Immigrant integration represents a complex, multidimensional process that extends beyond traditional indicators such as economic outcomes or language proficiency. Recent scholarship emphasises the necessity of comprehensive frameworks to capture the diverse aspects of integration processes (Fajth & Lessard-Phillips, 2023; Harder et al., 2018b). The relevance of multidimensional measurement approaches is also increasingly recognised within policy spheres, as evidenced by recent governmental initiatives across the Nordic region (Barstad & Molstad, 2020; NOU-utvalget ledet av Grete Brochmann, 2017; SOU, 2024b). Sweden exemplifies this policy evolution through a recent government inquiry that explicitly calls for the development of structured ‘indicators and an integration barometer’ to enhance monitoring and evaluation of integration outcomes (SOU, 2024b). This initiative reflects a broader policy trend toward systematic, evidence-based approaches to integration governance. Given the varied methodological approaches to measuring migrant integration across Nordic countries, a multidimensional framework offers significant potential for capturing the complex and interconnected aspects of integration processes.
While academic literature increasingly acknowledges the importance of multidimensional integration frameworks, considerable variation persists in their conceptualisation and structural organisation (Fajth & Lessard-Phillips, 2023; Harder et al., 2018b). Moreover, a growing body of studies suggests that integration outcomes may vary in unexpected patterns, producing divergent results across different dimensions of integration, including economic/structural integration, health outcomes, subjective well-being, cultural adaptation, civic/political participation, and minority socialisation processes. 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. Additionally, integration processes may differ across groups and generations, further complicating our understanding. This complexity highlights the need for measuring integration from a multidimensional perspective while recognising that integration processes do not always follow a linear progression across time and generations, nor do they necessarily co-evolve across dimensions (Fajth & Lessard-Phillips, 2023).
This report has focused on two contemporary frameworks: the OECD/European Commission (2023) and the Fajth and Lessard-Phillips (2023) frameworks. The latter encompasses eight primary domains that guided our examination of integration indicators across Nordic contexts. Building upon the dimensions proposed by Fajth and Lessard-Phillips (2023), Table 4 provides a potential roadmap for identifying sources for compiling indicators for migrant integration within the Nordic context. Based on current data collection practices outlined in this study, the development and implementation of comprehensive indicator systems remain incomplete across the Nordic region. Nonetheless, the analysis reveals that data for several dimensions would be accessible through national administrative registers. Nordic countries are comparatively well-positioned for integration measurement due to the availability and quality of administrative data. Consequently, opportunities for monitoring immigrant integration are generally more conducive than in countries that rely more heavily on survey-based data collection (Careja & Bevelander, 2018).
However, despite this advantageous starting point, there is untapped potential within existing administrative data systems. For instance, indicators related to interethnic marriages, residential segregation, and other socially significant integration outcomes could be further developed and reported. This suggests that even in data-rich contexts, opportunities exist to expand and refine integration measurement by making fuller use of available administrative sources.
In addition, significant gaps persist in ‘softer’ dimensions – including cultural integration, social relations, identity formation, discrimination experiences, and civic engagement – which we categorise as social and civic integration components. Addressing these lacunae requires targeted survey methodologies, such as those currently planned in Norway, or enhanced migrant sampling in existing survey frameworks. Furthermore, prior questionnaire development efforts, particularly those undertaken by the European Social Survey, may provide valuable methodological insights into addressing these data deficiencies.
Although Table 4 indicates how additional indicators of immigrant integration can be developed in a multidimensional manner, insights from interviews with representatives of National Statistical Institutes underscore the substantial challenges involved in data collection. One important challenge highlighted by the NSIs representatives were low survey participation rates, affecting both the general population and immigrant populations specifically. Among immigrants, low participation may be attributed to language barriers and mistrust toward institutions responsible for administering surveys. Furthermore, immigrant mobility – including higher likelihood of residential moves and repeated migration – complicates sampling and follow-up procedures, making it difficult to track individuals longitudinally.
These factors present a risk of sampling bias, as successfully surveyed individuals tend to be immigrants who are already more established or integrated, thereby skewing results and limiting the accuracy of integration estimates. Also, some interviewees expressed concerns about the representativeness of widely used international surveys, such as the European Social Survey (ESS) and the EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC), particularly about their ability to capture the specific experiences of diverse immigrant populations. Lastly, the representatives identified a range of resource constraints, including limited budgets, insufficient personnel, and high costs associated with conducting surveys or producing detailed data outputs.
These challenges illustrate the inherent complexity of developing reliable and comprehensive multidimensional measures of immigrant integration at the national level. This complexity is further amplified at the regional and local level, where statistical capacity and resources are often more constrained. Municipalities frequently lack the financial and technical capacity to independently develop such indicators, and the required monitoring processes, particularly survey-based methodologies, are resource-intensive. The incorporation of geographic dimensions into indicator development presents challenges, but it also offers important benefits, as integration processes primarily occur at local levels. As highlighted by Yilmaz et al. (2023), a lack of subnational data hampers both cross-country and intra-country comparisons while limiting assessment of policy influences on integration outcomes. Similarly, Pasetti et al. (2024) underscore methodological and empirical challenges in developing indicators for subnational comparative analysis, advocating for more systematic approaches to measuring regional governance of migrant integration. Such geographic considerations could enable more detailed policy assessment and contribute to understanding how local conditions influence integration outcomes, thereby addressing current gaps in regionally sensitive indicators of social and civic integration.
While this discussion has highlighted both the opportunities (as illustrated in Table 4) and the challenges associated with measuring migrant integration from a multidimensional perspective –particularly with regard to incorporating social and civic dimensions as defined in this report – it also raises more fundamental questions of if and how integration should be measured. Beyond the technical and methodological considerations, this invites critical reflection on the purpose, assumptions, and implications of measurement itself. This short reflection sets the stage for several recommendations.