Background: literature review

Integration is defined in various ways across policy contexts and academic literature. The EU Action Plan on Integration and Inclusion 2021–27 defines integration as the capacity of immigrants to achieve comparable social and economic outcomes as native-born individuals with similar characteristics (European Commission, 2020a).

Nordic countries have distinctive integration approaches: some emphasise bidirectional processes of mutual adaptation between immigrants and receiving societies, while others prioritise unidirectional adaptation models focusing primarily on immigrant adjustment to host-society norms and practices. For instance, at the moment Sweden’s integration policy focuses on migrants having ‘the same obligations, rights and opportunities as the rest of the population’ (Government of Sweden, 2025)

In Swedish: ‘Utrikes födda kvinnor och män ska ha samma skyldigheter, rättigheter och möjligheter som den övriga befolkningen att leva ett fritt, värdigt och självständigt liv inom samhällsgemenskapen. Detta förutsätter att den som långvarigt befinner sig i Sverige anstränger sig för att bli en del av det svenska samhället och att samhället både ställer krav och ger möjligheter till integration. Integrationspolitiken ska bidra till social och kulturell, ekonomisk, språklig och demokratisk integration samt att genom utbildning förbättra förutsättningarna för flickor och pojkar med utländsk bakgrund’ (Regeringskansliet, 2024).

. Similarly, Iceland seeks to promote a community where immigrants have equal opportunities in society and the labour market (Immigrant Affairs Act 116/2012, 2012)

In Icelandic: ‘Markmið laga þessara er að stuðla að samfélagi þar sem allir geta verið virkir þátttakendur óháð þjóðerni og uppruna. Markmiði þessu skal náð meðal annars með því að: a. hagsmunir innflytjenda séu samþættir allri stefnumótun, stjórnsýslu og þjónustu hins opinbera, b. stuðla að víðtæku samstarfi og samþættingu aðgerða og verkefna milli allra aðila sem koma að málefnum innflytjenda, c. efla fræðslu og miðlun upplýsinga um málefni innflytjenda og samfélag án fordóma, d. stuðla að og styðja við rannsóknir og þróunarverkefni í málefnum innflytjenda.’

while Norway emphasises language levels, knowledge of Norwegian society, and connection to the workforce (Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security, 2021).

In Norwegian: ‘Formålet med loven er at innvandrere tidlig integreres i det norske samfunnet og blir økonomisk selvstendige. Loven skal bidra til at innvandrere får gode norskkunnskaper, kunnskap om norsk samfunnsliv, formelle kvalifikasjoner og en stabil tilknytning til arbeidslivet. Loven skal videre legge til rette for at asylsøkere tidlig får kjennskap til norsk språk og samfunnsliv’ (Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security, 2021). Note that some changes to the integration act came into force on 20 June and 1 July 2025 (Norwegian Directorate of Integration and Diversity (IMDi), 2025).

Denmark adopts a more conditional approach linking integration to active participation and value alignment (Danish Ministry of Immigration and Integration, 2020).

In Danish: ‘Lovens formål er at sikre, at nyankomne udlændinge har mulighed for at udnytte deres evner og ressourcer med henblik på at blive selverhvervende og aktivt deltage i og bidrage til det danske samfund på lige fod med øvrige borgere i overensstemmelse med grundlæggende værdier og normer i det danske samfund’ (Danish Ministry of Immigration and Integration, 2020).

Recently, Finland has experienced a notable shift in its integration programme, with the government declaring that it ‘will ensure that there are opportunities for integration by imposing greater responsibility on immigrants for their integration and by introducing requirements into the system. The focus of the system will be shifted away from the rights of newcomers towards their obligations and own responsibility’ (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment (Finland), 2025)

In Finnish: ‘Hallitus varmistaa kotoutumisen mahdollisuuksia lisäämällä maahanmuuttajan omaa vastuuta kotoutumisestaan ja muuttamalla järjestelmää velvoittavaksi. Painopistettä siirretään tulijan oikeuksia painottavasta järjestelmästä tulijan velvollisuuksia ja omaa vastuuta painottavaan järjestelmään’ (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, 2025).

This variation across Nordic countries, alongside recent policy changes in several of these nations, underscores the significance of temporality. Integration policies (and to some extent migration policies) are subject to substantial transformation and ongoing political debate.

Still, the integration of migrants into their host societies is widely recognised as a multifaceted process encompassing several interconnected dimensions: economic, social, and civic integration (European Commission, 2020c; Fajth & Lessard-Phillips, 2023; Heath & Schneider, 2021; OECD/European Commission, 2023). Economic integration refers to migrants’ ability to achieve comparable labour market outcomes to natives with similar characteristics (Duleep, 2015). Social integration encompasses participation in the social fabric of the host environment, including language acquisition, social interactions, community involvement, interethnic marriage, access to social services, and societal acceptance (Laurentsyeva & Venturini, 2017). Civic integration involves inclusion in the civic and political life of the host country, such as participation in democratic processes, national identification, engagement in voluntary organisations, and recognition of rights and duties as society members (Hainmueller et al., 2015).

This report focuses on social and civic integration, which, despite their importance for social cohesion, have received less research attention than economic integration aspects (OECD/European Commission, 2023).

Significance of social and civic integration

Social and civic integration contributes to the overall cohesion and stability of host societies (European Commission, 2020c; OECD/European Commission, 2023). When migrants are socially integrated, they can participate more fully in their new society’s economic, social, and cultural life. This participation facilitates two-way processes of adaptation that can benefit both migrants and host communities (European Commission, 2020a; Karlsdóttir et al., 2020). In this sense, social integration is a bi-directional process, in which migrants adapt to the receiving society and the receiving society evolves to embrace diversity and foster inclusive participation for all members (European Commission, 2020a; Special Eurobarometer, 2021). From an economic perspective, socially integrated migrants can maximise their potential and productivity, contributing to economic growth (Duleep, 2015) and enhancing their identification with their host country (Becker, 2022). Civic integration promotes active citizenship, ensuring that migrants can voice their opinions and influence decisions that affect their lives (Hainmueller et al., 2017). While the assessment of the causal direction between civic integration and economic outcomes for migrants is complex, a large body of studies suggests positive effects of naturalisation on economic outcomes (see, for example, Hainmueller et al., 2017; Helgertz et al., 2014; Peters et al., 2020).

Research examining relationships between integration dimensions reveals considerable complexity in how these processes unfold (Fajth & Lessard-Phillips, 2023; Heath & Schneider, 2021; Weber & Vogiazides, 2023). Analysis of theoretical and empirical literature suggests that integration dimensions may develop through various patterns: they can advance simultaneously and cohesively, progress in similar directions at different rates, evolve independently without clear connections, or even move in opposing directions through trade-off mechanisms (Fajth & Lessard-Phillips, 2023).

Contemporary scholarship increasingly recognises that integration outcomes may diverge not only between major domains such as structural and sociocultural integration, but also within specific dimensional categories. Empirical evidence, while still developing, indicates that integration processes can vary significantly across different thematic areas and even within individual dimensions (Fajth & Lessard-Phillips, 2023; Heath & Schneider, 2021; Weber & Vogiazides, 2023). For example, immigrants are more likely to trust the police and legal system in most OECD countries, but generally show lower participation in voluntary organisations compared to native-born individuals. Additionally, native-born individuals with foreign-born parents and more integrated migrants often report higher feelings of ethnic discrimination than foreign-born adults and less integrated migrants (OECD/European Commission, 2023; Schaeffer & Kas, 2023). This multidimensional complexity is further influenced by factors including ethnic group characteristics, generational differences, and varying policy environments, suggesting that integration pathways are highly contextual rather than uniform across populations (Fajth & Lessard-Phillips, 2023; Heath & Schneider, 2021; Weber & Vogiazides, 2023).

Defining migrants in Nordic statistics

Immigration has gained increasing attention in political and public discourse, but there is substantial confusion about how migrants are categorised and defined. This is particularly important from a statistical perspective, as clear definitions are crucial for accurately gathering and interpreting data. Immigration, in its broadest sense, is defined as a process by which non-nationals move into a country for the purpose of settlement (IOM, 2011).

From a general statistical perspective, a registered immigrant is someone who has legally immigrated to the country and is now recorded in the population data. However, immigrants constitute a diverse group with varied migration experiences and pathways through Nordic immigration systems. Different data sources employ distinct definitions for categorising migrants, creating challenges for comparative analysis. The OECD/European Commission (2023), for instance, defines immigrants as the foreign-born population, reasoning that while citizenship can change over time, the place of birth remains constant. Yet even within the Nordic region, definitions vary between National Statistical Institutes (Careja & Bevelander, 2018; Heleniak, 2024).

The classification of children of immigrants (descendants) presents additional complexity. Nordic countries typically define children of immigrants as native-born individuals with at least one foreign-born parent, though some definitions also include native-born individuals with two foreign-born parents. However, many countries outside the Nordic region that do not use register data have limited information on native-born individuals with foreign-born parents, as data on parental origin is rarely collected in a systematic manner (OECD/European Commission, 2023). In addition, international datasets such as the EU Labour Force Survey (EU-LFS) and EU-SILC do not consistently include information on parents’ place of birth.

The Nordic context offers both opportunities and challenges for achieving data comparability. Although high-quality register data facilitates the assessment of individuals with a migrant background, complexity is added by variations in definitions across national statistical institutes, particularly regarding the number of generations tracked. In response to these discrepancies, a collaborative initiative funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers and involving the Nordic statistical institutes has developed standardised definitions to enhance comparability in migration and integration statistics (Østby & Gulbrandsen, 2020, 2022). As a result, the Nordic Statistical Database now employs uniform definitions of the categories foreign-born and descendants, which are consistently applied across all Nordic countries. According to these definitions, ‘foreign-born’ refers to individuals born outside the country with two foreign-born parents, excluding those adopted by native-born parents. ‘Descendants’ are defined as individuals born in the country who have two foreign-born parents. The remainder of the population comprises individuals who do not fall into either of these two categories, that is, the total population excluding both foreign-born individuals and descendants as defined above.

Nordic Statistics Database, www.nordicstatistics.org

In this report, we broadly define immigrants as all individuals who have moved to a Nordic country, regardless of their reason for migration or legal status. All indicators referring to immigrants are interpreted in this broad sense, even if the underlying data sources apply more specific definitions. We also use the term migrant synonymously with immigrant throughout the report. While these terms can carry different connotations in some contexts, they are used interchangeably for the purposes of this report to refer to individuals who have relocated to a Nordic country from abroad.

Need for measuring social and civic integration

Measuring migrants’ integration is central for several reasons. First, it provides empirical evidence of integration outcomes that can inform policy decisions, ensuring that integration strategies are based on facts rather than assumptions. Accurate indicators enable policymakers to assess the effectiveness of existing social and civic integration programmes and identify areas requiring improvement (European Commission, 2010, 2020c).

Second, measuring social and civic integration helps monitor progress over time, allowing the identification of trends and patterns that can inform the public (Laurentsyeva & Venturini, 2017). For example, in the EU, public perceptions of migrants and their societal contributions frequently conflict with actual data. For instance, while there has been a significant increase in the educational level of the descendant of migrants in many European countries, public opinion tends to believe otherwise (OECD/European Commission, 2023). This highlights the importance of an up-to-date measurement of migrants’ integration that can facilitate the comparison of integration outcomes across countries and demographic groups. Such insights are valuable in designing targeted interventions that address specific challenges faced by migrants.

Finally, robust indicators of social and civic integration contribute to academic research, advancing our understanding of complex processes such as migration and integration. These indicators can provide a basis for cross-national comparisons and the development of theoretical frameworks that explain the dynamics of migrant integration (Fajth & Lessard-Phillips, 2023; Harder et al., 2018b).

What are indicators?

The concept of an indicator refers to a measurable variable used to represent complex, abstract phenomena that cannot be directly observed. For example, some of the most commonly used indicators to measure integration are employment rate and highest level of education attained. They can serve as instruments to evaluate policy initiatives and define political target thresholds. In the context of integration research, indicators serve to operationalise the multifaceted notion of integration by breaking it down into quantifiable components. The primary methodological concern in this process is ensuring conceptual validity – that is, confirming that the selected indicators truly capture the essence of the concept under investigation. Capturing integration trends and dynamics requires careful selection of indicators that, taken together, should offer a comprehensive representation of integration. When the indicators align well with the theoretical definition of integration, they are considered to possess high validity.

To bridge the gap between theoretical constructs and empirical measurement, Adcock and Collier’s (2001) framework on concept and measurement validity provides a useful analytical tool. Their hierarchical model guides researchers in evaluating whether empirical indicators are meaningfully and accurately linked to the underlying concept. For example, the abstract concept of civic integration can be operationalised using indicators such as voter turnout among foreign-born residents in local elections or membership in voluntary organisations. These indicators, while imperfect, offer concrete ways to assess to which extent migrants are engaged in civic life. They may thus help translate the broader concept into measurable terms.

In the case of conceptual frameworks such as the migrants’ social and civic integration, it is crucial to define, measure, and operationalise these dimensions of integration accurately. Indicators serve as tools for this purpose, acting as direct or indirect measures of these concepts. They facilitate the measurement of such variables as migrants’ social interaction, levels of social connectedness, or degrees of civic participation.

Dimensions and indicators of migrant integration: review of existing frameworks

Integration is a multidimensional concept, and different scholars have defined it using different dimensions and indicators. For the concept of integration to be analytically meaningful, it must clearly outline the specific domains it encompasses, along with the indicators and criteria used to assess trends and dynamics. However, this is where definitions of integration often become controversial (Fajth & Lessard-Phillips, 2023; Harder et al., 2018b; Schinkel, 2018). Scholars have noted that the measurement tool selection and standard-setting processes can inadvertently embed exclusionary characteristics that echo historical assimilation models, even within contemporary frameworks explicitly designed to embrace diversity and inclusion (see, for example, Favell, 2019; Hadj-Abdou, 2019; and Schinkel, 2018). Fajth & Lessard-Phillips (2023) suggest that the construction of dimensions and indicators of integration is based on two main approaches: a thematic approach, conceptually driven, and an empirical approach, which is based on data and patterns observed in migrant populations. These two approaches may lead to different ways of defining and organising the dimensions of integration (Fajth & Lessard-Phillips, 2023).

Table 1 compares several prominent multidimensional frameworks of migrant integration featured in recent academic literature. These frameworks vary not only in their terminology but also in the specific dimensions and indicators they encompass. Their primary purpose is to provide a comprehensive overview of integration, which is inherently multidimensional. As the table demonstrates, all frameworks place considerable emphasis on socioeconomic and structural aspects of integration. Additionally, many include social and civic dimensions, which are highlighted in this table for clarity. However, each framework differs in the exact dimensions and indicators it includes.

Beyond dimensional variations, these frameworks differ substantially in their construction methodologies and intended outputs. Most frameworks presented employ thematic approaches to dimensional classification, while Fajth and Lessard-Phillips (2023) utilise both thematic and empirical classification methods. The majority of frameworks generate reports or assessment documents that evaluate migrant integration across specified dimensions using predominantly external data sources, particularly international surveys. The IPL Integration Index represents a notable exception to this pattern. Developed as a thematically-driven, conceptually-grounded framework, the IPL Index provides a standardised questionnaire designed to assess migrant integration across six dimensions: psychological, economic, political, social, linguistic, and navigational (Harder et al., 2018a, 2018b). Available in both abbreviated (IPL-12) and comprehensive (IPL-24) versions, the index demonstrates empirical reliability and cross-national applicability across temporal periods and immigrant populations (Harder et al., 2018b). This framework differs from others by offering a practical measurement instrument rather than solely analytical output, thereby enabling direct data collection for integration assessment.

Table 1: Frameworks, dimension and indicators of migrants’ integration
Framework	Dimensions / Indicators
Zaragoza Indicators (European Commission, 2010, 2020b)	1. Employment 2. Education 3. Social inclusion 4. Active citizenship 5. Welcoming society
Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2015 – Settling In (OECD & European Union, 2015)	1. Participation in the labor market 2. Job quality 3. Cognitive skills (education and qualifications) 4. Socioeconomic integration: a) Income b) Housing conditions c) Health status and access to healthcare 5. Social participation 6. Social cohesion
Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2018 – Settling In (OECD & European Union, 2018)	1. Skills and the labor market 2. Living conditions 3. Social participation and social indicators
Immigration Policy Lab (IPL) Integration Index (Harder et al., 2018b)	1. Psychological integration 2. Economic integration 3. Political integration 4. Social integration 5. Linguistic integration 6. Navigating society
Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2023 – Settling In (OECD/European Commission, 2023)	1. Skills and the labor market 2. Living conditions 3. Civic engagement and social integration indicators
Fajth and Lessard-Phillips (2023) framework	1. Culture 2. Identity 3. Social 4. Discrimination and Prejudice 5. Economic 6. Civic/Political 7. Spatial 8. Health and Well-Being

In this report we employ two contemporary frameworks of migrant integration as analytical foundations: the models of OECD/European Commission (2023) and Fajth & Lessard-Phillips (2023). Our analysis focuses on dimensions and indicators within these frameworks that encompass social and civic integration in their broader conceptualisations.

The OECD/European Commission (2023) framework addresses social and civic integration through specific dimensional categories. Civic engagement encompasses three primary indicators: (1) acquisition of nationality and citizenship uptake; (2) participation in elections, voter participation; and (3) participation in voluntary organisations. Social integration incorporates four indicators: (1) host-country degree of acceptance of immigration and interaction with immigrants; (2) perceived discrimination against immigrants on the grounds of ethnicity, race, or nationality; (3) trust in host-country institutions; and (4) public opinion on integration. Notably, while the OECD/European Commission (2023) framework does not explicitly differentiate between civic engagement and social integration, this report maintains such distinctions, consistent with established scholarly classifications (Fajth & Lessard-Phillips, 2023; Harder et al., 2018b; Heath & Schneider, 2021; Laurentsyeva & Venturini, 2017).

Fajth and Lessard-Phillips (2023) present a systematic review of indicators utilised in empirical research to assess migrant integration dimensions. Through a thematic approach, they identify eight distinct integration dimensions, summarised in Table 2.

It is important to note that when applying an empirical approach – specifically cluster analysis – to indicators representing the eight integration dimensions with data from the European Social Survey, the analysis identified only five distinct dimensions: (1) economic or structural integration; (2) health; (3) subjective well-being, including social well-being; (4) cultural assimilation and civic/political integration; and (5) minority socialisation. Nonetheless, for the sake of conceptual clarity and relevance to the present study, we have chosen to focus on the full set of integration dimensions developed through the thematic approach.

Their classification provides a comprehensive framework for identifying relevant indicators across thematic domains. Regarding social integration, their framework includes indicators measuring social interactions, intermarriage patterns, and organisational membership. Civic integration is operationalised through indicators examining citizenship acquisition and political participation. Consistent with the OECD/European Commission (2023) approach, in this report we also incorporate aspects related to culture, identity, discrimination, and prejudice. Therefore, synthesising the Fajth & Lessard-Phillips (2023) and OECD/European Commission (2023) frameworks, this study examines indicator availability across five dimensions: (1) Culture, (2) Identity, (3) Social, (4) Discrimination and Prejudice, and (5) Civic/Political in data provided by the National Statistical Institutes (NSIs) in the Nordic countries.

Table 2: Dimensions and common sub-dimensions of migrant integration. Source: Fajth and Lessard-Phillips (2023).
#	Dimension (Theme)	Common sub-dimensions/Aspects observed
1	Culture	Language (proficiency, use), cultural knowledge, values/attitudes
2	Identity	Sense of belonging; identities
3	Social	Social mixing – interactions, acquaintances, friendships between migrant (background) and majority population; intermarriage Social ties (social capital/social isolation) in general Membership in organisations (majority/ethnic/any)
4	Discrimination and prejudice	Experiences/perceptions of discrimination Attitudes and behaviour of the majority population
5	Economic	Education, income/socioeconomic status (SES), labour market position (employment, occupation, overqualification)
6	Civic/Political	Citizenship, political participation and representation, institutional inclusion
7	Spatial	Housing quality, residential segregation/concentration (ethnic/socio-economic)
8	Health and well-being	Physical health, mental health, subjective well-being

Benefits of comparing social and civic integration in Nordic countries

The Nordic countries offer an outstanding basis for comparative analysis. These nations are characterised by their small, open economies and comprehensive welfare states, grounded in a shared ideology of universal welfare (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Greve et al., 2021; Powell et al., 2020). This common foundation exposes them to similar economic challenges, such as the impact of low-skilled labour migration and the effects of globalisation on local production (Andersen, 2004; Torp & Reiersen, 2020). Despite these shared characteristics, their strategies for integrating immigrants have diverged significantly, particularly in recent decades (Borevi et al., 2017; Brochmann & Hagelund, 2012; Jakobsen et al., 2019; Jensen et al., 2017). While Nordic countries historically emphasised inclusive welfare and equal treatment, growing political and social tensions have influenced differing national responses to immigration (Breidahl, 2017; Finnsdottir & Hallgrimsdottir, 2019; Jakobsen et al., 2019). These responses are reflected not only in integration policies but also in how integration is conceptualised and measured (OECD & European Union, 2018).

Examining the Nordic countries offers a useful opportunity to explore how nations with broadly similar institutional frameworks and welfare models can develop different approaches to migrant integration. Instead of a perfect comparison, the region provides a relatively cohesive context in which to examine the relationship between political discourse, policy design, and the ways in which integration is conceptualised and measured. Comparing across these countries may help to shed light on how national policy choices and political cultures influence the definition, implementation, and evaluation of integration efforts. To contribute to this understanding, our study reviews and analyses which indicators of social and civic integration are currently being assessed across the Nordic region.