Sweden Loves Immigration — The Rest Of The Nordics Are Less Sure

Has Sweden’s open-door immigration policy made it the black sheep of Scandinavia?

In 1936, a book called Sweden: The Middle Way was published, arguing that Sweden’s style of capitalism with heavy government intervention was a sensible alternative to the stark ideological extremes represented by the US and the Soviet Union. Endorsed by US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, it soon became a bestseller.

Sweden’s calmly centrist approach may have been a little drowned out by the absurdity of the Cold War but 87 years later, Sweden and its Nordic neighbours are back in vogue as common examples of progressive, liberal utopias.

Left-leaning politicians around the world like to point to the Nordic countries as shining examples of the welfare state at its best: free education, free healthcare, generous parental leave and unemployment benefits, and workers’ rights safeguarded by strong trade unions.

There’s even a veritable industry of Nordic lifestyle literature suggesting that the key to happiness in life might be things like:

• “hygge” (a supposedly untranslatable Danish word meaning something like “cosy”)
• “fika” (the Swedish habit of enjoying a coffee and pastry with friends or colleagues)
• “lagom” (also Swedish, meaning “just the right amount”)
• the Finnish love of saunas and ice swimming during winter

These concepts and customs, cleverly marketed by Nordic tourism boards, have firmly enshrined the region in the global imagination as a fairy-tale land of woollen socks, tastefully minimalist interior design, and a compassionate society that has eradicated poverty in large part due to delicious cinnamon buns with coffee.

To give the Nordic countries their dues, it’s a very successful region. I’m more inclined to credit that to extremely low national debt levels and low corruption than to saunas or the drab aesthetic, but there’s obviously a distinct Nordic culture and social model that is closely followed around the region and works very well.

But there are very real differences between the Nordic countries, something that became more apparent to outsiders during the COVID-19 lockdowns — or lack of them in Sweden. While Denmark, Norway and Finland quickly enforced lockdowns, Sweden kept schools, bars and restaurants open in a relatively relaxed approach.

The pandemic is all but forgotten now, but Sweden still differs from its neighbours in at least one major way: immigration.

It is by far the most pro-immigrant nation in the region, and actually one of the most international countries in Europe. In 2019, migrants made up 20% of Sweden’s population, compared to 16% in Norway, 12.5% in Denmark, and less than 7% in Finland. Even more strikingly, Sweden welcomes far more of the most vulnerable immigrants.

When many poor Eastern European countries like Poland and Lithuania joined the EU in 2004, Sweden waived the right to temporarily limit their freedom of movement (the UK and Ireland were the only other members to do so).

It has also long had Europe’s most generous refugee policy, and is home to the world’s 7th-largest share of refugees per capita. Norway accepts roughly half as many on a per capita basis; Finland and Denmark accept far fewer still.

Denmark in particular has attracted lots of attention for a virulently anti-immigrant policy, including claims that its restrictive anti-immigration policies might breach EU human rights law. Denmark is also in talks to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, and is known for its declared goal of accepting zero asylum seekers.

So how is Sweden’s humane approach working out? Sadly, not particularly well. On a long list of objective metrics, Sweden now lags behind most of its neighbours.

To begin, its unemployment rate is more than twice as high as Denmark, and three times higher than Norway. This is striking, since Swedish citizens have Europe’s highest employment rate; the figures are driven mostly by foreigners, who are three times more likely to be unemployed than locals.

In a high-tech economy famous for producing Spotify and Skype, and where self-checkouts are everywhere, there’s just not much work for semi-literate Afghan refugees.

In crime, Sweden has also suffered. According to its national council for crime prevention, it is the only European country where fatal shootings have increased since 2000, and now has the worst gun violence in Europe after Croatia.

This is largely a result of increasing gang violence, which is itself a consequence of migration — something that the government long denied, but eventually accepted. Sweden’s deputy police chief Mats Löfving has highlighted a network of around 40 organised crime families that came to Sweden solely to pursue crime.

A progressive Swede might counter that the link between the new arrivals and crime is largely a result of the social marginalisation experienced by immigrants, and that criminality is not passed down by DNA.

They might also add that its open-door immigration policy has dramatically improved outcomes for those immigrants, at a relatively minor cost for native Swedes.

They would be right on both counts, and the country is to be applauded for its humanitarian achievements.

Yet from a purely selfish lens, it is still true that Sweden’s choices have somewhat dented its vaunted Nordic social democracy. In a region famous for safety, tranquility and equality, Sweden has become more dangerous, more unequal, and more divided than its neighbours — and immigration is largely to blame.

A fair amount of Swedes agree with that assessment. The government has trimmed back some of the excesses of the early days of its open-door refugee policy, when unemployed refugee women who arrived with children under the age of 7 were entitled to the same 450 days of paid parental leave as citizens.

Yet such slight modifications haven’t stopped the rise of the Sweden Democrats, a right-wing party that seeks to radically curb immigration. They now win over 20% of the national vote and form part of the governing coalition.

In Sweden, about 50% of immigrants are still unemployed after 9 years, even when part-time and subsidised employment is included. Rather than contributing to a harmonious social tapestry as “New Swedes”, many of these migrants are stubbornly unintegrated. Forget lingonberries and thermal leggings; it’ll be a miracle if they pay taxes within their lifetime.

And Sweden’s beloved social system is very dependent on everybody paying their fair share of taxes.

Sweden’s neighbours might seem more cruel in their approach towards accepting outsiders, but that caution has allowed for better integration of those who have gotten in. Perhaps Sweden will eventually take the same path too.