Transcript Swedish immig policy

Swedish immigration policy and
politics: A window on Europe
DANIEL HIEBERT
METROPOLIS BRITISH COLUMBIA, AND
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Outline
 Context: the demographic challenge
 Basic facts about Sweden… and Swedish politics
 Swedish migration and integration policy and
administration
 Possible changes to migration and integration policy
 The lessons of Sweden
Context
The demographic challenge of below-replacement
fertility… general responses:
 Ignore the problem (e.g., Italy)
 Increase net migration (e.g., Canada)
 Raise productivity and elongate working careers
(e.g., Japan)
 Restore fertility (e.g., Sweden)
Sweden: some basic facts
 Population > 9 million
 Size roughly equivalent to Québec
 Government elected by modified proportional
representation

Complex and flexible system with several quirks
 Current government: right-centre coalition led by the
Moderate Party (conservative)

Next election: September 2010
Immigrants in Sweden
 Total population > 1 million (~12.5%)
 Recent flows: 100,000 per year
 Top source countries (1990-2007):










Finland
Former Yugoslavia
Iraq
Iran
Poland
Norway
Denmark
Germany
Turkey
Chile
Swedish politics
 Popular opinion evenly divided
 Right-centre group (49% in latest poll)
 Pink-red-green group (44%)
 Wild card: Sweden Democrats (populist party)
4% rule (currently 4.5% in polls)
 Anti-immigration policy; intention to dismantle multiculturalism
and offer incentives to either assimilate or leave Sweden; recently
expelled vocal racists from party; irony… surprisingly strong
immigrant presence in party

Popular opinion on migration
 Not as ‘troubled’ as other European countries
 Critical dividing point is on the asylum system
 Negative side: concern over ‘bogus’ refugees and enclaves,
parallel lives
 Positive side: support for humanitarian policies including
asylum
 Complex relationship to party politics (e.g., Social
Democrats)
Swedish immigration policy
 EU migration: open borders, unplanned,
unregulated, invisible immigrants


Open Labour Market but not social support
Mentality of Sweden as part of Europe
 Non-EU migration: permanent immigration is
dominated by family reunification and asylum
(mostly from Islamic countries) (nearly 90% of total)

Mentality of immigration as a gift to outsiders who are victims
(public debate is about asylum and ethical issues)

Very different from Canada
Admission systems
 Humanitarian
 Resettlement program (~2000 annually)
NO TRANSPORTATION LOANS
 As in Canada, resettlement location is assigned


Asylum system

Similar institution to IRB
 Family
 Sponsorship requirement … similar to Canada
 Economic
 Stepwise, employment driven
Integration in Sweden
 Swedish society defined by:
 Affluence
 Welfare state with an ethic of redistribution
 Goal of gender equality
 Transparency of the state and the private sphere
 Widely shared cultural norms
 Asylum migration (especially from Islamic countries)
is popularly interpreted as a potential challenge to
these core values
 Frequent statements by Sweden Democrats reinforce
these views
Managing Swedish migration and integration
 National government
 Ministry of Justice includes Minister for Migration and Asylum policy
(Tobias Billström)
 Ministry of Integration and Gender Equity (Nyamko Sabuni)


Establishes integration policy, standards and provides funding
Ministry of Employment (LM issues and employment assistance) (T.
Billström, as of 7 July!)
 Regional government: Negligible role
 Municipal government: Key role
 Develops and administers most programs




Adult education
Social work and counselling
Social housing
Some examples of inter-government cooperation
 Negligible role for NGOs and other partners
Newcomer perspective on services
 All employment related services: Ministry of
Employment

Labour offices distributed throughout Sweden
 All other services: Municipal government
 Fairly coherent and consistent package across jurisdictions


But, inevitable scale differences
Connection (through municipality) to education, housing,
social welfare
Special case of asylum
 Similar to Canada, but some key differences
 With temporary humanitarian visa, there is an offer of
housing (ABO vs. EBO)






Context of social housing
Self-housed asylum seekers live in large cities
State-housed live in periphery
Municipalities have a choice to participate
Interesting connection between asylum and funding for
municipalities
Economic outcomes…
 Recently, asylum seekers entitled to work permits

But exceptionally low employment rates
Changing migration policy
 As in Canada, parties are not very far apart but there
are some significant differences


Left alliance: SDs determined to disperse immigrants and
refugees (“we will not let refugees live where they choose”)
Right alliance: determined to raise economic immigration
Not through open-ended system like Canada
 By opening existing employer-driven system of stepwise
immigration … actively planning and building pathways
 Cautious approach with input from org. labour

Changing integration policy
 Sweeping change planned for December, 2010, if
Moderate party is still in power

Sense of failed outcomes in refugee and family integration
 Process of ’recentralization’



Areas of municipal responsibility will be shifted to the national
Ministry of Employment
Focus will be on preparation for employment, with stronger
incentives to work (e.g., bonuses)
Core indicator of success will be acquisition of a job
 Aside: EU defined integration measures for all states to
use in 2009 (Sweden led this initiative)

Dominated by employment, income, education
New European integration indicators
 Employment (standard measures)
 Education



Average educational attainment
% low-achieving 15-year olds
Drop-out rates
 Social inclusion



Median income; % low income
% property ownership
% perceiving health status as poor
 Active citizenship


% citizenship acquisition
% immigrants among elected representatives
Perspective of the newcomer
 ‘One-stop shopping’ for services
 Plan is for ‘personal coach’ for each newcomer
 Unclear whether the left coalition would support
this… but unlikely
 Municipal governments will resist change
Aside: on data
 How does the Swedish government monitor
outcomes?
 Population register data system… all records linked
for individuals

Widely available to researchers
 (note: there is no census)
 Excellent ‘hard’, longitudinal data; poor ‘soft’ data
Challenges of the Swedish system
 Dominance of high-need asylum newcomers
 Regionalization through housing policy
 Unsatisfactory economic outcomes
 Perceived ghettoization in larger cities
 E.g., riots in Malmoe in June, 2009
 Potential for hostile public debate
 Limits policy development
 General lack of policy-research interface
 Socially, immigration is eclipsed in importance by
focus on fertility and reproduction
The lessons of Sweden
 Policy evolution does not necessarily only go in one
direction

Policy cycle: devolution and then reconcentration
 Excellent data helps in evaluating program outcomes
 Swedish population registry is a 100% data system
 Widely available in government and to academic researchers
 Surprising outcomes (e.g., housing of asylum
seekers)
Sweden as ‘Europe light’
 Sweden has all the debates of Europe, but less of the
acrimony


Migration issues muted by demography; no sense of urgency
Also muted by tradition of social democracy and the welfare
state
 Unfortunately, the less rancorous debates in Sweden
are unlikely to influence other European countries
 Strong interest in Canada on the part of Swedes
 Potential for new debates as employers become more
prominent in the immigration system