Worlds Apart: An Explanation of the Immigration and Integration Policy Differences Between Denmark and Sweden from 1970 to 2010

Abstract

Immigration and integration policy have become central to the politics of many advanced democracies. In the face of substantial migratory flows, rising security concerns regarding immigration, and a refugee crisis of unprecedented levels, member states of the European Union (EU) have responded by calling for restrictive immigration policies, border patrolling and intensified integration programs. In this context, this thesis seeks to make sense of these contemporary changes in immigration and integration policy while keeping in mind historical influences.

This thesis analyzes differences in immigration and integration policy in Denmark and Sweden. It chooses Denmark and Sweden because they are a decent approximation of the most-similar cases research design. To examine the differences, it identifies three major explanations in the literature: 1) National model path-dependency 2) The role of the political debate 3) Structure of party competition. While in the literature each factor is used independently to explain policy differences, this thesis takes an integrative approach and seeks to clarify the relationships among these variables. It then combines these three variables into a unified theory, and argues that this has far greater explanatory power.

The findings of this thesis demonstrate that historical events set into motion institutional patterns that structure and constrain future immigration and integration policy choices. The political tone of the debate complements these institutional patterns by establishing the political context, and framing the immigration and integration policy issue in a distinct way. While the first two variables set the context for policy choice, the structure of party competition is crucial to how decisions are actually made.

Categorizing immigration and integration policy differences in Denmark and Sweden based on these explanations allows us to apply the unified theory to these countries. The analysis reveals that the first two factors defined the Swedish context. First, the institutional pattern in Sweden since WWII has been strongly multicultural. Second, the tone of debate in Sweden has been dominated by welfare universalism and equal access to rights for immigrants. These factors were met with the third factor, a favorable structure of party competition, in which the mainstream right-wing parties isolated the far-right parties. In Denmark, on the other hand, WWII led to an assimilatory institutional trend. The tone of the debate was branded by calls to reduce immigration problems and initiate restrictive immigration and integration policies. These two variables met with the third variable, the structure of party competition, conditions in which encouraged a coalition between mainstream right-wing parties and far-right parties. These results systematically explain policy differences in Denmark and Sweden, establish the dynamics of the unified theoretical framework, and allow us to use it and its variations as a tool of analysis to understand immigration and integration policy across other countries.