MIGRANT INTEGRATION POLICY INDEX 2015

MIPEX – How does a country become the best in the world on integration?

You must remain ambitious to become effective at the process of integration

THOMAS HUDDLESTON, MIGRATION POLICY GROUP

LATEST POLICY COMPARISONS:What are the trends and differences in integration policies in eight areas across Europe and the developed world?

MONITORING STATISTICS:Which integration outcomes can and do different integration policies affect? Which immigrants can and do benefit from these policies?

ROBUST EVALUATIONS:Which countries have robust evaluations of their policies’ effects on integration? Which policies are found to be most effective for improving integration outcomes?

Bringing a new level of maturity and evidence to the often politicised debate about the successes and failures of integration policy

ROBUST EVALUATIONS

•Few robust causal impact evaluations

•Mostly in labour market & education

•Promote standards for evaluation of integration policy effects

LINKS BETWEEN POLICIES, OUTCOMES & PUBLIC OPINION

ALL EU MEMBER STATESICELAND;NORWAY; SWITZERLAND; TURKEY; JAPAN;KOREA;AUSTRALIA; CANADA; NEW ZEALAND; UNITED STATESand more…

LABOUR MARKET MOBILITYFAMILY REUNIONEDUCATION OF CHILDREN POLITICAL PARTICIPATION PERMANENT RESIDENCE ACCESS TO NATIONALITYANTI-DISCRIMINATION

AND NOW HEALTH (in partnership with IOM and the COST/ADAPT research network).

KEY FINDINGS FOR SWEDENCOMMON NEEDS ACROSS EUROPE ● Separated families, esp. vulnerable groups unable to reunite● Many non-EU citizens settled or likely to settle long-term● Few accessing training, benefits, degrees or recognition● Concentration of immigrants in disadvantaged areas/schools● Discrimination victims not reporting incidents

CONTEXT IN SWEDEN● Longstanding destination but now major increase in humanitarian & family newcomers● One of highest employment rates in developed world & many effective education, employment & social policies● Some of most positive public attitudes towards immigrants like Nordics & traditional destinations● Mainstream political and public consensus so far…

KEY FINDINGS FOR SWEDENInternationally, SE’s integration policies tend to be the most: ● Ambitious (Ranked 1st on policies, like FI, NO, CA, NZ)

● Responsive (Similar needs across Northern Europe)

● Evidence-based (One of few using pilots, experiments & robust evaluations to design & change integration policy)

● Well-supported (Favourable economic & political context & general policies in many but not all areas)

● Effective (Reaching more residents in need, with clear outcomes in certain areas and investments in others in programmes proving most effective in evaluations)

● Closely watched (trend-setting as countries slowly move in SE’s direction in many areas of integration…)

LABOUR MARKET MOBILITY

● Most countries opening equal access & general support to non-EU newcomers and increasing their investment in targeted support

● Sweden is piloting & investing in the policies proven most effective for boosting immigrants’ employment by few available robust studies:

● Long-term pay-offs of flexible language training to level needed for high vs. low-skilled sectors, esp. work-specific/based

● Programmes to recognise foreign qualifications, give domestic work experience and provide bridging/new domestic qualifications

● Start-up support for entrepreneurs

Strength of targeted labour market mobility policies, MIPEX 2015

LABOUR MARKET MOBILITY● Labour market integration happens over time (especially in

Sweden leading to one of highest long-term employment rates)● Long-term challenge is getting immigrants into equal quality jobs using their skills & providing a living wage (also in SE)

LABOUR MARKET MOBILITY● Labour market integration happens over time

especially for family migrants & refugees, with Sweden obtaining some of highest long-term employment rates in Europe)

LABOUR MARKET MOBILITY● Education & language skills are key factors driving

employment rates: rates for low-educated in Sweden are among highest in EU & improve from 1st to 2nd generation

LABOUR MARKET MOBILITY● Education & language skills are key factors driving

employment rates: rates for tertiary-educated in Sweden are among highest in EU & improve from 1st to 2nd generation

LABOUR MARKET MOBILITY● Uptake of lifelong learning among non-EU citizens in Sweden is highest in EU &

increasing Uptake of lifelong learning among working-age non-EU citizens in 2011/2

LABOUR MARKET MOBILITY

Uptake of language courses among working-age foreign-born, 2014 EU LFS ad hoc module

● One of highest uptakes in EU of language courses among working-age foreign-born

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION

● Challenge for anti-discrimination law across EU is enforcement but Sweden is far ahead like others with long-established & strong laws, bodies & bodies● The stronger the law, the public is better informed about discrimination over time and, as a result, more likely to report witnessing discrimination and less likely to identify as a discriminated group (Ziller 2014); also greater trust in justice system by immigrants (Roder & Muhlau 2012)

Complaints to equality bodies per self-perceived victims of racial, ethnic & religious discrimination

Strength of anti-discrimination law, MIPEX 2015

EDUCATION

● Several schools systems are reaching low-literacy pupils● Major progress from 1st generation to the 2nd: (near) parity in several countries

EDUCATION● General consensus on early & equal access to all levels, individualised support, mixed schools & parental/community involvement, better trained teachers & role models● Weakness across Europe: Make schools into a space for social integration

FAMILY REUNION● Countries diverge significantly on family definitions & requirements

● New trends to delays for BIPs and restrictions with discretionary exemptions

● Countries with these types of requirements are few, challenged as disproportionate, & seem ineffective for integration outcomes, only limit reunion (Huddleston & Pedersen 2011)

● Delays are negative for children’s and potentially spouses’ education, language and employment outcomes

● Need to better identify & inform/orient skilled non-labour migrants

PERMANENT RESIDENCE● Residence & citizenship policies are key factor, esp. for vulnerable groups ● Permanent residence is normal part of integration process in SE and should not be taken for granted for groups most likely to settle long-term● Potentially positive effects for labour market integration (Corrigan 2013) & long-term settlement (De Waard 2013)

● Naturalisation & political rights can boost political participation for certain groups (Bilgili et al. 2014) & responsiveness of politicians to local needs (Vernby 2013)

ACCESS TO NATIONALITYPOLITICAL PARTICIPATION

ACCESS TO NATIONALITYPOLITICAL PARTICIPATION● Naturalisation also boosts labour market integration (Bilgili et al), discrimination protection/reporting (EU-MIDIS 2008), mobility (Jauer et al. 2014) & housing/ social outcomes

ACCESS TO NATIONALITYPOLITICAL PARTICIPATION

.43%

KEY FINDINGS FOR SWEDENIntegration policies in SE is more ambitious and reaching more immigrants

than in most countries, with investments in programmes proving to be effective for boosting integration outcomes

Beyond the well-known individual and general contextual factors driving integration outcomes, policies can help immigrants in practice to reunite together, get basic training, become permanent residents, eligible voters and citizens and help discrimination victims to know and use their rights

• Employment and education influenced by various factors, but not simply explained by immigrants’ skills and general policy/context; positive effects of specific policies • More ambitious policies seem to reach more immigrant adults and children with training• But immigrants often under-represented in most effective general policies, while targeted policies may be too new, small-scale or general to improve aggregate outcomes (Bilgili 2015)

• Strong long-standing anti-discrimination laws associated with better informed public opinion, higher rates of witnessing discrimination, less identification as discriminated groups (Ziller 2014) and greater trust of immigrants in justice system (Roder & Muhlau 2012)

• Integration policies may influence immigrants’ health outcomes/inequalities (Malmusi 2014)

LINKS BETWEEN SPECIFIC INTEGRATION POLICIES & OUTCOMES

• Family reunion policies are one of key factors for the small # of transnational non-EU families, especially vulnerable groups (Strik et al. 2013, Huddleston and Pedersen 2011) and potentially for boosting labour market outcomes of certain groups (Bisin et al. 2011)

• Path to permanent residence – in interaction with citizenship policies - are likely important factor determining # of permanent residents and boosting their job quality (Corrigan 2013), long-term settlement (De Waard 2012) & mobility under certain conditions (EMN 2013)

• Political participation and citizenship policies are key factors boosting the franchise, participation rates for certain groups/circumstances (Aleksynska 2011) and, potentially, responsiveness of politicians to local needs (Vernby 2013)

• Citizenship policies are very - if not most - important factor driving naturalisation of immigrants from developing countries (Vink et al. 2013) and boosting labour market and political participation for certain groups (Bilgili et al. 2014), discrimination protection/ reporting (EU-MIDIS 2008), mobility, (Jauer et al. 2014) & other outcomes

LINKS BETWEEN SPECIFIC INTEGRATION POLICIES & OUTCOMES

INTEGRATION POLICIES: WHO BENEFITS?

Overall, inclusive integration policies are part of the societies that we want to live in…

•Strong link between integration policies & public opinion, even after controlling for the individual factors determining attitudes (Callens 2015)

•Strong correlations between MIPEX and levels of GDP, Human Development, Global Competitiveness, Patents, Entrepreneurship & Life Satisfaction (Florida 2011)

•Strong link with high-skilled immigration & inward Foreign Direct Investment (Nowotny 2009, 2013)

•Subjective well-being among immigrants rises to match level for native-born in countries with inclusive policies, even after controlling for other key factors (Hadjar & Backes 2013)

INTEGRATION POLICIES: WHO BENEFITS?

INTEGRATION POLICIES: WHO BENEFITS?

CONCLUSIONS● SE’s high bar for success is blessing for integration, curse for debate● Integration is ongoing process (not one moment in time)● Targeted integration policies are also a process and only one key factor for boosting outcomes over time

● Key challenge is to expand access to most effective programmes where immigrants are often under-represented

● Remove any practical obstacles to rapid family reunion, permanent residence & citizenship

● Legal roles for equality NGOs/unions & alternative mechanisms

● Specific migrant health policy to increase intercultural competence

● Structures for dialogue with immigrants & communities

● Communicate the process and the benefits to public