The present article offers an account of Swedish integration policies in the post-war period. The theoretical purpose is to assess Christian Joppke's hypothesis that recent trends of integration policy convergence have rendered the national model approach analytically useless. The analysis shows that Sweden deviates, in some important respects, from the European trend by not formulating demands that link integration achievements to immigrants' access to fundamental rights. The conclusion is that the Swedish case does not support Joppke's hypothesis, but rather indicates that path dependency of national models is a valid explanation to ongoing developments. It is argued that the Swedish exception should be understood as an expression of the persistent impact of a policy logic according to which integration requires that all citizens have equal and universal access to certain fundamental rights. The article builds on general comparisons with European policy developments and uses Denmark as a more specific reference point.
This special issue addresses the question of how to understand the civic turn within immigrant integration in the West towards programs and instruments, public discourses and political intentions, which aim to condition, incentivize, and shape through socialization immigrants into ‘citizens’. Empirically, it focuses on the less studied Scandinavian cases of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. In this introduction, we situate the contributions to this special issue within the overall debate on civic integration and convergence. We introduce the three cases, critically discuss the (liberal) convergence thesis and its descriptive and explanatory claims, and explain why studying the Scandinavian welfare states can further our understanding of the nature of the civic turn and its driving forces. Before concluding, we discuss whether civic integration policies actually work.
The settlement and housing of refugees is high on the agenda in most European countries. This article develops a theoretical perspective on the housing provision of newly arrived migrants and applies it on the national discourses on settlement policies in Sweden, Denmark and Norway. The theoretical discussion focuses on the ambivalence between choice and need in housing policy, and between promoting demos and ethnos in integration policy. The empirical analysis takes its departure in these tensions and investigates the national discourses in terms of three potential arguments for restricting autonomy in the housing market precisely for newly arrived migrants: the legal status, resource and neighbourhood arguments. This frame of analysis makes it possible to interpret and understand the surprisingly strong differences in settlement policies between the three countries. We argue that our theoretical approach and analytical framework should be relevant for understanding national political discourses on settlement policy more generally.Ethnic housing segregation and exclusion represents a challenge to the welfare state, and sometimes even a serious threat to urban social order and political cohesion. Although the importance of housing provision in the reception of refugees and other new-coming immigrants is generally acknowledged, national and local settlement policies differ considerably between
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.