection with the Armed Conflict on the Territory of that Country. Journal of Laws 2022, item 583, as amended.
31.
IrgilEzgi.2024. “Intergroup Encounters in Urban Public Spaces: Everyday Strategies of Host Community Members Following a Refugee Influx.” International Migration Review58 (1): 386–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/01979183221142785.
32.
IsmailKhaledWilsonClaireCohen-FournierNathan. 2017. Tripoli, Lebanon: A Case Study of Refugees in Towns. Somerville, MA: Feinstein International Center, Tufts University.
33.
JaskułowskiKrzysztof.2019. “The Politics of the ‘Migration Crisis’ in Poland.” In The Everyday Politics of Migration Crisis in Poland: Between Nationalism, Fear and Empathy, 31–53. Cham: Palgrave Pivot. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10457-3_3.
34.
KayaAyhanNagelAlexander-Kenneth. 2021. “Politics of Subsidiarity in Refugee Reception: Comparative Perspectives.” Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies19 (3): 235–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/15562948.2021.1923881.
35.
KingdonJohn W.1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
36.
KlokJoanneDagevosJaco. 2023. “‘We Do Things Together’: Exploring a Household Perspective on Early Integration Processes of Recent Refugees.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies49 (17): 4333–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2022.2156328.
Leska-ŚlęzakJoannaŚlęzakJarosław. 2023. “Imigranci z Ukrainy w Polsce. Działania integracyjne na przykładzie samorządu województwa pomorskiego.” Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia Politologica31: 61–72. https://doi.org/10.24917/20813333.31.5.
39.
LipskyMichael.2010. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. 30th anniversary expanded ed. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
40.
LowndesVivienRobertsMark. 2013. Why Institutions Matter: The New Institutionalism in Political Science. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
41.
MarxAxelRihouxBenoîtRaginCharles C.. 2014. “The Origins, Development, and Application of Qualitative Comparative Analysis: The First 25 Years.” European Political Science Review6 (1): 115–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773912000318.
42.
MielletSarah.2022. “Burden, Benefit, Gift or Duty? Dutch Mayors’ Framing of the Multilevel Governance of Asylum in Rural Localities and Cities in Zeeland.” Territory, Politics, Governance10 (3): 426–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2021.1999314.
OliverCarolineDekkerRianneGeuijenKarinBroadheadJacqueline. 2020. “Innovative Strategies for the Reception of Asylum Seekers and Refugees in European Cities: Multi-Level Governance, Multi-Sector Urban Networks and Local Engagement.” Comparative Migration Studies8 (1): 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-020-00189-y.
45.
OomenBarbaraBaumgärtelMoritz. 2018. “Frontier Cities: The Rise of Local Authorities as an Opportunity for International Human Rights Law.” European Journal of International Law29 (2): 607–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chy021.
46.
Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development. 2016. Making Integration Work: Refugees and Others in Need of Protection. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264251236-en.
47.
ÖzdemirGülce Şafak. 2022. “Urban Solidarity Typology: A Comparison of European Cities Since the Crisis of Refuge in 2015.” Cities130: 103976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103976.
48.
ÖzdemirGülce ŞafakPisarevskayaAsya. 2024. “Why Do Some Cities Support Irregular Migrants? Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Municipal Activism for Irregular Migrants in 13 European Global Cities.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies50 (20): 4966–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2024.2363873.
49.
PainterMartinPierreJon, eds. 2005. Challenges to State Policy Capacity: Global Trends and Comparative Perspectives. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230524194.
50.
PenninxRinus.2009. Decentralising Integration Policies: Managing Migration in Cities, Regions and Localities. London: Policy Network.
51.
PenninxRinusMartinielloMarco. 2004. “Integration Processes and Policies: State of the Art and Lessons.” In Citizenship in European Cities: Immigrants, Local Politics and Integration Policies, edited by PenninxRinusKraalKarenMartinielloMarcoVertovecSteven, 139–64. Aldershot; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
52.
PenninxRinusScholtenPeter. 2016. “The Multi-Level Governance of Migration and Integration in Europe.” In Integration of Migrants into What? Integration Processes and Policies in Europe, edited by Garcés-MascareñasBlancaPenninxRinus, 91–108. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21674-4_6.
PolatRabia KarakayaLowndesVivien. 2022. “How Does Multi-Level Governance Create Capacity to Address Refugee Needs, and with What Limitations? An Analysis of Municipal Responses to Syrian Refugees in Istanbul.” Journal of Refugee Studies35 (1): 51–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/feab101.
55.
PonzoIreneGiannettoLeilaRomanEmanuela. 2022. “The Variance in Multilevel Governance of Asylum Seekers’ Reception in Italy: The Key Roles of Policy Legacy, Politics and Civil Society.” In Coping with Migrants and Refugees: Multilevel Governance Across the EU, edited by CaponioTizianaPonzoIrene, 90–115. Abingdon; New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003129950-5.
56.
RaginCharles C.2000. Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
RaginCharles C.2014. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520957350.
59.
RihouxBenoîtÁlamos-ConchaPriscillaBolDamienMarxAxelRezsöhazyIlona. 2013. “From Niche to Mainstream Method? A Comprehensive Mapping of QCA Applications in Journal Articles from 1984 to 2011.” Political Research Quarterly66 (1): 175–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912912468269.
60.
RobertsNancy CharlotteKingPaula J.. 1991. “Policy Entrepreneurs: Their Activity Structure and Function in the Policy Process.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory1 (2): 147–75. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037081.
61.
SabchevTihomir.2022. “The Role of Local Political Leadership in the Reception of Forced Migrants: Evidence from Greece.” Territory, Politics, Governance10 (3): 306–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2021.1927815.
62.
SanderHaraldHeuchemerSylvia. 2020. “Integration and Adaptation Policy Towards Migrants in Germany: Lessons from Unexpected Experiences.” In Integration of Migrants into the Labour Market in Europe: National, Organizational and Individual Perspectives, edited by PrzytułaSylwiaSułkowskiŁukasz, 115–31. Advanced Series in Management 25. Bingley: Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1877-636120200000025009.
63.
SchammannHannesGlunsDanielleHeimannChristianeMüllerSandraWittchenTobiasYounsoChristinZieglerFranziska. 2021. “Defining and Transforming Local Migration Policies: A Conceptual Approach Backed by Evidence from Germany.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies47 (13): 2897–915. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2021.1902792.
64.
SchillerGlick NÇağlarAyşe, eds. 2011. Locating Migration: Rescaling Cities and Migrants. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
65.
SchneiderCarsten Q.RohlfingIngo. 2013. “Combining QCA and Process Tracing in Set-Theoretic Multi-Method Research.” Sociological Methods & Research42 (4): 559–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113481341.
66.
SchneiderCarsten Q.WagemannClaudius. 2010. “Standards of Good Practice in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Fuzzy-Sets.” Comparative Sociology9 (3): 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1163/156913210X12493538729793.
67.
SchneiderCarsten Q.WagemannClaudius. 2012. Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004244.
68.
SchneiderJensCrulMaurice. 2010. “New Insights into Assimilation and Integration Theory: Introduction to the Special Issue.” Ethnic and Racial Studies33 (7): 1143–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419871003777809.
69.
SchneiderMarkTeskePaulMintromMichael. 1995. Public Entrepreneurs: Agents for Change in American Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
70.
ScholtenPeter.2013. “Agenda Dynamics and the Multi-Level Governance of Intractable Policy Controversies: The Case of Migrant Integration Policies in the Netherlands.” Policy Sciences46 (3): 217–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9170-x.
71.
ScholtenPeter.2018. Policy Innovation in Refugee Integration: A Comparative Analysis of Innovative Policy Strategies to Refugee Integration in Europe. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam.
SwianiewiczPawel, ed. 2010. Territorial Consolidation Reforms in Europe. Budapest: Open Society Institute.
74.
ThomannEvaMaggettiMartino. 2020. “Designing Research With Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): Approaches, Challenges, and Tools.” Sociological Methods & Research49 (2): 356–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124117729700.
75.
TranVan C.Lara-GarcíaFrancisco. 2020. “A New Beginning: Early Refugee Integration in the United States.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences6 (3): 117–49. https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2020.6.3.06.
76.
TrochymiakMonika R.WróblewskaNatalia. 2025. “Warsaw Reception Centres During the 2022 Ukrainian Crisis: A Frontline View.” Nonprofit Policy Forum16 (2): 273–91. https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2023-0082.
77.
UNHCR. 2022. Poland: Reference Map with Reception Centres and Border Crossings. Geneva: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
78.
Union of Polish Metropolises (UMP). 2022a. Nowy dom czy chwilowy azyl? Sytuacja uchodźców z Ukrainy wnioskujących o numer PESEL w 12 największych polskich miastach pod koniec kwietnia 2022 r. Warsaw: Union of Polish Metropolises.
79.
Union of Polish Metropolises (UMP). 2022b. Urban Hospitality: Unprecedented Growth, Challenges and Opportunities. A Report on Ukrainian Refugees in the Largest Polish Cities. Warsaw: Union of Polish Metropolises.
80.
ValentaMarkoBunarNihad. 2010. “State Assisted Integration: Refugee Integration Policies in Scandinavian Welfare States: The Swedish and Norwegian Experience.” Journal of Refugee Studies23 (4): 463–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/feq028.
81.
VidalRobertoAtehortúaClaraSalcedoJorge. 2013. Local Government Responses to Internal Displacement in Urban Areas: A Study of Bogotá and Cali, Colombia. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
82.
WojtowiczDominika.2024. “Supportive or Destructive? Intergovernmental Relations During Refugee Crisis in Poland from Local Governments’ Perspective.” In New Perspectives on Intergovernmental Relations: Crisis and Reform, edited by KuhlmannSabineLaffinMartinWayenbergEllenBergströmTomas, 121–41. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61790-4_7.
83.
World Bank. 2023. Economic Empowerment of Forcibly Displaced Persons and Their Hosts in Poland. Country Report. Washington, DC: World Bank.
84.
ZalewskiPrzemysław.2022. “Działania administracji państwowej w Polsce wobec uchodźców z Ukrainy w pierwszych tygodniach wojny w Ukrainie 2022 roku: Aspekty prawne i securitologiczne.” Studia Politicae Universitatis Silesiensis34: 101–24. https://doi.org/10.31261/spus.13934.
85.
Zapata-BarreroRicardCaponioTizianaScholtenPeter. 2017. “Theorizing the ‘Local Turn’ in a Multi-Level Governance Framework of Analysis: A Case Study in Immigrant Policies.” International Review of Administrative Sciences83 (2): 241–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852316688426.
