Search results

In recent years, the use of typologies of national models of integration to analyze and understand immigrant integration politics, policy or processes has become contentious. The approach has received a good share of criticism for offering stereotypical, inaccurate or too simplistic descriptions of how countries approach immigrant integration. According to critics, the approach lacks a clear definition and operationalization of the national model concept, it ignores internal variation, it is unable to account for change and, finally, it lacks a theory of action regarding how ideas affect policies. This paper responds to all these four criticisms but from the perspective of an ideational understanding of the national models approach. However, first, the paper distinguishes different kinds of national model approaches in order to offer a precise definition of the ideational approach it develops.

AbstractThe ethnic‐civic framework remains widely used in nationalism research. However, in the context of European immigrant integration politics, where almost all 'nation talk' is occurring in civic and liberal registers, the framework has a hard time identifying how conceptions of national identity brought forth in political debate differ in their exclusionary potential. This leads some to the conclusion that national identity is losing explanatory power. Building on the insights of Oliver Zimmer, I argue that we may find a different picture if we treat cultural content and logic of boundary construction – two parameters conflated in the ethnic‐civic framework – as two distinct analytical levels. The framework I propose focuses on an individual and collective dimension of logic of boundary construction that together constitute the inclusionary/exclusionary core of national identity. The framework is tested on the political debate on immigrant integration in Denmark and Norway in selected years. Indeed, the framework enables us to move beyond the widespread idea that Danish politicians subscribe to an ethnic conception of the nation, while Norwegian political thought is somewhere in between an ethnic and civic conception. The true difference is that Danish politicians, unlike their Norwegian counterparts, do not acknowledge the collective self‐understanding as an object of political action.

Discussions within political theory on naturalisation tend to focus on whether or not it is reasonable and fair to make naturalisation conditional on meeting integration requirements. Those who emphasise the right of long-term immigrants to be included as equal citizens argue that automatic naturalisation is preferable, while those who put emphasis on the state's legitimate interest in promoting the conditions for a reasonably just society tend to argue that conditional naturalisation is normatively preferable. However, most participating in this debate seem to agree that naturalisation rules must balance these different concerns. In this paper, we argue that the conflicting views on each side of the automatic-conditional divide can be reconciled by introducing the model of discounting-conditional naturalisation. We suggest that a practice in which integration requirements are gradually relaxed over time can in fact sufficiently accommodate those normative considerations that are in conflict under the current practices.

Discussions within political theory on naturalisation tend to focus on whether or not it is reasonable and fair to make naturalisation conditional on meeting integration requirements. Those who emphasise the right of long-term immigrants to be included as equal citizens argue that automatic naturalisation is preferable, while those who put emphasis on the state's legitimate interest in promoting the conditions for a reasonably just society tend to argue that conditional naturalisation is normatively preferable. However, most participating in this debate seem to agree that naturalisation rules must balance these different concerns. In this paper, we argue that the conflicting views on each side of the automatic-conditional divide can be reconciled by introducing the model of discounting-conditional naturalisation. We suggest that a practice in which integration requirements are gradually relaxed over time can in fact sufficiently accommodate those normative considerations that are in conflict under the current practices.

In recent years scholars have observed a restrictive turn in West European immigrant integration policies towards conditioning access to permanent residence and citizenship on language proficiency, knowledge of history, institutions, culture and political values, national loyalty and labour market integration. This has been accompanied by a strong reaction among European politicians and publics emphasizing that newcomers must share in certain liberal-democratic values and virtues that characterize the national community. Yet, the influential scholar Christian Joppke argues, among others, that liberal values cannot define national particularity, nor can cultural integration be enforced because legislation and policies are legally and normatively constrained by the same liberal values. Hence, prevalent liberal conceptions of national identity are paradoxical and inconsequential for the formulation of public policies. This article critically examines this argument in detail. It argues that the paradox of universalism does not exist, and that therefore nationalism should not be dismissed as a central factor behind recent policy developments.

The civic integrationist turn usually refers to the stricter requirements for residence and citizenship that many states have implemented since the late 1990's. But what of other policy spheres that are essential for the formation of citizens? Is there a civic turn in school policy? And does it follow the pattern of residence and citizenship? This article addresses these questions through a comparative study of the EU's allegedly strictest and most liberal immigration regimes, Denmark and Sweden, respectively. The analysis shows a growing concern with citizenship education in both countries, yet with different styles and content. Citizenship education in Denmark concentrates on reproducing a historically derived core of cultural values and knowledge to which minorities are expected to assimilate, while the Swedish model subscribes to a pluralist view that stresses mutual adaptation and intercultural tolerance. Despite claims to the contrary, the analysis shows that Sweden too has experienced a civic turn.

The civic integrationist turn usually refers to the stricter requirements for residence and citizenship that many states have implemented since the late 1990's. But what of other policy spheres that are essential for the formation of citizens? Is there a civic turn in school policy? And does it follow the pattern of residence and citizenship? This article addresses these questions through a comparative study of the EU's allegedly strictest and most liberal immigration regimes, Denmark and Sweden, respectively. The analysis shows a growing concern with citizenship education in both countries, yet with different styles and content. Citizenship education in Denmark concentrates on reproducing a historically derived core of cultural values and knowledge to which minorities are expected to assimilate, while the Swedish model subscribes to a pluralist view that stresses mutual adaptation and intercultural tolerance. Despite claims to the contrary, the analysis shows that Sweden too has experienced a civic turn.

Many authors have written about the 'civic turn' in European immigrant integration politics and policies that began in the late 1990s, but few have focused on the conceptual or normative dimensions of this turn. The purpose of this special issue is to help correct this situation. In this substantive introductory article, we begin with a discussion of the 'convergence or national models' debate that dominated early work on the subject. The next section presents the argument that civic integration is best understood as an ideological turn. It expands 'good citizenship' into personal conduct and values, shifts the responsibility for integration from the state to individuals and institutionalizes incentivizing and disciplining integration processes, which are often really just a means of migration control. This is accompanied, we argue, by a civic nationalist conception of membership that appeals to shared political values but defines those values through the culture of the state's national majority. We then move on to the mechanisms and effects of civic integration, followed by a discussion of its normative analysis, before finally summarizing the articles included in this special issue and how they address the concerns that we have raised.

This special issue addresses the question of how to understand the civic turn within immigrant integration in the West towards programs and instruments, public discourses and political intentions, which aim to condition, incentivize, and shape through socialization immigrants into 'citizens'. Empirically, it focuses on the less studied Scandinavian cases of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. In this introduction,we situate the contributions to this special issue within the overall debate on civic integration and convergence. We introduce the three cases, critically discuss the (liberal) convergence thesis and its descriptive and explanatory claims, and explain why studying the Scandinavian welfare states can further our understanding of the nature of the civic turn and its driving forces. Before concluding, we discuss whether civic integration policies actually work.

Danske muslimske friskoler har i længere tid været i mediernes og politikernes kritiske søgelys, og den socialdemokratiske regering har en erklæret intention om, at de skal lukkes (miste deres tilskud, hvis de har over 50 pct. elever af "udenlandsk oprindelse"). Man mener, at forældres ret til selv at vælge skoleform – for disse skolers vedkommende – bør vige af hensyn til elevernes medborgerlige integration og autonomi, der anses at blive skadet af friskolernes religiøse etos og/eller adskillelsen fra etnisk danske børn. Denne artikel afrapporterer en nylig registerdataberiget spørgeskemaundersøgelse af medborgerlig integration blandt muslimske friskoler og folkeskoler – bl.a. om national identitet, social og institutionel tillid, gruppebias, liberale værdier, politisk interesse og effektivitetsfølelse. Resultaterne indikerer ikke, at muslimske niendeklasseelever i friskolerne er dårligere integreret end tilsvarende elever i folkeskolen.