Integration policies (legal, political, socio-economic, cultural) and access to services

"Theoretical background and objectives This project explores how policies regarding immigrant rights and welfare state regimes have affected the socio-economic integration of immigrants. Most of the literature on immigrant integration assumes that the granting of easy access of immigrants to citizenship rights and government recognition and support for cultural diversity promote the socio-economic integration of immigrants. At the same time, existing work (e.g., Borjas, van Tubergen) has shown that immigrants with low human capital resources tend to migrate preferably to countries with equal income distributions and extensive social security protection. This raises the question whether immigrant integration policies that grant easy access to citizenship rights, and thus also full access to welfare state rights, might have the unintended consequence that they produce a high rate of dependence of immigrants on welfare state arrangements and attendant socio-economic marginalisation in other domains. If integration policies in addition do not demand cultural assimilation (e.g., in the domain of language) the risk of lower-skilled immigrants to become dependent on welfare benefits may further increase. This hypothesis of an interaction effect between integration policies and welfare state regimes is confronted with cross-national data on labour market participation, residential segregation, and imprisonment of immigrants. Where possible, these comparisons are controlled for cross-national differences in the composition of immigrant populations by drawing on comparative data for particular ethnic groups. The analysis includes eight West European countries that have turned into immigration countries at roughly the same time in the 1960s and early 1970s, where institutions have therefore had several decades to affect integration outcomes. They vary both strongly regarding integration policies (including the highest, Sweden, and the second lowest scoring country, Austria, in the 2007 Migrant Integration Policy Index) and regarding welfare state regimes (with Sweden and the United Kingdom at the extremes). Research design, data and methodology The study relies on various indicators of immigrant rights, prevalent typologies and indicators of welfare state regimes, and data from the European Labour Force Survey, International Prison Statistics, as well as results from a large number of previous studies on immigrants' labour market participation, residential segregation and imprisonment. To control for composition effects, the labour market data refer to immigrants from non-EU countries, and for specific country contrasts specific ethnic groups (Turks and ex-Yugoslavs). Residential segregation data refer to a few dozen European cities, partly referring to specific ethnic groups (e.g., Turks, Maghrebians, Caribbeans, Pakistani) and partly to more general categories (Muslims, foreigners, immigrants). Findings Across the three domains of socio-economic integration a consistent cross-national patterns is found (with the exception of residential segregation in the United Kingdom) in which the gap or the degree of segregation between immigrants and the native population is largest in the countries that combine easy access to citizenship rights and a large degree of accommodation of cultural differences with a relatively encompassing and generous welfare state (Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium). Both the United Kingdom, which combines inclusive integration policies with low welfare state provision levels, and the three Germanophone countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland), which combine restrictive policies with – at least in the German and Austrian cases – moderately strong welfare states, show relatively small gaps between immigrants and natives. These findings are confirmed for contrast comparisons for specific ethnic groups. For instance, compared to the native population, Turks in the Netherlands have much lower rates of labour market participation than German Turks, and similarly ex-Yugoslavs in Austria perform much better than those in Sweden. Because the results are mostly based on aggregate data – although some of the studies that are used do control for individual-level variables – they need to be further tested by taking individual and local context data more systematically into account. This will be one of the aims of the analyses in the context of project 6.3 further below."

The Multiculturalism Policy Index assesses the government commitment to the multicultural accommodation of newcomers. It is designed to monitor the evolution of multicultural policies across 21 Western countries. The Multiculturalism Policy Index is distinctive in focusing exclusively on multicultural policies designed to recognize, accommodate and support the cultural differences of minority groups. To capture change over time, the Index provides all three indices at three points in time: 1980, 2000 and 2010. Multicultural Policy Index is based on eight indicators: (i) constitutional, legislative or parliamentary affirmation of multiculturalism, at the central and/or regional and municipal levels; (ii) the adoption of multiculturalism in school curriculum; (iii) the inclusion of ethnic representation/sensitivity in the mandate of public media or media licensing; (iv) exemptions from dress codes, either by statute or by court cases; (v) allowing of dual citizenship; (vi) the funding of ethnic group organizations to support cultural activities; (vii) the funding of bilingual education or mother-tongue instruction; (viii) affirmative action for disadvantaged immigrant groups On each indicator, countries are scored as 0 (no such policy), 0.5 (partial) or 1.0 (clear policy). The scores are then aggregated, with equal weighting for each area (‘recognition’ (Indicators 1–3), ‘accommodation’(Indicators 4–5) and ‘support’ (Indicators 6–8), and producing a country score ranging from 0 to 8.

"Theoretical background and objectives The project contributes to societal and scientific debate by examining the relationship between integration policies and the socio-cultural integration of immigrants in three European countries that have pursued contrasting integration policies: France, Germany and the Netherlands. Socio-cultural integration is treated as a two-dimensional concept consisting of the degree of host culture adoption and the degree of ethnic retention. Following Berry (1997) these two dimensions are seen as – at least potentially – independent. Both dimensions are measured on the basis of four indicators. The degree of host culture adoption is measured as identification with the host country, host country language proficiency, host country language usage and social contacts with natives. The degree of ethnic retention is measured as identification with Turks, Turkish language proficiency, identification with Muslims and the observance of Islamic religious rules (halal diet, participation in Ramadan, mosque visits and headscarf wearing). The project tests several theories of immigrant assimilation in a cross-national perspective: theories em­phasis­ing material costs and benefits of retention and adoption, which claim that assimilation pressures will lead to adoption of the host culture and multicultural policies will promote ethnic retention; acculturative stress theories that pose that adoption is less likely to occur if it is seen as requiring the rejection of the culture of origin; and reactive ethnicity theories, which assume that immigrants withdraw in their ethnic cultures if they face assimilation pressures. In addition, the project pays special attention to naturalisation policies: Based on the widespread assumption that easily accessible citizenship promotes socio-cultural integration, two hypotheses are tested. First, whether naturalised immigrants display higher levels of socio-cultural integration than non-naturalised immigrants. Second, whether immigrants in countries with few preconditions for naturalisation show higher levels of socio-cultural integration. Research design, data and methodology Most previous comparative studies have not been able to control sufficiently for compositional effects related to the timing of immigration and the national and regional composition of immigrant populations. By choosing a quasi-experimental design, the project sought to eliminate such composition effects as far as possible. Therefore, original data were collected based on a telephone survey in the three countries that targeted a selected group of Turkish immigrants and their direct offspring originating in two rural regions of Turkey, who migrated before 1975. Thus, the sample (n = 1 000) excludes all follow-up migration of Turkish refugees and marriage migrants, which occurred to varying degrees in the three countries, and ensures that we are comparing similar immigrants in the three countries, and not predominantly urban Turkish guest workers from Istanbul in one country to Kurdish refugees in another country. All respondents had the option to answer the questionnaire either in Turkish or in their host-country language. The survey data were analysed using multivariate regression techniques, and took into account a range of individual-level control variables as well as the local density of the Turkish immigrant population. The quantitative findings were corroborated and refined with almost 90 additional in-depth interviews. Findings Results show that ethnic retention is strongest in the Netherlands, where multicultural policies were long prevalent, while host culture adoption is strongest in the French context, which has more strongly emphasised assimilation, at least where participation in the public realm is concerned. On the individual level, there is a negative relationship between ethnic retention and host culture adoption, which persists after controlling for relevant background variables. Naturalisation is positively associated with socio-cultural integration only in those countries—France and Germany—that have traditionally required a certain degree of cultural assimilation from their new citizens. Regarding country differences, the analyses reveal that Turkish immigrants in France show higher levels of host culture adoption on all four indicators. For host-country identification, they share this position with Dutch Turks. Taken together, these results provide no support for reactive ethnicity theories, as ethnic retention was strongest in the Netherlands, where citizenship policies have been most inclusive. They do provide support for a combination of material cost/benefit perspectives and acculturative stress perspectives, as neither a lack of incentives for adoption of the host culture (as was long the case in the Netherlands) nor very restrictive citizenship policies that promote an ethnically thick conception of citizenship (as long prevalent in Germany) have been successful in seducing immigrants to adopt the host culture. The results show that limited cultural assimilation conditions tied to an otherwise inclusive notion of citizenship (as in France) may be more helpful in promoting socio-cultural integration, but they also demonstrate that the allowance of dual nationality does not have the negative effects that are sometimes ascribed to it."

This paper describes the policy framework regarding the integration of migrants in the Netherlands. The Dutch government has not enacted a specific integration policy but instead has a strategic focus on participation and social diversity in general, with a particular focus on the importance of shared core national values in the integration of migrants. Two particular policy tools are discussed, starting with the compulsory civic integration system, which includes language and cultural elements and is compulsory. Civic integration tests are arranged in the countries of origin and since 2013, migrants have been required to cover the costs of their own courses and examinations. Second, the so-called “participation agreements” are described and discussed, which, in line with the Dutch emphasis on shared national values, aim to enforce acceptance of particular fundamental norms of Dutch society on newcomers. Finally, the report concludes with a brief discussion of the role of domestic organisations in supporting migrants, followed by a succinct overview of the current popular debates concerning migration in the Netherlands.

The civic integration policy index (CIVIX) addresses civic integration requirements in EU-15. It analyses three target civic knowledge areas (country knowledge, language and values) for entry, settlement and citizenship acquisition. The scale of the CIVIX is 0 to 6: a high score indicates ‘thick’ citizenship content. A low score represents ‘thin’ citizenship content, with minimal or easy content requirements for obtaining status. The coding of requirements takes into account four distinct dimensions: the category of third-country nationals accountable, specifically family unification; whether civic conditions are required for entry, settlement or citizenship; the number of requirements across the civic targets of country knowledge, language and values, including integration courses, tests, contracts, oath ceremonies and interviews; and, finally, the severity of requirements along the path to citizenship (for example, a ‘high’ level of language proficiency or cost). This dimension is also reflected in point valuation, where more points are assigned to language and knowledge requirements at the settlement stage than at naturalisation, where a longer period of residency engenders greater linguistic and knowledge competence. In order to understand the ‘depth’ of current citizenship content and the degree of policy change over time, values were assigned for each of the 17 countries in 1997 and 2009 respectively.

Civic integration represents a modern phenomenon in the field of integration of immigrants in Europe. Until the end of the 20th century, integration policies in Europe were perceived from the point of view of national models characteristic for particular countries. However, at the turn of the century, a new approach to integration policies, which is referred to as civic integration, emerged. It is used by countries whose traditional approaches to immigrant integration have varied considerably. And, as this work points out, the model is further extending to Central European countries, which are tackling with some degree of immigration as well. The research aims at studying the implementation of the civic integration model in Central Europe, on the example of Austria and the Czech Republic. It will focus on issues of multilevel governance in the field of civic integration in the countries concerned, with an emphasis on the role of local governments in the process of policy making and implementation, and their comparison. The research will use documentary analysis as well as semi-structured interviews and participant observation of integration activities themselves. The outputs of the project are to contribute to the widening of knowledge about the use of civic integration measures in countries that are not sufficiently covered in the scientific debate. The results of the research will also be used in the dissertation work of the principal researcher.

In Denmark immigration has been politically very salient, and since the mid-1990s immigration has been negatively associated with the rising numbers of Muslims in the population. Integration policies over the last fifteen years have become increasingly comprehensive and thickly textured, focusing not only on labour market participation and education, but also on the civic dimensions of social and political participation, liberal-democratic norms and substantial welfare-state egalitarianism, as well as identity and loyalty. Local municipalities are responsible for the implementation of most policies and generally adopt a pragmatic approach. Since 2011, when a social-democratic-led government came to power, integration policies have become less politicized. Various programs, hitherto collected in one designated Ministry of Integration have now been placed under different ministerial jurisdictions and are connected, more than previously, to existing programs that target vulnerable citizens.

"In this project, we investigate the (sometimes unintended) consequences of policies that have been implemented to regulate immigration and to subsequently facilitate the socio-economic integration of newly arrived immigrants. (1) Networks: First, we exploit a natural experiment in Switzerland, where asylum seekers are randomly assigned to cantons. This immigration policy can be regarded as a transparent and neutral way of distributing refugees across a country to “share a burden”. At the same time, such restrictions regarding free movement within a country come with hefty consequences for the persons affected. On the one hand, a large share of jobs are found through referrals within social networks: in the US, for instance, around 30-60% (Bewley, 2007). At least since Granovetter (1973), a rich theoretical literature has rationalized this fact by modelling networks as non-market institutions that help overcome information frictions inherent in the labor market. From workers' perspective, networks grant their members preferential access to information on high-quality job openings, e.g. as in Calvo-Armengol and Jackson (2004). On the firm side, networks may help alleviate the asymmetric information problem in hiring leading potentially to a better job-match, e.g. as in Beaman and Magruder (2012). In our study, we focus on the value of social networks from the perspective of workers. Swiss asylum policy provides a unique natural experiment to study the effects of social networks on labor market outcomes. Because of the truly exogenous placement, long horizon over which the policy was in place and the large sample size, we can delve deeper into the mechanisms of how social networks affect labor market integration than previous studies have done and look at network structure beyond simply its size. Our findings will enable us to distinguish among a large set of theoretical models of the value of networks from the point of view of individual job seekers. (2) Maternity: At the same time, such immigration policies also affect the social integration of immigrants and, in our case, individual health and wellbeing. Specifically, we exploit the same unique setting to assess the relevance of information on infants' health. Random allocation of asylum seekers in Switzerland allows us to first, study the spatial differences in health care provision across the country. Further, by exploiting that French-speaking refugees are randomly placed in French- or non-French-speaking regions, we can credibly identify the language-match-health-gap, based on refugees that do not speak French as a control group and placed on either side of the language border (in a Difference in Differences framework). By extending the language to a novel (continuous) measure of language distance, we are able to factor out country of origin effects using bi-lateral regressions. A second strand of policies targets the (economic) integration of immigrants and generally of persons outside the labor market. A common approach is to provide measures, so-called Active Labor Market Programs (ALMP) that enhance a jobseeker’s employability (e.g., through additional human capital) or that keep a person close to the labor market through occupational programs. (3) Access Bias: Some measures, however, can negatively affect labor market outcomes, such as unemployment duration and post-unemployment wages, because of factors such as human capital deprivation or lock-in effects. Based on encompassing registry data that allow researchers to control for usually unobserved employability variables, we find evidence of a systematic access bias whereby caseworkers in Switzerland assign unemployed immigrants to activation measures based on what we call a competition logic that is mainly driven by and conforms to an economic rationale and the job center’s performance evaluation. From the perspective of immigrants’ labor market integration, this may be problematic because it results in an overrepresentation of immigrants in measures with little efficacy rather than in measures that could compensate for (some of) their employability disadvantages. Conversely, we find that Swiss citizens are relatively advantaged in the ability to access more measures that promote human capital enhancement (compensation logic) and that have been shown to be successful tools for labor market reintegration. It is plausible that a stronger reliance on the competition logic by caseworkers and the consequential overrepresentation of migrants in low-efficacy measures amplifies migrants’ general labor market disadvantages. (4) Priming: This rather negative stance on integration measures in the form of ALMPs is further advanced by a study where we present indications that ALMP participants are pushed into lower paying jobs compared to equally qualified non-participants. In this study on the effect of subjective beliefs on employment outcomes we find that the employment chances one year after the start of unemployment increase for both ALMP participants and non-participants when self-control and employment beliefs are high. In contrast, higher initial reservation wages increase employment chances for non-participants but substantially reduce them for ALMP participants. Previous studies have shown that beneficial effects of activation measures are often abrogated by lock-in effects, human capital deprivation, and/or negative signals to prospective employers, all of which are particularly harmful for highly skilled workers and higher-paying jobs. We argue that these detrimental effects ultimately push ALMP participants into jobs below their expected salary, where the negative consequences of activation measures are less pronounced. (5) Heterogeneity: A related aspect that is crucial from an integration perspective is whether such effects of ALMPs differ across groups, that is, whether the participation of “natives” turns out to have different consequences for their labor market performance compared to participating immigrants. In this study, we argue that effect heterogeneity between native and migrant participants can provide information about the type of discrimination that migrants face in the labor market. Using encompassing administrative data from Switzerland, we observe all registered jobseekers in 2004 and follow their monthly labor market trajectories over 10 subsequent years. Our findings are consistent with earlier evaluations of ALMPs in Switzerland and elsewhere, which find that participation effects of ALMPs are limited and sometimes even negative. However, findings show that employers value the additional productivity-related information of ALMP participation more if participants have a foreign nationality. We infer that labor market discrimination against migrants is dominated by statistical reasoning on the part of prospective employers. (6) LM-Index: Eventually, we provide a meta-analytical study where we argue that comparative assessments of integration policies fail to properly take confounding factors into account. That is, immigrant groups exposed to integration policies in different countries differ in their characteristics because immigration policies and migrants’ destination choice induce an ex-ante bias. To circumvent this limit to comparative analyses, we aspire to collect and generate data on all existing policy dimensions and subsequently provide a comparative analysis of immigrants’ labor market integration in industrialized countries."

The author has developed a nationalist immigration and integration policy index to measure legislative changes with regard to immigration and integration policy. The index measures to what extent the legislative output on immigration and integration of governments in 9 countries has a (radical) right-wing signature. The analysis covers the period 1996–2010. The index focuses on policy changes on citizenship, asylum, illegal residence/regularisation, family reunion and civic integration (language requirements and tests, etc.). The index analyses policy changes based on a series of requirement indicators on requirements (e.g., years required for citizenship acquisition). In order to assess optimally the range and substance of changes implied in new legislation, varying sources have been used. Apart from scrutinising primary legislative sources, expert reports, articles and books have been consulted for contextual information.

In the last decades Portugal has become a new receiving country of international migration flows. This report seeks to provide an overview of immigrant integration policies in Portugal. Special focus is given to evolving integration policy tools and to the role of state and non-state actors in the promotion of migrants’ integration. Furthermore, the report also addresses local-level policies stressing new forms of governance and good practices. The implementation of a policy of inclusion and interculturality has brought major changes to immigration phenomena in Portugal, though the present-day economic and social crisis constitutes a major challenge to be dealt with, especially in a European context of rising anti-immigration discourses and xenophobia.

MIPEX is a unique tool to compare and evaluate governments’ integration policies in all EU Member States and several non-EU countries (Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and the USA). 167 policy indicators have been developed to create a rich, multi-dimensional picture of migrants’ opportunities to participate in society. The index is a useful tool to evaluate and compare what governments are doing to promote the integration of migrants in all the countries analysed.

This research report gives an overview of the context and tools of integration policies in Estonia. As the overview suggests, the sphere of integration policy is in tension and is partially securitised, particularly due to conflicting goals with the Compatriot Policy of the Russian Federation. The field of integration is still dominantly focused on the Russophone population who immigrated to Estonia during the Soviet period. Estonian At the same time, integration policies are also beginning to deal with new immigrants, and the government institutions are starting to implement policies targeted to that particular group. There are also three distinct groups of nongovernmental organisations operating in the field of integration policy: the cultural associations funded by the government and in accordance with national integration policy goals, the political minority associations—among which several probably receive funding from Russia, and NGOs providing services, which have rather different profiles. However, there are also a number of for-profit firms, public schools etc. that get funding from the state integration budget and provide services. This results from the outsourcing of integration-related activities by government institutions.

The Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) is a unique tool which measures policies to integrate migrants. The MIPEX aims to address this by providing a comprehensive tool which can be used to assess, compare and improve integration policy. The index is a useful tool to evaluate and compare what governments are doing to promote the integration of migrants in all the countries analysed. The tool allows you to dig deep into the multiple factors that influence the integration of migrants into society and allows you to use the full MIPEX results to analyse and assess past and future changes in policy. The MIPEX includes 38 countries in order to provide a view of integration policies across a broad range of differing environments. Countries included are all EU Member States, Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and the USA. 167 policy indicators have been developed to create a rich, multi-dimensional picture of migrants’ opportunities to participate in society. MIPEX addresses 8 policy areas of integration: Labour Market Mobility, Family Reunion, Education, Political Participation, Long-term Residence, Access to Nationality, Anti-discrimination and Health. Thanks to the relevance and rigor of its indicators, the MIPEX has been recognised as a common quick reference guide across Europe. Policymakers, NGOs, researchers, and European and international institutions are using its data not only to understand and compare national integration policies, but also to improve standards for equal treatment.

This paper gives an outline of existing national and political discourse pertaining to integration policies and actions in Malta. We will show how, although the number of migrants residing in Malta has increased and doubled over the past decade, the same cannot be said of national integration actions or the implementation of a holistic national integration policy. In this regard, the author is not aware of any specific integration tools used in-country, nor of any tools or agreements used prior to departure in the country of origin. The paper also examines the role and position of non-state actors in Malta. Much of the public and political discourse relating to the integration of migrants is driven by international organisations present in Malta and locally registered non-governmental organisations (NGOs). However, an absence of migrant-led NGOs has also been noted. Finally, a brief overview of the existing bilateral and multilateral international agreements signed by Malta that may have an impact on the integration of migrants is also given.

In the framework of the EU-funded project CrossMigration, the Migration Policy group produced a set of indicators to comparative analyse migration and integration policies, similar to the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX). The set of indicators allows researchers and policy makers to compare policies in different areas of migration and integration policies and different countries on that. To allow for a cross-country comparative and longitudinal analysis, the dataset included 39 countries (EU28 and other European countries) for 2014 and 2019. The indicators cover eight policy areas: Family reunion; Citizenship; Permanent residence; Labour market; Education; Political participation; Anti-discrimination; Health.

While integration policies as such are not new, and in some countries date back to the 1980s and beyond, there have been important shifts in the debates on integration and in related re-configurations of integration policymaking in the past decade or so. In particular, there has been an increasing linkage of integration and admission policy and a related shift of focus towards integration of newcomers. Against this background, the PROSINT project has set out to • Evaluate the impact of admission related integration policies on the integration of newcomers • Analyse the different logics underlying integration policy making • Investigate the main target groups of compulsory and voluntary integration measures. Altogether, the study covered 9 countries (AT, CH, CZ, DE, ES, IT, NL, SE, UK).

This paper reviews the comparative multi-level quantitative research on the links between integration policies, the integration situation of immigrants and a wide range of individual and contextual factors. Twenty-one reviewed studies and additional supporting articles indicate that a number of individual and contextual variables explain most of the variation between countries in terms of immigrants’ labour market integration, educational attainment, naturalisation and political participation. Thanks to the use of MIPEX and similar indices, some evidence is emerging that certain integration policies can be related to the specific integration outcomes that they aim to address. So far, only certain general and targeted employment policies can be directly associated with better labour market outcomes for immigrants and a lower incidence of employment discrimination. More indirectly, facilitating naturalisation, a secure residence and a secure family life seems to have positive effects on boosting labour market outcomes for certain immigrants. In the area of employment, studies rarely focus on a specific policy or properly match it to its specific intended target group and outcome. In the area of education, the inclusiveness of the school and education system seems to matter most for immigrant and non-immigrant pupils. Although targeted immigrant education policies adopted at national level do not display consistent results across countries in terms of pupils’ tests scores, most studies conclude that inclusive schools and education systems are more successful when they also target the specific needs of immigrant pupils. Several studies on the acquisition of nationality find that naturalisation policies are perhaps the strongest determinant of the naturalisation rates for immigrants from developing countries. Further research can explore which specific elements of naturalisation policies most help or hinder naturalisation. The few studies on political participation find that targeted policies and the acquisition of nationality may boost participation rates for certain immigrant groups. The fact that studies find no link between the general integration policy (i.e. MIPEX overall score) and a specific labour market outcome (i.e. employment rates for foreign-born) does mean that no causal relationship exist between integration policies and outcomes across countries. Considering that this multi-level research is still in infancy, studies have great room for improvement in terms of their use of databases and methodological tools. A more robust methodological approach using new international datasets can better explore the nuanced links between policies and societal outcomes. Future research needs to pay greater attention to linking a specific integration policy with its actual target group and target outcomes. Studies must also take into account time-sensitive contextual factors and general policies. International surveys can improve their measurement of integration policy outcomes in terms of longterm residence, family reunification, anti-discrimination, language learning, and, to some extent, political participation.

Intercultural Cities Index is an important instrument to assess whether the intercultural integration approach leads to a better quality of life in diverse cities. The Council of Europe’s Intercultural Cities Network entrusted Migration Policy Group (MPG) to validate its Index because of our unique expertise on indicators and multilevel governance. Migration Policy Group's (MPG) key finding—that intercultural cities are better places to live—was presented to hundreds of local authorities at the Network’s 10th Anniversary. The research identified the links between cities’ intercultural policies, national integration policies and local well-being, establishing that the most intercultural cities are better places to live. The study established that local policies can be more important than national policies for successful integration.

Against the background of intense discussions on the integration of third country nationals, integration policies and integration measures became increasingly important within general migration policies. How the responsible authorities evaluate the effectiveness of their policies has not been researched so far and a systematic comparison of methods used for impact analysis of integration measures and experiences made by the authorities is missing. This study investigates the perspectives and experiences of authorities and experts dealing with integration of immigrants in Austria and in selected EU member states (including Denmark, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom). Aim of the study and objectives The goals of the study are (1) to prepare a comparative analysis of methods used for evaluating the effectiveness of integration policy measures in selected member states of the EU, (2) to assess the possibilities and limitations of impact analysis of integration policy measures and (3) to formulate a concrete proposal for the systematic impact analysis of such measures. The main research questions of the study are: • How is the effectiveness of integration policy measures evaluated in EU Member States? Which methods are employed for impact analysis? • What are the main results of those evaluations? Are there plans to adapt or further develop the methods of impact analysis? • To what extent and in which way do the results of evaluations of integration policy measures contribute to the development of integration policies? • What is the contribution of academic research to the development of impact analysis? In how far is it possible to better integrate results of research studies into policy development? Outcomes • Summary report • 7 country reports

The National Integration Evaluation Mechanism (NIEM) is a six-years long transnational project (2016-2021) which aims to prepare key actors in the integration field in 15 EU Member States to better face the current challenges and improve the integration outcomes of beneficiaries of international protection. NIEM establishes a mechanism for a biennial, comprehensive evaluation of the policies to foster integration of beneficiaries of international protection, to provide evidence on gaps in integration standards, identify promising practices and evaluate the effects of legislative and policy changes. The tool allows for cross-country comparison in the dimensions of legal integration (residency, family unity and reunification, access to citizenship), socio-economic integration (housing, employment, vocational training, health and social security) and socio-cultural integration (education, language learning/social orientation and building bridges). 14 countries were included in the first round of assessment (2017). Results have been scored on a scale from 0 to 100, ranging from least favourable to most favourable provisions.

The INTEGRIM research training programme aims to establish a multi-site network of early stage researchers (predominantly PhD students) at the eight partner institutions fostering a multidisciplinary research career on International Migration and Integration within the European context. The network will apply a qualification framework with a compatible set of qualifications/knowledge/skills across the national systems for graduates of the INTEGRIM programme. Besides, the INTEGRIM research training programme will address the integration challenges that migration flows pose to policy makers, civil society and industrial partners in Europe. The main features of the proposed research training programme can be described as follows: (1) provide high quality research training on integration policies and processes in the European Union and neighbouring countries. It aims to enhance the quality of the existing knowledge of scholars, policy makers, practitioners, economic actors and civil society dealing with integration. (2) contribute to the creation of an international inter-sectoral and multidisciplinary critical mass on the politics of integration and more specifically on cultural and identity management, citizenship and political participation, labour and social integration and urban integration, residential patterns and mobility. (3) enrich the political and social debate through a transnational multidisciplinary analysis on the causes and conditions leading to migrant integration and economic, social and territorial cohesion. The network aims to bring together key actors with proven experience and knowledge of integration policies and processes from academic, enterprise, civil society and public backgrounds. (4) provide EU policy makers and practitioners with qualitative and quantitative scientific tools to inform their decision making and implementation processes on the four indicated integration policy areas. The proposed programme aims to contribute to the EU’s integration agenda on the basis of the coherent approach to integration pursued at EU level and fostered by the European Commission.

This report provides an overview of existing social science knowledge about Norwegian residents of Indian origin. This is relevant for policy makers in Europe and India, because the Norwegian case, in spite of its small size, is well documented. On this basis, the report theorizes how diasporas produce economic development. The report starts with a critical literature review, and proceeds with thematic chapters on history, demography, socio-economic integration, legal framework, and socio-cultural integration. For each topic, the report summarizes findings from all existing quantitative and qualitative research, showing the Indian diaspora to be a particularly successful non-Western minority in a Western host country. The report, therefore, gives some sense of why the Indian diaspora in Norway is interpreted as successful case of economic and cultural integration. But the report also addresses the level of international integration, in economic and cultural terms, between the areas of arrival and the areas of origin. Pushing beyond the limitations of methodological nationalism, the report conceptualizes diaspora communities as transnational social capital, which contribute to future economic development, within the historical context of geographically uneven development. The report discusses the conceptual implications regarding key issues like internal and external colonialism, intersectional discrimination, national cultural plurality, and remittances as development strategy. In sum, the report suggests an approach for future diaspora research. The phenomena of socio-economic and socio-cultural ﾓintegrationﾔ should be discussed not only within a national context, as an issue of inclusion within a host nation, but also transnationally, as an issue of ties or even fellowship between different nations.

En Belgique, les citoyens de l’UE et les ressortissants de pays tiers ont le droit de voter aux élections locales. Les ressortissants de pays tiers jouissent de ce droit après cinq ans de résidence ininterrompue en Belgique. Les citoyens de l’UE ont également le droit de se présenter comme candidat aux élections locales. De plus, ces derniers ont le droit de voter et de se présenter comme candidats aux élections européennes. Les droits électoraux des citoyens belges résidant à l’étranger sont plus restrictifs. En effet, les citoyens non-résidents ont le droit de voter mais pas de se présenter comme candidats aux élections législatives. Les citoyens belges ont également le droit de voter aux élections européennes s’ils résident dans un pays membre de l’UE ou dans un pays tiers mais seuls les Belges résidant dans un autre Etat Membre de l’UE peuvent se présenter comme candidats. En Belgique, une fois inscrits, tous les électeurs sont obligés de voter. Malgré les campagnes de sensibilisation menées par différentes institutions et des associations de la société civile lors des dernières élections, une difficulté majeure à laquelle restent confrontés les électeurs est le manque d’information concernant les procédures d’inscription et le processus politique de manière plus générale. Une manière d’encourager la participation politique des résidents non-belges serait de formaliser les stratégies de diffusion de l’information et de communiquer avec les nouveaux résidents dans différentes langues.

Indian and Chinese nationals comprise two of the largest foreign-born nationality groups in the United States - and are growing rapidly. Indian and Chinese immigrants tend to enter the United States through skilled migration channels - either pursuing further education, or entering on temporary work visas for specialty occupations - and go on to enjoy higher employment rates and higher median household incomes than the US-born population. Despite these successes, these groups still face some integration challenges, like cultural integration and English language proficiency. Immigrant integration services in the United States are relatively decentralized, with crucial services provided by a wide array of actors. Federal funds are usually directed and supplemented by state and local government actors; who then work closely with civil society organizations, including Indian and Chinese diaspora groups, to provide support in areas like social services, language training, credential recognition, and naturalization assistance. Meanwhile, India and China are starting to expand their diaspora engagement activities to include integration services at destination.

The book illustrates the results of the new edition of the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX). MIPEX is a unique tool which measures policies to integrate migrants in countries across five continents, including all EU Member States (including the UK), other European countries (Albania, Iceland, North Macedonia, Moldova, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine), Asian countries (China, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, and South Korea), North American countries (Canada, Mexico and US), South American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile), and Australia and New Zealand in Oceania. MIPEX analyses integration policies in the following eight areas of integration: Labour market mobility; Family reunification; Education; Political participation; Permanent residence; Access to nationality; Anti-discrimination; and Health. To cite: Solano, Giacomo & Huddleston, Thomas (2020). Migrant Integration Policy Index 2020. Barcelona/ Brussels: CIDOB and MPG. ISBN: 978-84-92511-83-9

The complex issue of the so-called Turkish settlers in Cyprus figures prominently in public debate on both sides of the divided island, as well as in international deliberations on the Cyprus problem. The political sensitivities that surround the issue combine with a lack of reliable information and data to mar these discussions. This report on the political integration of the ‘settlers’ in northern Cyprus seeks to contribute to more informed discourse and to stimulate further research on this important issue. An examination of the voting patterns of the Turkish ‘settlers’ since their arrival in Cyprus shows that an ethnic voting pattern prevailed until 1990. Since then, however, ‘settler votes’ have been distributed among a range of mainstream political parties, with a majority of votes going to conservative parties. The analysis also reveals that the claim that the ‘settlers’ in Cyprus constitute an extension of the official politics of mainland Turkey is erroneous. The report shows that the ‘settlers’ are more integrated into the Turkish-Cypriot political community than is often believed. Beyond Numbers also suggests that the discussion on the ‘settler issue’ would benefit from a distinction between those who are temporary residents (among them, numerous ‘guest workers’ and university students) and those who have obtained citizenship – and hence the right to vote – in the ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’ (TRNC). While the ‘settler’ label only meaningfully applies to individuals within the latter category, the electoral lists examined for this report indicate that voters originating from mainland Turkey constitute no more than 20–25% of the total electorate in northern Cyprus. ‘Settler’ influence on politics in northern Cyprus is thus both less and less uniform than is often claimed. Mete Hatay is a Project Leader at the PRIO Cyprus Centre. In 2003 and 2004, he worked extensively with PRIO’s Public Information Project aimed at providing accurate and non-partisan information on the ‘Annan Plan’. He has for many years conducted research on different minority groups in Cyprus.

While integration policies as such are not new, and in some countries date back to the 1980s and beyond, there have been important shifts in the debates on integration and in related re-configurations of integration policymaking in the past decade or so. In particular, there has been an increasing linkage of integration and admission policy and a related shift of focus towards integration of newcomers. Against this background, the PROSINT project has set out to • Evaluate the impact of admission related integration policies on the integration of newcomers • Analyse the different logics underlying integration policy making • Investigate the main target groups of compulsory and voluntary integration measures. Altogether, the study covered 9 countries (AT, CH, CZ, DE, ES, IT, NL, SE, UK). Project partners: Multicultural Centre Prague (CZ); European Forum for Migration Studies (efms) (DE); International and European Forum of Migration Research (IT); Erasmus University Rotterdam and School of Management and Governance, Social Risks and Safety Studies, University of Twente (NL); University of Barcelona (ES); Social Policy Research Centre, University of Middlesex (GB); Department of Politics, University of Sheffield (GB)

This project investigates the role of civil society organisations (CSOs) for new migrants in superdiverse contexts. It explores whether CSOs are instrumental in the building of social relations during their settlement process. This social aspect of settlement, also described as social integration, is crucial regarding other aspects of settlement such as access to education, housing and the labour market. The project also looks at the role of CSOs regarding the relationships which long-term residents, both of ethnic majority and minority backgrounds, form with newcomers, addressing issues surrounding integration as ‘two-way-process’. The project will lead to novel findings because: • Rather than focussing on established ethnic minorities, it investigates patterns of integration of people originating from relatively new source countries who settle into already superdiverse contexts • It is situated within an emerging research field on new conditions of superdiversity which have rarely been explored systematically • It goes beyond existing quantitative work on civil society participation • It will develop theory around social contact, social capital and integration nuancing current thinking around the role of CSOs in settlement Superdiversity has resulted from changing immigration patterns into Europe, with people entering cities in substantial numbers, and from far more countries of origin than ever before. This has resulted in a condition of more ethnicities, languages, religions, migration experiences, work and living conditions and legal statuses than many cities have ever faced (Vertovec 2007). By way of in-depth ethnographic fieldwork and interviews in two UK urban neighbourhoods, and drawing on existing theory, method and policy, the project will elicit how new migrants settle in such contexts, how long-term residents deal with unprecedented population changes, and what the role of CSOs is in this process.

This report discusses the emergence of a European integration policy with a view to analysing the policy of EU Member States to require third-country immigrants (including Indian nationals) to comply with so-called integration conditions. It examines integration conditions as provided for in EU and national law and their specific role in integration policies. Do integration conditions promote the integration process or do they primarily constitute an obstacle for mobility to the EU? The report provides examples of how Member States condition (pre- and postentry) integration in their national policies to illuminate the current state of affairs.

The aim of the paper is to address and analyze the process of integration of migrants and returnees into Ukrainian society while applying the following criteria, set by the Migration Integration Policy Index: anti-discrimination and equity; access to education, social benefits system and healthcare; employment opportunities; grade of execution of the right for a freedom of movement and choice of a free place of residence; level of legally-enforced mechanisms aimed at guaranteeing access to citizenship of Ukraine through the process of naturalization as well as various economic and socio-political rights and lawful interests.

The ELECLAW indicators measure the degree of inclusion of the electoral franchise for three categories of potential voters or candidates: resident citizens, non-resident citizens and non-citizen residents. They cover both the right to vote (VOTLAW) and the right to stand as candidate (CANLAW) in three types of elections (presidential/executive, legislative and referendum) at four levels (supranational, national, regional and local). For each category of persons, the ELECLAW indicators measure on a 0 to 1 scale the degree of inclusion of electoral laws along two dimensions. First, eligibility restrictions determine the category of persons who have the right to vote or stand as candidate. Second, access restrictions determine how those eligible can exercise their right to vote by means of voter registration and voting methods. The indicators have been calculated on the basis of the qualitative information included in our National Electoral Laws and Electoral Rights databases and our country reports on Access to Electoral Rights. The current version includes the 28 Member States of the European Union based on electoral laws in both 2013 and 2015, as well as Switzerland, the Americas, and Oceania based on electoral laws in 2015.

Despite the 2008 economic crisis and the increase in emigration flows, immigration to Italy has continued, albeit to a lesser extent than in previous years. In 2013 immigrants stood at 7.4% of the country population. Nevertheless, immigration is still considered a problem, even an emergency: political and public attention is often focussed on illegal migration, whereas a well-structured integration policy discourse is nowhere to be seen. This paper offers an insight into this issue, giving an overview on integration policies in Italy: which social actors are involved in the formulation and implementation of these policies, and how the issue is discussed in public and political discourses. Mapping the main policy tools and social actors in migrant integration, the paper highlights how Italian integration policies are mostly concentrated on economic integration, whereas social and cultural policies remain marginal. The paper also shows that a gap between policies and practices may occur, due to failed or absent policies, which is largely compensated for by the intervention of non-state actors.

In the European Union context existing legislation on non-discrimination (Equality Directives of 2000 and various directives on equality of men and women) oblige Member States to eliminate inequalities of treatment on grounds of gender, age, race and ethnic origin, religion, disability and sexual orientation. While there is an increasing awareness and knowledge of how single equality grounds impact on (in-) equality in different societal domains, the intersection of different grounds remains little understood, particularly in the area of health care. Against this background, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) has launched a study on inequality, multiple and intersectional discrimination in access to health in selected EU Member States (Austria, Czech Republic, Italy, Sweden and the UK). Aim of the study • To gain a better understanding of particular vulnerabilities resulting from the intersection of ethnic origin, age and gender in access to health care and quality of care in five EU-Member States (Austria, Czech Republic, Italy, Sweden and the UK) • To formulate recommendations how this situation can be improved. The empirical research involving more than 300 interviews with health professionals, policy makers and health users is set within a broader analysis of literature, evidence, legal context and mapping of policy initiatives since the 1990s in the 5 Member States and at the EU level. Target group Health care users belonging to vulnerable groups at the intersection of gender, age and ethnic origin Objectives • Identify barriers of access to health care services (ease with which health care can be obtained; quality of health care service) faced by the target group • Map the initiatives undertaken by Member States at policy level to enable and improve access to health services and quality of health for the target group • Identify the ways in which health professionals address the care needs of the target group Outcomes • Summary report (mainly targeted at policy makers; it includes evidence-based advice for tackling issues and cases of multiple and intersectional discrimination) • Comparative report (overview of legal and policy instruments dealing with multiple discrimination across the EU) • 5 Country thematic fact files including recommendations for good practice and policies applicable in the five countries and more widely in the European Union • Good practice handbook based on evidence collected through the research (selection of good practices effectively addressing multiple discrimination across the EU)

This report contributes of the understanding of current integration processes in Latvia. Its main aim is to highlight political and public debate about integration in Latvia, which is currently a low-immigration country. The report aims to identify integration processes for third-country nationals. Besides third-country nationals residing in Latvia, there are also a number of non-residents living in the country, which creates a backdrop for integration issues. The report also aims to recognise the main third-country national groups residing in Latvia and to identify tools for integration measures as well as assessing the success of policy implementation. In addition, it aims to show the main activities that exist for third-country nationals’ integration in Latvia as well as to shed light on the mechanisms within integration processes in Latvia. As a result of EU funding, integration activities – both practical and informative – have been successfully implemented and serve as a key tools for local society to cope with third-country national integration.

Based on the work of teams of researchers in four countries, this project is a comparative study of union strategies toward immigrant workers in Germany, France, the United Kingdom and United States. The focus is on unions efforts aimed at both workplace and social integration of immigrant workers: description, explanation by way of comparative analysis, and implications for future strategies.

The index analyses naturalization policies in twenty-six Western immigrant-receiving democracies in order to show how different countries deal with newcomers (year of reference: 2009). The index looks at five aspects of a country’s citizenship and naturalization policies. First, it considers whether a country grants automatic citizenship only to children of citizens (ius sanguinis) or only to those who are born within the country’s border (ius soli). Second, every naturalization policy stipulates that immigrants have to have lived at least a certain number of years within the borders of the country before they can apply for citizenship. Third, it looks at whether passing a language test is part of the naturalization requirements. These tests vary significantly in difficulty. Fourth, in some countries immigrants cannot be naturalized without passing a citizenship test, while in other countries such a test does not exist. Moreover, these tests vary in nature. Fifth, and finally, it includes whether immigrants are required to give up their former nationality or nationalities before they can become citizens. These five scores are combined in an index that ranges from 0 to 15. Overall, this summary score should give a valid indication of the exclusiveness, or ‘ethnicness’, of a country’s naturalization policy.

This report outlines Finnish integration policies. As a relatively new country of immigration with a small immigrant population, Finnish integration policies were developed in their current form only in the past decade. The latest Integration Act was put into action in 2012. Although the main groups of concern in public and political debate about immigration are humanitarian migrants from culturally distant countries, integration policies are primarily concerned with labour market inclusion. The central tool for integration is the Personal Integration Plan, a contract between individual migrants and the relevant state authorities. In addition to state policies, the third sector is seen as an important facilitator in aiding immigrant integration, especially in terms of training on cultural knowledge and language skills.

Since new rules on labour migration came into force in 2008, Sweden’s migration policy has been recognised as being among the most open and liberal in the OECD countries (OECD 2011). Sweden also has a generous asylum system compared with other EU countries, taking large numbers of refugees from countries in conflict such as Iraq and Somalia. Integration is a political priority in Sweden, and is high on the political agenda. The goal of Sweden’s integration policies is to ‘ensure equal rights, obligations and opportunities for all, irrespective of their ethnic and cultural background’. The country report provides a very brief overview of Swedish integration policies with a special emphasis on cooperation with the States and communities of origin. Particular attention is given by the author to developments that are relevant for the main INTERACT countries of origin.