The availability of social and civic integration indicators across Nordic Statistical Institutes demonstrates considerable heterogeneity and substantial coverage gaps. While formal integration dimensions – particularly political participation and naturalisation – are systematically documented, experiential dimensions including social integration, institutional trust, and perceived discrimination remain significantly underrepresented in official statistical frameworks.
Political participation constitutes one of the most comprehensively documented domains across Nordic national databases. Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland provide systematic data on voting rights and electoral turnout disaggregated by migrant background, facilitating comparative analysis of migrants’ democratic access and engagement. Additionally, Sweden and Norway have developed indicators measuring political representation across governance levels, tracking whether elected officials possess migrant backgrounds. This enables assessment of civic inclusion beyond formal enfranchisement. The universal presence of naturalisation indicators across all countries merits emphasis, as naturalisation represents a crucial long-term integration marker, reflecting both administrative status and formalised societal belonging.
However, while civic integration receives relatively comprehensive indicator coverage, significant lacunae exist within social integration dimensions as conceptualised here. Regarding cultural dimensions, only Norway and Denmark provide relevant indicators: participation in introductory programmes (Norway) and membership in religious or ethics/worldview communities (Norway and Denmark). Within social dimensions, Norway presents survey-based data on social contacts for select years, whereas Denmark and Finland document interethnic marriage patterns. The limited availability of data on interethnic marriage – reported only in Denmark and Finland – illustrates the restricted inclusion of indicators capturing intimate relational dimensions of integration. This is particularly notable given that such indicators can, in principle, be derived from administrative registers. Institutional trust disaggregated by migration status is not measured across Nordic countries, with only Denmark providing population-wide data. This absence constrains an understanding of how migrants experience integration within broader social contexts.
Similarly, none of the Nordic countries provides identity-related indicators that measure a sense of belonging, thereby limiting the ability to assess migrants’ subjective identification with host societies. Such information is typically collected through international surveys, such as the European Social Survey, and cannot be obtained from administrative data sources (unlike many of the other social indicators).
Discrimination and prejudice indicators, including perceived discrimination measures, are largely absent or lack migrant-specific disaggregation. Attitudinal indicators toward migration are available exclusively in Norway, while a yearly indicator of perceived discrimination data is unavailable across all countries, limiting assessment of host-society reception and migrant acceptance.
Cross-national comparison reveals Norway as the most comprehensively covered country, spanning four of five identified domains, though substantial dimensional gaps persist even within the Norwegian database.
In sum, while certain Nordic countries – notably Norway – demonstrate efforts to expand integration measurement scope, prevailing statistical frameworks remain predominantly oriented toward formal and legalistic dimensions, consequently neglecting experiential and relational integration aspects. Given these methodological constraints, the following section examines interview findings from Nordic National Statistical Institutes’ personnel, providing systematic analysis of current data sources and approaches to assessing migrants’ social and civic integration.
Reflection on the status of integration indicators: national statistical institutes
As part of this investigation into indicators of social and civic integration of migrants, we conducted semi-structured interviews with representatives from the national statistical institutes of the five Nordic countries. The purpose was to obtain a detailed understanding of the current data collected on migrant integration, with a specific emphasis on social and civic integration, including the scope, methodologies, and frequency of data collection, as well as institutional challenges and priorities. This synthesis highlights key themes emerging from the interviews, focusing on the indicators employed, data collection strategies, methodological constraints, and opportunities for enhancing integration measurement. The results are organised thematically to reflect shared patterns while acknowledging differences in institutional contexts, priorities, and migration centrality across countries.
1. Institutional approaches and data infrastructures
Across all five countries, register-based data continues to play a central role in how migrant populations are monitored statistically, particularly in relation to structural dimensions such as employment, education, and income. Interviewees consistently emphasised the advantages of such administrative data, including its coverage, reliability, and longitudinal potential.
However, interviewees also acknowledged that data collection related to broader aspects of integration – such as social inclusion or civic engagement – is less developed. In general, formal frameworks or institutional strategies specifically focused on monitoring these dimensions do not seem to exist. Instead, efforts to capture them have often been described as sporadic or project-based, responding to particular requests or emerging policy concerns. For example, in Iceland, interviewees noted that data collection related to social inclusion and civic engagement tends to occur on an ad hoc basis, with limited institutional vision guiding the integration of these topics into the broader statistical system. Rather than being a part of a cohesive monitoring strategy, the selection of indicators is often shaped by the specific objectives of individual projects or by external funding opportunities.
While some National Statistical Institutes, including Statistics Norway and Statistics Finland, have included questions related to civic engagement and well-being in selected surveys, these initiatives do not appear to be a part of a comprehensive or consistently maintained integration-monitoring system. For example, Statistics Norway has made notable efforts to collect data on social participation and trust through instruments such as the Survey on Living Conditions among Immigrants. However, these surveys are conducted infrequently and remain highly dependent on external funding and political priorities. Similarly, the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare collects relevant data in periodic surveys, which include questions on language skills, organisational participation, and well-being. Yet, as the interview with Statistics Finland revealed, there is no dedicated integration-monitoring framework coordinating these efforts in the statistical offices, and much of the statistical work in this area depends on the initiative of individual experts rather than a centrally defined long-term strategy.
2. Conceptualisation and Operationalisation of Social Inclusion and Civic Engagement
None of the institutes reported using formal, standardised definitions of social inclusion or civic engagement. Instead, interviewees tended to describe how these ideas were interpreted or approached in practice, often through the lens of available data or existing surveys. For example, civic engagement is frequently proxied by voter turnout data, typically derived from population or election surveys. Other forms of civic engagement – such as volunteering or membership in associations – are addressed more unevenly, often through general-purpose surveys that do not oversample migrants.
Indicators linked to social inclusion – such as participation in cultural activities, language proficiency, or social trust – were referenced in some cases, but these are not consistently measured across time or systematically tailored to migrant populations.
Several interviewees noted that while the social and civic integration of immigrants is recognised as important, they have not been prioritised within existing statistical monitoring, partly due to challenges in data collection and resource limitations. For example, in Norway, interviewees strongly emphasised the importance of measuring social inclusion but argued that it was not consistently measured over time or specifically tailored to migrant populations. For instance, while the Cultural Participation Survey includes data on immigrants’ engagement in cultural life, and the Survey on Living Conditions among Immigrants (last conducted in 2016 and planned to be conducted again in 2026) covered language skills and social trust, these efforts are infrequent and costly, limiting the ability to track trends or respond promptly to changes. Interviewees noted that social inclusion indicators often depend on survey-based data, with such challenges as low response rates among immigrants due to language barriers and mistrust, as well as funding constraints. As a result, the measurement of softer dimensions of integration remains underdeveloped compared to economic or educational indicators.
Similarly, interviewees from Statistics Sweden suggested that social inclusion is mostly explored through existing surveys like the EU-SILC (Survey on Living Conditions) and a large-scale Citizens Survey commissioned by municipalities. However, the interviewees explained that the Citizens Survey does not represent official statistics, and data are not routinely disaggregated by migrant background due to sample size limitations and large confidence intervals.
In sum, interviewees from the Nordic Statistical Institutes reported that the extent to which indicators for social and civic inclusion are used and measured is influenced by national administrative structures and data availability, rather than by a shared conceptual model. This contributes to a somewhat fragmented picture of how inclusion and engagement are understood and measured across the Nordic region.
3. Indicator Development and Data Collection Practices
The development of new indicators or statistical outputs related to migrant integration appears to be largely demand-driven in the Nordic countries. Interviewees often described a process in which interest from ministries, the media, or civil society can prompt the creation or refinement of indicators or the publication of a report on a specific subject. This responsiveness can be a strength, allowing NSIs to adapt to changing information needs. At the same time, reliance on external demand may also mean that certain areas – say, social or cultural aspects of integration – receive less consistent attention.
In Denmark (Danmarks Statistik, DST) and Sweden (Svenska Statistiska Centralbyrån, SCB), NSIs have been able to respond with new data tables or disaggregation of existing register data when external interest arises. For example, in the interview with Statistics Denmark it was suggested that the decision to publish data disaggregated by migration status is often reactive, based on observed societal interest and repeated requests. If the media, politicians, or civil society organisations frequently inquire about particular topics, the Danish statistical office may assess whether it is feasible and appropriate to produce new tables or reports. Similarly, in Sweden, the inclusion of indicators disaggregated by migrant background is currently determined at the level of individual statistical domains. For example, in 2023, the agency released a report based on data from the Citizens Survey, including comparisons between Swedish-born and foreign-born respondents.
In Finland and Iceland, where institutional resources were described as constrained, interviewees suggested that producing new outputs often depends on project funding or individual initiative within the organisation. Driven by an interest to better understand immigrant integration, an employee in Finland initiated a report, with the hope that this report would be published biennially This reflects a bottom-up approach to data reporting, where internal advocacy might lead to the development of regular reports on immigration, even without substantial external funding. Nonetheless, such individual engagement was only feasible since relevant data were available. Similarly in the case of Iceland, experts from Statistics Iceland argued that the lack of a strategic vision means that indicators are often selected on the basis of individual initiatives rather than as a part of a coordinated institutional agenda. In response to a question about who defines which indicators are collected or published, an employee said that decisions about which indicators to use and whether to include immigration status or not often depend on individuals, rather than being guided by a clear, overarching framework. There is a lack of consistent vision or coordinated approach in this area. This suggests that the use of disaggregation by migration status often depends on the specific analyst or department working on a dataset, rather than on top-down policy or guideline implementation.
Survey-based data collection was generally described as more challenging, especially in relation to migrant populations. Issues such as language barriers, low response rates, and small sample sizes were raised in all five interviews, and no country reported routinely oversampling migrants in general surveys. As a result, the ability to disaggregate data on social inclusion or civic engagement by migration status is often limited.
4. Methodological and operational challenges in measuring social inclusion and civic engagement
The interviews revealed that there are persistent challenges in measuring social inclusion and civic engagement. These dimensions are often difficult to quantify, as they involve subjective assessments of migrants’ participation in and sense of belonging to society. Several issues emerged that hinder comprehensive measurement:
Resource constraints: During the interviews, several statistical institutes mentioned that limited resources – both financial and human – pose challenges to the development and maintenance of large-scale surveys on social and civic engagement. For instance, representatives from Statistics Iceland noted that, as a relatively small agency, they must prioritise mandatory EU reporting obligations, leaving limited capacity for additional data collection efforts, particularly in areas not covered by existing frameworks. They emphasised that developing new indicators in these areas would largely depend on the availability of external funding and institutional demand. Another example was raised by Statistics Norway: the new edition of the Living Conditions Survey among People with an Immigrant Background is currently underway, with hopes that full-scale data collection can take place in 2026. However, the implementation is dependent on funding, as the estimated cost is approximately 30 million Norwegian kroner. Similar limitations were also acknowledged by statistical institutes across the other Nordic countries.
Survey participation rates: Low response rates among migrants are a common challenge. This was clearly evidenced in the interview with Statistics Sweden, where officials highlighted persistent difficulties in obtaining sufficient survey participation from foreign-born individuals. For example, the Citizens Survey, which is one of the largest surveys administered annually in Sweden with over 200,000 respondents, reports an overall response rate of about 35%, but this drops sharply to approximately 20% among migrants. Similarly, the Danish statistical office interview highlighted that representativeness and response rates remain unresolved challenges, particularly when it comes to survey-based data collection involving migrant populations, who may be more distrustful of official surveys and less likely to participate. One staff member pointed out a case where a short survey asking about reasons for migration caused a public backlash, reinforcing the sensitive and politically charged nature of surveying migrants in Denmark. In Norway, it was argued that some immigrants, particularly those from countries with histories of government repression, may be hesitant to participate in official surveys. This hesitancy results in lower response rates among migrant groups, making it difficult to generate reliable and representative survey data. Interviewees in Iceland and Finland also noted the impact of small migrant populations on survey design and statistical representativeness.
Linguistic barriers: Both language and cultural differences play a significant role in limiting migrant participation in surveys and other data collection efforts. While translation services and multi-language surveys are used to mitigate these barriers, their effectiveness remains inconsistent, especially for non-EU migrants or those with limited proficiency in the primary languages of data collection. For example, in Norway it was argued that while surveys are offered in multiple languages, there are still difficulties in reaching respondents with limited Norwegian proficiency. Similarly in the case of the Citizens Survey in Sweden, interviews mentioned that although measures such as providing paper surveys in Arabic have been introduced, uptake among Arabic-speaking respondents has remained small. These patterns not only limit the analytical reliability of disaggregated data – due to wide confidence intervals – but also underscore the broader methodological challenges national statistical agencies face in capturing representative data on migrant populations.
High mobility: High mobility and unstable residence among migrants pose significant challenges to the consistent measurement of migrant integration. It was argued in Norway that many immigrants, particularly labour migrants, move frequently or live in temporary housing, making it harder to reach them for follow-up inquiries. In Iceland, interviewees specifically identified a high temporary residence pattern (due to return and onward migration) within the migrant population as a major barrier to survey participation and data reliability. They argued that ‘many come to Iceland for short-term employment, remaining only for one to three years before moving elsewhere.’ This short-term residency makes it difficult to capture stable, longitudinal data on integration. They also emphasise that migrants who stay longer than five years are more likely to respond to surveys at similar rates as native-born citizens. In contrast, newer arrivals with unstable residence are far less likely to participate in surveys, which undermines the representativeness and analytical value of existing data sources.
Existing international surveys: concerns were also raised about the validity of existing data from international surveys such as European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) or European Social Survey (ESS). In Finland and Sweden, for example, interviewees highlighted potential issues with sample weighting and representativeness, particularly for smaller migrant subgroups. These limitations constrain the comparability and analytical value of such data for monitoring integration outcomes.
5. Societal and political context
The broader societal and political context emerged as an important factor shaping data collection on migrant integration. In several countries, interviewees described a cautious approach to introducing new indicators, particularly those touching on potentially sensitive issues such as motives for migration, identity, or religion. In Denmark, for instance, a proposal to collect additional data on migrant populations has at times triggered public debate or concerns over privacy and discrimination.
In some Nordic countries, interviewees suggested that societal interest in integration-related topics is growing, which leads to increasing expectations to provide more nuanced data on migrants’ integration. For example, in Sweden, a 2023 government inquiry into integration objectives, as well as a new assignment from the Ministry of Labour, indicate an interest in re-evaluating and potentially expanding integration monitoring. Statistics Sweden has been tasked with providing recommendations on how to proceed with a proposed Integration Barometer, a survey instrument aimed at capturing more nuanced, multidimensional aspects of integration. Although its implementation is still uncertain, the very fact that this proposal exists reflects a rising demand for richer data on migrant experiences. Statistics Sweden interviewees also acknowledge this changing context, stating that the SCB is increasingly aiming to make integration a cross-cutting theme, with the long-term goal of treating migrant background with the same consistency as gender in statistics.
Similarly, in Finland, interviewees acknowledge a significant shift about a decade ago, triggered by increasing immigration, which has led to a growing awareness of the need for better data on migrants’ integration. The relatively rapid increase in immigrants and their growing share of the population have increased interest in migrant integration. Lastly, in Iceland, interviewees noted that during the last election, migrant integration became a salient topic due to public discourse, making it necessary for the statistical office to respond with relevant data.
6. Cross-national collaboration and future prospects
Interviewees across countries expressed interest in improving Nordic cooperation and coordination and learning from neighbouring countries’ approaches to measuring integration. Several interviewees mentioned the potential value of shared methodological tools or indicator frameworks to support more consistent monitoring of integration and to facilitate Nordic comparisons. At the same time, most emphasised that any such efforts would require additional resources, careful political consideration, and ideally, a shared understanding of what integration and its various dimensions entail.
Looking ahead, several possible areas for development were identified to improve data availability on civic and social dimensions of integration. These include expanding the use of migrant-specific oversamples in surveys, improving the use of register data and survey data for the monitoring of social and civic integration. Nevertheless, the majority of interviewees recognised that advancement in these domains requires political will, financial resources, and adequate staffing capacity.